Ashcroft poll asked people what they think the GE outcome will be:
Con maj 22%, Con largest party but no maj 34%, Lab maj 7%, Lab largest but no maj 8%
Betting markets think Con maj 64%, Lab maj 2%ish.
Hold on a mo you are comparing two different things here!
The betting market does indeed think there is a 64% probability of a Con overall majority. But the poll is saying that '22% of those polled predicted Con overall Majority' The respondents are being asked to pick the most likely winner, not give an estimate of the probability. The two are not the same thing at all.
So long as Corbyn doesn't promise to nationalise Wetherspoons and Boris can keep himself from humping someone's leg, both will be considered to have outperformed expectations.
In other words, the bar is set very low for this one. Who will disappoint the least?
So long as Corbyn doesn't promise to nationalise Wetherspoons and Boris can keep himself from humping someone's leg, both will be considered to have outperformed expectations.
In other words, the bar is set very low for this one. Who will disappoint the least?
Johnson, it is well known, wishes to screw Corbyn remorselessly.
But he will hopefully wait until December 12th and do it via the ballot box rather than live on stage.
I’ll get my “where the hell is Super Jo?” in early.
Killing squirrels.
Has that story not tailed off yet?
It’s very convenient for me. I was teaching about Richard III earlier today and I explained why he was such an idiot to deny having planned to marry his niece. Immediately everyone gossiped about how the king had denied planning an extraordinary act of incest.
I’ve decided I’ll be having a drink for each time Bozo says get Brexit done ! Which means I’ll have alcohol poisoning about ten minutes into the debate .
I’ve decided I’ll be having a drink for each time Bozo says get Brexit done ! Which means I’ll have alcohol poisoning about ten minutes into the debate .
Really? What are you drinking that you’ll last that long? Small beer, I presume?
I’ll get my “where the hell is Super Jo?” in early.
Killing squirrels.
Has that story not tailed off yet?
It’s very convenient for me. I was teaching about Richard III earlier today and I explained why he was such an idiot to deny having planned to marry his niece. Immediately everyone gossiped about how the king had denied planning an extraordinary act of incest.
I’ll get my “where the hell is Super Jo?” in early.
Killing squirrels.
Has that story not tailed off yet?
It’s very convenient for me. I was teaching about Richard III earlier today and I explained why he was such an idiot to deny having planned to marry his niece. Immediately everyone gossiped about how the king had denied planning an extraordinary act of incest.
Now I have an up to the minute example as well.
I have literally no idea what that post is about
The bit about Richard, or the bit about squirrels?
I’ve decided I’ll be having a drink for each time Bozo says get Brexit done ! Which means I’ll have alcohol poisoning about ten minutes into the debate .
Really? What are you drinking that you’ll last that long? Small beer, I presume?
I’ll get my “where the hell is Super Jo?” in early.
Killing squirrels.
Has that story not tailed off yet?
It’s very convenient for me. I was teaching about Richard III earlier today and I explained why he was such an idiot to deny having planned to marry his niece. Immediately everyone gossiped about how the king had denied planning an extraordinary act of incest.
Now I have an up to the minute example as well.
I have literally no idea what that post is about
The bit about Richard, or the bit about squirrels?
I’ll get my “where the hell is Super Jo?” in early.
Killing squirrels.
Has that story not tailed off yet?
It’s very convenient for me. I was teaching about Richard III earlier today and I explained why he was such an idiot to deny having planned to marry his niece. Immediately everyone gossiped about how the king had denied planning an extraordinary act of incest.
Now I have an up to the minute example as well.
I have literally no idea what that post is about
The bit about Richard, or the bit about squirrels?
The key to CON is to get some of the seats we lost to LAB in 2010 and 2015 back (probably won't be Hove or ECA) but maybe places like Crewe, Ipswich, Reading W, even Kensington and Canterbury.
We are not going to be getting all these Northern seats where we haven't won before although maybe a few like Newcastle UL and Wrexham.
20 to 25 gains from LAB might be enough!
I can believe Reading West and Crewe and Nantwich. Derby North should be ok too.
I’m less confident of Kensington and Canterbury.
Ipswich, Bristol North West and Croydon Central maybe maybe not.
Hove, ECA, Enfield Southgate, Portsmouth South and Battersea definitely not.
Note that I have dropped the Wales part of my model. It didn't reflect the regional swing and was too harsh on the Tories. I am now using a combination of Baxter, Flavible and MRP for Wales. I have made the additive and multiplication models 50/50. I have updated with the two polls tonight.
Con/Lab/LD
England 311/194/27 Wales 15/20/1 Scotland 5/1/5 Total 331/215/33
I might have a different opinion if he was standing again.
I don’t think the wheels of justice can be stopped from turning merely because the accused is a retired politician. Even if he was quite a senior one and there’s an election on.
Hence forth Tory Swinson is renamed super Jo as she has managed to halve LD VI in a couple of months.
Long may she reign.
Well at least she doesn't help the tories as much as corbyn whch i is the single reason Johnson is heading for a majority.
Why are LDs down from 22 to 12?
Nothing to do with Super Jo or Jezza?
Totally due to the sheer horror that many people feel about corbyn getting into power, you should really question why you want to lose elections and fail the people you pretend to want to help because losing with a true socialist platform is more important than actually changing people’s lives. Labour sub 200 big Tory majority all because of corbyn and his clique.
Hence forth Tory Swinson is renamed super Jo as she has managed to halve LD VI in a couple of months.
Long may she reign.
Well at least she doesn't help the tories as much as corbyn whch i is the single reason Johnson is heading for a majority.
Why are LDs down from 22 to 12?
Nothing to do with Super Jo or Jezza?
Totally due to the sheer horror that many people feel about corbyn getting into power, you should really question why you want to lose elections and fail the people you pretend to want to help because losing with a true socialist platform is more important than actually changing people’s lives. Labour sub 200 big Tory majority all because of corbyn and his clique.
So since October LD down from 22 to 12 and its all Corbyns fault. At least your consistent.
Your leader is a voter repellent hypocritical lightweight you should get rid and get Layla in.
No way LD vote would be nose diving faster than a Beoing 737 Max without Super Jo.
Can we please all save time by stating now who we think has won.
I think SuperJo won it, by virtue of not appearing.
I think the answer will be ITV. If the debate is interesting (however defined) ITV will get the credit, if it's boring no-one will tune into the others.
Can I please say for the record at this point that I think these debates are a complete waste of time, they add nothing to the sum of knowledge about the candidates, they change very few people's minds and they personalise the whole election in a way I think is counter productive. They also propagate the lie that we are voting for a party or a PM rather than an individual representative.
These are not potential presidents, they are simply individuals seeking election in their constituencies and hoping that they can then persuade enough fellow MPs to make them PM. We should stop Americanising our electoral system in this way.
Hence forth Tory Swinson is renamed super Jo as she has managed to halve LD VI in a couple of months.
Long may she reign.
Well at least she doesn't help the tories as much as corbyn whch i is the single reason Johnson is heading for a majority.
Why are LDs down from 22 to 12?
Nothing to do with Super Jo or Jezza?
Totally due to the sheer horror that many people feel about corbyn getting into power, you should really question why you want to lose elections and fail the people you pretend to want to help because losing with a true socialist platform is more important than actually changing people’s lives. Labour sub 200 big Tory majority all because of corbyn and his clique.
Can I please say for the record at this point that I think these debates are a complete waste of time, they add nothing to the sum of knowledge about the candidates, they change very few people's minds and they personalise the whole election in a way I think is counter productive. They also propagate the lie that we are voting for a party or a PM rather than an individual representative.
These are not potential presidents, they are simply individuals seeking election in their constituencies and hoping that they can then persuade enough fellow MPs to make them PM. We should stop Americanising our electoral system in this way.
Rant over... for now.
I did think it was interesting to try them out in 2010 but I think overall you're correct.
The media love the debates because they get to be the center of attention and make it look like they are calling the shots and making the politicians dance to their tune - look what happened to Theresa when she ducked out of them.
At times I think the media believe general elections are just about them pushing around politicians... while the public is shut out of the process.
Voters finally gets their say on 12/12/19 but until then GBP are out in the cold. Which I think is partly why 2015, 2017 and now 2019 general elections have seemed to lackluster.
So, I just read the Green Party Manifesto, as I assume has every reasonable person in the country.
First impressions 92 pages – a bit chunky, but bookmarked to the various sections, which I don’t recall others doing last time, so that’s convenient. No financial tables at the back like last time, which is a shame, but at least they attempt to explain their financing. The title ‘If not now, when?’ seems double edged, since given their likely vote share and seat numbers, are they not implicitly admitting it will be ‘never’ for them and their policies, if it is not now?
The executive summary of their five major themes (Green New Deal, Remain and Transform, Grow Democracy, The Green Quality of Life Guarantee, and The New Deal for Tax and Spend) is useful and well presented in ensuring it should be easy to remember at least one key detail of each theme even if you don’t get past page 3.
Inter chapter sections on what elected Greens are delivering is a bit underwhelming, but not a bad idea.
Overall the theme is being very transformational, although like all parties they are self-righteous. From the forward ‘The Green Party has always been on the right side of history and you can trust us to get the future right too’. Yes, the Green Party are always right.
The key to CON is to get some of the seats we lost to LAB in 2010 and 2015 back (probably won't be Hove or ECA) but maybe places like Crewe, Ipswich, Reading W, even Kensington and Canterbury.
We are not going to be getting all these Northern seats where we haven't won before although maybe a few like Newcastle UL and Wrexham.
20 to 25 gains from LAB might be enough!
I can believe Reading West and Crewe and Nantwich. Derby North should be ok too.
I’m less confident of Kensington and Canterbury.
Ipswich, Bristol North West and Croydon Central maybe maybe not.
Hove, ECA, Enfield Southgate, Portsmouth South and Battersea definitely not.
Note that I have dropped the Wales part of my model. It didn't reflect the regional swing and was too harsh on the Tories. I am now using a combination of Baxter, Flavible and MRP for Wales. I have made the additive and multiplication models 50/50. I have updated with the two polls tonight.
Con/Lab/LD
England 311/194/27 Wales 15/20/1 Scotland 5/1/5 Total 331/215/33
Hence forth Tory Swinson is renamed super Jo as she has managed to halve LD VI in a couple of months.
Long may she reign.
Well at least she doesn't help the tories as much as corbyn whch i is the single reason Johnson is heading for a majority.
Why are LDs down from 22 to 12?
Nothing to do with Super Jo or Jezza?
Totally due to the sheer horror that many people feel about corbyn getting into power, you should really question why you want to lose elections and fail the people you pretend to want to help because losing with a true socialist platform is more important than actually changing people’s lives. Labour sub 200 big Tory majority all because of corbyn and his clique.
So since October LD down from 22 to 12 and its all Corbyns fault. At least your consistent.
Your leader is a voter repellent hypocritical lightweight you should get rid and get Layla in.
No way LD vote would be nose diving faster than a Beoing 737 Max without Super Jo.
You would find any lib dem leader repellent because you see them trying to occupy your entitled space in the ‘any but Tory vote’ spectrum and the bastards get elected to local councils depriving you of your god given right to anoint the next labour candidate. The tories believe the same, the duopoly is all they want to preserve but it will be what it will be. I predict that corbyn will be an even better helper than Michael Foot was to the Tory cause. It’s you’re own fault, nobody else you support him you live with him but at least criticism lib dem policies rather than petty personality slurs.
Hence forth Tory Swinson is renamed super Jo as she has managed to halve LD VI in a couple of months.
Long may she reign.
Well at least she doesn't help the tories as much as corbyn whch i is the single reason Johnson is heading for a majority.
Why are LDs down from 22 to 12?
Nothing to do with Super Jo or Jezza?
Totally due to the sheer horror that many people feel about corbyn getting into power, you should really question why you want to lose elections and fail the people you pretend to want to help because losing with a true socialist platform is more important than actually changing people’s lives. Labour sub 200 big Tory majority all because of corbyn and his clique.
So since October LD down from 22 to 12 and its all Corbyns fault. At least your consistent.
Your leader is a voter repellent hypocritical lightweight you should get rid and get Layla in.
No way LD vote would be nose diving faster than a Beoing 737 Max without Super Jo.
As has already been explained, the LD vote going down is because of successful tactical voting. It will be going up in LD target seats and dropping rapidly in non-target seats to avoid splitting the remain vote. There are many more non-target seats so the average LD share comes down but hopefully the number of targets seats won by LDs goes up.
I'm not dismayed by it. It's nothing to do with Jo but a function of successful targeting.
So, I just read the Green Party Manifesto, as I assume has every reasonable person in the country.
First impressions 92 pages – a bit chunky, but bookmarked to the various sections, which I don’t recall others doing last time, so that’s convenient. No financial tables at the back like last time, which is a shame, but at least they attempt to explain their financing. The title ‘If not now, when?’ seems double edged, since given their likely vote share and seat numbers, are they not implicitly admitting it will be ‘never’ for them and their policies, if it is not now?
The executive summary of their five major themes (Green New Deal, Remain and Transform, Grow Democracy, The Green Quality of Life Guarantee, and The New Deal for Tax and Spend) is useful and well presented in ensuring it should be easy to remember at least one key detail of each theme even if you don’t get past page 3.
Inter chapter sections on what elected Greens are delivering is a bit underwhelming, but not a bad idea.
Overall the theme is being very transformational, although like all parties they are self-righteous. From the forward ‘The Green Party has always been on the right side of history and you can trust us to get the future right too’. Yes, the Green Party are always right.
The Greens make a big play of being the only party we can trust to stand up for remaining part of Europe, for a final say, and tackling reasons why we voted leave. Yet they have a remain alliance, so we can trust some others I guess.
Green New Deal Business will be incentivized to lead the way on the new deal apparently, but not clear how. Power and resources to local government it says, a common ideal, but what if devolved governments and local government do not want to follow the ideals? This section is heavy on promising that there will be huge transformation, and promises 100bn a year for that, but at least in this section its unclear why that amount, and it makes the huge transformation sound very easy. But it’s saying nice things for the most part.
Good luck with transforming the planning system to make wind and other power generation easier – taking on the NIMBY’s!
Connect our electricity supply with Europe. I don’t know if we do this to some extent already, or how feasible it is, but it sounds cool.
‘Ban fracking and other unconventional forms of fossil fuel extraction, now and forever’. What’s a conventional form of fossil fuel extraction? Mining? Why is that ok because it is conventional?
All homes to improve insultation. 100,000 new council homes a year (cynic in me says why that number and not a bit more or a bit less? Just that they needed to get to 6 figures to sound good). Secure, lifetime tenancies for the council homes.
New developments to have safe pedestrian access to shops and schools, or are ‘within 1km of a local rail, tube or tram station, or 500m of a high frequency bus service’. That seems awfully close.
Going big on ‘a new golden age of train’. But still cautious enough to say railways will be taken into public ownership over a period of 10 years. As predicted stopping the building of new runways and ‘all’ increased road capacity.
A network of electrical vehicle charging points – that does seem needed.
Promoting stay at home working - and employers reimbursing working hours heating, electricity and wi fi costs.
Plenty on farming practices, makes sense given their strength in the SW I’d guess. ‘Legislate for a right to food giving everyone access to healthy, nutritious, locally grown food’ for schools though?
And the big one – Universal Basic income. Paid to everyone, regardless of employment status. In my experience its people who work on lower incomes who hate this idea, but whatever.
The key to CON is to get some of the seats we lost to LAB in 2010 and 2015 back (probably won't be Hove or ECA) but maybe places like Crewe, Ipswich, Reading W, even Kensington and Canterbury.
We are not going to be getting all these Northern seats where we haven't won before although maybe a few like Newcastle UL and Wrexham.
20 to 25 gains from LAB might be enough!
I can believe Reading West and Crewe and Nantwich. Derby North should be ok too.
I’m less confident of Kensington and Canterbury.
Ipswich, Bristol North West and Croydon Central maybe maybe not.
Hove, ECA, Enfield Southgate, Portsmouth South and Battersea definitely not.
Note that I have dropped the Wales part of my model. It didn't reflect the regional swing and was too harsh on the Tories. I am now using a combination of Baxter, Flavible and MRP for Wales. I have made the additive and multiplication models 50/50. I have updated with the two polls tonight.
Con/Lab/LD
England 311/194/27 Wales 15/20/1 Scotland 5/1/5 Total 331/215/33
Is that the first time you have predicted a workable Tory majority?
Remain and Transform Yawn – ‘the social contract is broken and the power game is rigged’. Student Common room stuff.
I get what they are saying about Leave not fixing people’s issues, but it seems very convenient that the Greens say they recognize why people voted for Brexit, and not one of them is that some people wanted to leave. The Greens channeling Daenerys Targaryen – people don’t know their own minds, but the Greens do.
Live streaming of meetings of the European Central Bank – now that’ll be a thrill ride! But a lot of these EU wide plans (there's loads to reform the EU) are not in the Greens’ power. But they do agree with not doing the Strasbourg move.
‘Reducing migration in the long term’. Never expected to see that. Needs EU wide minimum income guarantee, EU wide minimum wages, just for starters. The latter sounds impossible to me.
FPTP to go, of course, but for local councils they want all councils to vote every 2 years to elect 50% of its members. I think voting by thirds is dumb, and this is a bit better I guess, but forcing those that elect every 4 years to change seems at odds with their words on devolving things to localities, to trust them. Also to force them to move from Cabinet systems to Committee systems. Again, not a problem wanting more Committee systems back, but ‘requiring’ it?
Referendum on a Cornish assembly
Chancellor of the Exchequer to be supplanted from No. 11 by a Carbon Chancellor
Scrap the Home Office. Rename the Ministry of Defence to the Ministry for Security and Peace.
Overhaul of parliamentary language to make it self explanatory – this is just waffle. You can make things easier, I am sure, but its passing legislation, it’s going to get a bit legalistic at times.
Green Quality of life Guarantee I’m starting to flag now, but its basically money money money for everyone. No one to be paid more than 10x that of the lowest paid worker, and no bonus more than the annual salary of the lowest paid worker.
Replacing Ofsted.
Not abolishing private schools, which surprises me.
Windrush day – a new bank holiday to celebrate migration.
New press regime to allow women to make complaints about media coverage encouraging misogyny.
Support employers to explire the benefits of offering menstruation and menopausal leave to workers – surprised this is not going to be a requirement.
Pardon small scale drug dealers. Cannabis legal, of course. New deal for tax and spend Council tax and business rates abolished – Land Value Tax . charge landowner a proportion of capital value of the land each year (est at 1.4% of current values)
Trident, new roads, airports, HS2 axed
Says extra operational expenditure of 141.5bn a year. Not sure that adds up given the 100bn a year on Green new deal.
The key to CON is to get some of the seats we lost to LAB in 2010 and 2015 back (probably won't be Hove or ECA) but maybe places like Crewe, Ipswich, Reading W, even Kensington and Canterbury.
We are not going to be getting all these Northern seats where we haven't won before although maybe a few like Newcastle UL and Wrexham.
20 to 25 gains from LAB might be enough!
I can believe Reading West and Crewe and Nantwich. Derby North should be ok too.
I’m less confident of Kensington and Canterbury.
Ipswich, Bristol North West and Croydon Central maybe maybe not.
Hove, ECA, Enfield Southgate, Portsmouth South and Battersea definitely not.
Note that I have dropped the Wales part of my model. It didn't reflect the regional swing and was too harsh on the Tories. I am now using a combination of Baxter, Flavible and MRP for Wales. I have made the additive and multiplication models 50/50. I have updated with the two polls tonight.
Con/Lab/LD
England 311/194/27 Wales 15/20/1 Scotland 5/1/5 Total 331/215/33
Is that the first time you have predicted a workable Tory majority?
The key to CON is to get some of the seats we lost to LAB in 2010 and 2015 back (probably won't be Hove or ECA) but maybe places like Crewe, Ipswich, Reading W, even Kensington and Canterbury.
We are not going to be getting all these Northern seats where we haven't won before although maybe a few like Newcastle UL and Wrexham.
20 to 25 gains from LAB might be enough!
I can believe Reading West and Crewe and Nantwich. Derby North should be ok too.
I’m less confident of Kensington and Canterbury.
Ipswich, Bristol North West and Croydon Central maybe maybe not.
Hove, ECA, Enfield Southgate, Portsmouth South and Battersea definitely not.
Note that I have dropped the Wales part of my model. It didn't reflect the regional swing and was too harsh on the Tories. I am now using a combination of Baxter, Flavible and MRP for Wales. I have made the additive and multiplication models 50/50. I have updated with the two polls tonight.
Con/Lab/LD
England 311/194/27 Wales 15/20/1 Scotland 5/1/5 Total 331/215/33
Is that the first time you have predicted a workable Tory majority?
Yes. It's because of the Welsh effect rather than polling movement.
The Greens make a big play of being the only party we can trust to stand up for remaining part of Europe, for a final say, and tackling reasons why we voted leave. Yet they have a remain alliance, so we can trust some others I guess.
Green New Deal Business will be incentivized to lead the way on the new deal apparently, but not clear how. Power and resources to local government it says, a common ideal, but what if devolved governments and local government do not want to follow the ideals? This section is heavy on promising that there will be huge transformation, and promises 100bn a year for that, but at least in this section its unclear why that amount, and it makes the huge transformation sound very easy. But it’s saying nice things for the most part.
Good luck with transforming the planning system to make wind and other power generation easier – taking on the NIMBY’s!
Connect our electricity supply with Europe. I don’t know if we do this to some extent already, or how feasible it is, but it sounds cool.
‘Ban fracking and other unconventional forms of fossil fuel extraction, now and forever’. What’s a conventional form of fossil fuel extraction? Mining? Why is that ok because it is conventional?
All homes to improve insultation. 100,000 new council homes a year (cynic in me says why that number and not a bit more or a bit less? Just that they needed to get to 6 figures to sound good). Secure, lifetime tenancies for the council homes.
New developments to have safe pedestrian access to shops and schools, or are ‘within 1km of a local rail, tube or tram station, or 500m of a high frequency bus service’. That seems awfully close.
Going big on ‘a new golden age of train’. But still cautious enough to say railways will be taken into public ownership over a period of 10 years. As predicted stopping the building of new runways and ‘all’ increased road capacity.
A network of electrical vehicle charging points – that does seem needed.
Promoting stay at home working - and employers reimbursing working hours heating, electricity and wi fi costs.
Plenty on farming practices, makes sense given their strength in the SW I’d guess. ‘Legislate for a right to food giving everyone access to healthy, nutritious, locally grown food’ for schools though?
And the big one – Universal Basic income. Paid to everyone, regardless of employment status. In my experience its people who work on lower incomes who hate this idea, but whatever.
So, I just read the Green Party Manifesto, as I assume has every reasonable person in the country.
First impressions 92 pages – a bit chunky, but bookmarked to the various sections, which I don’t recall others doing last time, so that’s convenient. No financial tables at the back like last time, which is a shame, but at least they attempt to explain their financing. The title ‘If not now, when?’ seems double edged, since given their likely vote share and seat numbers, are they not implicitly admitting it will be ‘never’ for them and their policies, if it is not now?
The executive summary of their five major themes (Green New Deal, Remain and Transform, Grow Democracy, The Green Quality of Life Guarantee, and The New Deal for Tax and Spend) is useful and well presented in ensuring it should be easy to remember at least one key detail of each theme even if you don’t get past page 3.
Inter chapter sections on what elected Greens are delivering is a bit underwhelming, but not a bad idea.
Overall the theme is being very transformational, although like all parties they are self-righteous. From the forward ‘The Green Party has always been on the right side of history and you can trust us to get the future right too’. Yes, the Green Party are always right.
Oh, I'm not done.
The title is a nod to Primo Levi presumably.
If you say so. I assumed it to be a quote, or allusion, but it still makes me think about the answer, given despite their pretensions they are not the voice of the people when they get such limited votes.
Hence forth Tory Swinson is renamed super Jo as she has managed to halve LD VI in a couple of months.
Long may she reign.
Well at least she doesn't help the tories as much as corbyn whch i is the single reason Johnson is heading for a majority.
Why are LDs down from 22 to 12?
Nothing to do with Super Jo or Jezza?
Totally due to the sheer horror that many people feel about corbyn getting into power, you should really question why you want to lose elections and fail the people you pretend to want to help because losing with a true socialist platform is more important than actually changing people’s lives. Labour sub 200 big Tory majority all because of corbyn and his clique.
So since October LD down from 22 to 12 and its all Corbyns fault. At least your consistent.
Your leader is a voter repellent hypocritical lightweight you should get rid and get Layla in.
No way LD vote would be nose diving faster than a Beoing 737 Max without Super Jo.
As has already been explained, the LD vote going down is because of successful tactical voting. It will be going up in LD target seats and dropping rapidly in non-target seats to avoid splitting the remain vote. There are many more non-target seats so the average LD share comes down but hopefully the number of targets seats won by LDs goes up.
I'm not dismayed by it. It's nothing to do with Jo but a function of successful targeting.
Let them believe what they want, the continued vitriol hatred from both left and right has sustained me for 36 years, we get in their way it destroys their key messages and it disrupts their ability to award minions with council seats in return for campaigning effort and funding.
Can I please say for the record at this point that I think these debates are a complete waste of time, they add nothing to the sum of knowledge about the candidates, they change very few people's minds and they personalise the whole election in a way I think is counter productive. They also propagate the lie that we are voting for a party or a PM rather than an individual representative.
These are not potential presidents, they are simply individuals seeking election in their constituencies and hoping that they can then persuade enough fellow MPs to make them PM. We should stop Americanising our electoral system in this way.
Rant over... for now.
Another thing to blame on Brown. He opened Pandora’s box in agreeing to do the debates in 2010, hoping that something would turn up that would save him. Before then PMs had maintained they would never debate, generally citing the reasons you give above.
Comments
I’m thinking how much better it would be at running the country than either of these losers.
The betting market does indeed think there is a 64% probability of a Con overall majority. But the poll is saying that '22% of those polled predicted Con overall Majority' The respondents are being asked to pick the most likely winner, not give an estimate of the probability. The two are not the same thing at all.
In other words, the bar is set very low for this one. Who will disappoint the least?
But he will hopefully wait until December 12th and do it via the ballot box rather than live on stage.
The starter to #MegaPollingSaturday3!
It’s very convenient for me. I was teaching about Richard III earlier today and I explained why he was such an idiot to deny having planned to marry his niece. Immediately everyone gossiped about how the king had denied planning an extraordinary act of incest.
Now I have an up to the minute example as well.
*I reserve the right to withdraw these remarks if this unlikely event happens
360 up (8 refusals 5 Corbyn 3 BREXIT) and I am officially knackered despite only being the driver.
My spell as silver van man is over.
2017 numbers for comparison 400
Long may she reign.
And then the polls will arrive at the weekend and it will have absolutely ni difference whatsoever.
Really.
I will get nothing from this debate.
On indyref2, he can't keep both happy.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing
Note that I have dropped the Wales part of my model. It didn't reflect the regional swing and was too harsh on the Tories. I am now using a combination of Baxter, Flavible and MRP for Wales.
I have made the additive and multiplication models 50/50.
I have updated with the two polls tonight.
Con/Lab/LD
England 311/194/27
Wales 15/20/1
Scotland 5/1/5
Total 331/215/33
Apart from Gallowgate and OGH
Nothing to do with Super Jo or Jezza?
Welcome to PB, btw (assuming this isn't your fourth account after the password debacle!)
Boris = "filthy disgusting b*st*rd"
Corbyn = "useless idiot"
I think SuperJo won it, by virtue of not appearing.
He has managed to pivot out of the 'retirement' they had planned for him in the new year. Outstanding debating skills.
Your leader is a voter repellent hypocritical lightweight you should get rid and get Layla in.
No way LD vote would be nose diving faster than a Beoing 737 Max without Super Jo.
These are not potential presidents, they are simply individuals seeking election in their constituencies and hoping that they can then persuade enough fellow MPs to make them PM. We should stop Americanising our electoral system in this way.
Rant over... for now.
Really.
The media love the debates because they get to be the center of attention and make it look like they are calling the shots and making the politicians dance to their tune - look what happened to Theresa when she ducked out of them.
At times I think the media believe general elections are just about them pushing around politicians... while the public is shut out of the process.
Voters finally gets their say on 12/12/19 but until then GBP are out in the cold. Which I think is partly why 2015, 2017 and now 2019 general elections have seemed to lackluster.
First impressions
92 pages – a bit chunky, but bookmarked to the various sections, which I don’t recall others doing last time, so that’s convenient. No financial tables at the back like last time, which is a shame, but at least they attempt to explain their financing. The title ‘If not now, when?’ seems double edged, since given their likely vote share and seat numbers, are they not implicitly admitting it will be ‘never’ for them and their policies, if it is not now?
The executive summary of their five major themes (Green New Deal, Remain and Transform, Grow Democracy, The Green Quality of Life Guarantee, and The New Deal for Tax and Spend) is useful and well presented in ensuring it should be easy to remember at least one key detail of each theme even if you don’t get past page 3.
Inter chapter sections on what elected Greens are delivering is a bit underwhelming, but not a bad idea.
Overall the theme is being very transformational, although like all parties they are self-righteous. From the forward ‘The Green Party has always been on the right side of history and you can trust us to get the future right too’. Yes, the Green Party are always right.
Oh, I'm not done.
We live in a post-satire society.
Johnson is also a useless idiot.
And Corbyn is also a filthy disgusting bastard.
I'm not dismayed by it. It's nothing to do with Jo but a function of successful targeting.
Green New Deal
Business will be incentivized to lead the way on the new deal apparently, but not clear how. Power and resources to local government it says, a common ideal, but what if devolved governments and local government do not want to follow the ideals? This section is heavy on promising that there will be huge transformation, and promises 100bn a year for that, but at least in this section its unclear why that amount, and it makes the huge transformation sound very easy. But it’s saying nice things for the most part.
Good luck with transforming the planning system to make wind and other power generation easier – taking on the NIMBY’s!
Connect our electricity supply with Europe. I don’t know if we do this to some extent already, or how feasible it is, but it sounds cool.
‘Ban fracking and other unconventional forms of fossil fuel extraction, now and forever’. What’s a conventional form of fossil fuel extraction? Mining? Why is that ok because it is conventional?
All homes to improve insultation. 100,000 new council homes a year (cynic in me says why that number and not a bit more or a bit less? Just that they needed to get to 6 figures to sound good). Secure, lifetime tenancies for the council homes.
New developments to have safe pedestrian access to shops and schools, or are ‘within 1km of a local rail, tube or tram station, or 500m of a high frequency bus service’. That seems awfully close.
Going big on ‘a new golden age of train’. But still cautious enough to say railways will be taken into public ownership over a period of 10 years. As predicted stopping the building of new runways and ‘all’ increased road capacity.
A network of electrical vehicle charging points – that does seem needed.
Promoting stay at home working - and employers reimbursing working hours heating, electricity and wi fi costs.
Plenty on farming practices, makes sense given their strength in the SW I’d guess. ‘Legislate for a right to food giving everyone access to healthy, nutritious, locally grown food’ for schools though?
And the big one – Universal Basic income. Paid to everyone, regardless of employment status. In my experience its people who work on lower incomes who hate this idea, but whatever.
If he does badly, it might well be the end.
Although I think Johnson running away from one of the debates isn't a great idea.
Poch sacked.
https://twitter.com/SpursOfficial/status/1196874518951796736
Inevitable given he's less successful than George Graham and Juande Ramos
Yawn – ‘the social contract is broken and the power game is rigged’. Student Common room stuff.
I get what they are saying about Leave not fixing people’s issues, but it seems very convenient that the Greens say they recognize why people voted for Brexit, and not one of them is that some people wanted to leave. The Greens channeling Daenerys Targaryen – people don’t know their own minds, but the Greens do.
Live streaming of meetings of the European Central Bank – now that’ll be a thrill ride! But a lot of these EU wide plans (there's loads to reform the EU) are not in the Greens’ power. But they do agree with not doing the Strasbourg move.
‘Reducing migration in the long term’. Never expected to see that. Needs EU wide minimum income guarantee, EU wide minimum wages, just for starters. The latter sounds impossible to me.
FPTP to go, of course, but for local councils they want all councils to vote every 2 years to elect 50% of its members. I think voting by thirds is dumb, and this is a bit better I guess, but forcing those that elect every 4 years to change seems at odds with their words on devolving things to localities, to trust them. Also to force them to move from Cabinet systems to Committee systems. Again, not a problem wanting more Committee systems back, but ‘requiring’ it?
Referendum on a Cornish assembly
Chancellor of the Exchequer to be supplanted from No. 11 by a Carbon Chancellor
Scrap the Home Office. Rename the Ministry of Defence to the Ministry for Security and Peace.
Overhaul of parliamentary language to make it self explanatory – this is just waffle. You can make things easier, I am sure, but its passing legislation, it’s going to get a bit legalistic at times.
Green Quality of life Guarantee
I’m starting to flag now, but its basically money money money for everyone. No one to be paid more than 10x that of the lowest paid worker, and no bonus more than the annual salary of the lowest paid worker.
Replacing Ofsted.
Not abolishing private schools, which surprises me.
Windrush day – a new bank holiday to celebrate migration.
New press regime to allow women to make complaints about media coverage encouraging misogyny.
Support employers to explire the benefits of offering menstruation and menopausal leave to workers – surprised this is not going to be a requirement.
Pardon small scale drug dealers. Cannabis legal, of course.
New deal for tax and spend
Council tax and business rates abolished – Land Value Tax . charge landowner a proportion of capital value of the land each year (est at 1.4% of current values)
Trident, new roads, airports, HS2 axed
Says extra operational expenditure of 141.5bn a year. Not sure that adds up given the 100bn a year on Green new deal.
Done.
https://selectra.co.uk/energy/news/policy/brexit-energy
We all know he is North Poor
South Rich