Barry Gardiner is good. Years of theological debate are perfect for these interviews. He has Andrew Neil agreeing that pharma prices are an inevitable part of a US trade deal!
No - Neil said the Americans would raise pharmaceutical access as part of a free trade deal.
Barry Gardiner is good. Years of theological debate are perfect for these interviews. He has Andrew Neil agreeing that pharma prices are an inevitable part of a US trade deal!
That is simply not true. You are catching the Labour disease. Neil said that the US would raise it as part of the negotiations, not that it would definitely be part of any deal.
Andrew Neil establishing that Barry Gardiner and Jeremy Corbyn are duplicitous liars re the HNS claims this morning. Andrew Neil points out these minutes are no more than scoping talks.
Barry Gardiner is one of the few politicians that can make Boris Johnson look like a paragon of honesty.
A lawyer as well. Perhaps the SRA should take an interest....
Boris Johnson has no upside in doing this. He can fairly point to the fact that he’s doing debates. And the chances of him coming through unscathed from an Andrew Neil interview where the interviewer did not pull his punches are low.
The BBC have questions to answer. It appears that they actively misled Labour. That’s unforgivable if true.
I think we should prepare like fuck, anticipate and rehearse all the obvious lines and have his facts & figures ready, and do it. But, not at a primetime slot and he needs some dead cats for the next day - just in case.
Yes, he’ll get torn a couple of new ones anyway by Neil, but he’ll get respect for doing it anyway, look Prime Ministerial and the relative contrast will still be strong.
Barry Gardiner is good. Years of theological debate are perfect for these interviews. He has Andrew Neil agreeing that pharma prices are an inevitable part of a US trade deal!
No - Neil said the Americans would raise pharmaceutical access as part of a free trade deal.
Why the hell don't all of these people tweeting about the YouGov MRP just shut the hell up for three hours and let YouGov reveal their findings themselves?
Would it be actually criminal offence for people to play silly buggers on Twitter with the the exit poll on 12/12/19? Or is just "not the done thing" to reveal an exit poll before polls close?
Barry Gardiner is good. Years of theological debate are perfect for these interviews. He has Andrew Neil agreeing that pharma prices are an inevitable part of a US trade deal!
That is simply not true. You are catching the Labour disease. Neil said that the US would raise it as part of the negotiations, not that it would definitely be part of any deal.
Neil now getting Buckland to agree that US Pharma pricing is an essential part of any deal.
Just to be clear about the MRP poll: as I understand it, what it does is use a very large sample in order to get detailed polling on demographic subgroups. Thus, if young women with children are swinging more Labour and elderly working-class men are swinging more Tory, it will detect that. It then projects that onto detailed demographic data for each seat - so if a seat has a lot of elderly working-class men, on the above assumption the Tory swing will be higher.
What is does not do is poll by constituency. So no tactical voting is taken into account, nor are special circumstances, such as a well-known independent standing in the seat. It's therefore of limited benefit in seats like Broxtowe, which re a mess with half a dozen very different types of candidate.
Buckland really is poor and waffly. ‘How many have been expelled?’ ‘I don’t have the figures.’ ‘How many have been disciplined?’ ‘I don’t know.’ How do we have politicians as useless as this on both sides?
Would it be actually criminal offence for people to play silly buggers on Twitter with the the exit poll on 12/12/19? Or is just "not the done thing" to reveal an exit poll before polls close?
Criminal offence. Section 66A of the Representation of the People Act 1983
The right move by Boris, as shown by Mikes anger. It won’t be the same as Theresa May skipping the 2017 debates, because in that case her swerving was highlighted by the show going on in her absence. No ones going to notice a show that’s not usually on not being on
Would it be actually criminal offence for people to play silly buggers on Twitter with the the exit poll on 12/12/19? Or is just "not the done thing" to reveal an exit poll before polls close?
I think only 3 people work on the exit poll . They get sent the results from the chosen constituencies and collate the poll. I think leaking the poll could have severe ramifications and could end up with a court case bringing the election result into doubt .
Just to be clear about the MRP poll: as I understand it, what it does is use a very large sample in order to get detailed polling on demographic subgroups. Thus, if young women with children are swinging more Labour and elderly working-class men are swinging more Tory, it will detect that. It then projects that onto detailed demographic data for each seat - so if a seat has a lot of elderly working-class men, on the above assumption the Tory swing will be higher.
What is does not do is poll by constituency. So no tactical voting is taken into account, nor are special circumstances, such as a well-known independent standing in the seat. It's therefore of limited benefit in seats like Broxtowe, which re a mess with half a dozen very different types of candidate.
Correct?
Yes.
Maybe the best way to view it is as an entry-poll just as voting starts, just as John Curtice 2 weeks one day later will provide the exit poll as voting finishes.
Curse of the new thread! Well, that was a fun and fascinating day. Drove Carrie Symonds and Dilyn about the South Hams. They had a drink with half a dozen canvassers and the candidate. Some fascinating bits of gossip that would be very indiscreet to share. However, people might like to know that Dilyn loves to shred paper into tiny bits. And he gets given Dominic Cummins' hate mail to savage!
Didn't they meet voters? Isn't that the point of campaigning?
Yes, they met voters. They were fine. A bit softball, considering we were in a rather beautful bit of the constituency and not amidst the social housing. It's not always so. Carrie did tell me that some people have said very rude things to her about Boris. Before they know who she is....
A friend of mine was out canvassing with them a couple of weeks ago. Said they went down well on the doorstep.
Just to be clear about the MRP poll: as I understand it, what it does is use a very large sample in order to get detailed polling on demographic subgroups. Thus, if young women with children are swinging more Labour and elderly working-class men are swinging more Tory, it will detect that. It then projects that onto detailed demographic data for each seat - so if a seat has a lot of elderly working-class men, on the above assumption the Tory swing will be higher.
What is does not do is poll by constituency. So no tactical voting is taken into account, nor are special circumstances, such as a well-known independent standing in the seat. It's therefore of limited benefit in seats like Broxtowe, which re a mess with half a dozen very different types of candidate.
Correct?
I think propensity to tactical voting is part of their MRP. I was asked about who I would vote for in Rutland and Melton if only LDs had a chance of beating the Tories. Not a difficult answer for me!
Just to be clear about the MRP poll: as I understand it, what it does is use a very large sample in order to get detailed polling on demographic subgroups. Thus, if young women with children are swinging more Labour and elderly working-class men are swinging more Tory, it will detect that. It then projects that onto detailed demographic data for each seat - so if a seat has a lot of elderly working-class men, on the above assumption the Tory swing will be higher.
What is does not do is poll by constituency. So no tactical voting is taken into account, nor are special circumstances, such as a well-known independent standing in the seat. It's therefore of limited benefit in seats like Broxtowe, which re a mess with half a dozen very different types of candidate.
Correct?
Broadly, yes. And as I have pointed out elsewhere, if cell results are variable in insurance pricing (which uses related models and datasets of tens of millions of risk years instead of thousands of respondents) then no MRP will be reliable ay constituency level.
Would it be actually criminal offence for people to play silly buggers on Twitter with the the exit poll on 12/12/19? Or is just "not the done thing" to reveal an exit poll before polls close?
I think only 3 people work on the exit poll . They get sent the results from the chosen constituencies and collate the poll. I think leaking the poll could have severe ramifications and could end up with a court case bringing the election result into doubt .
It’s illegal, isn’t it? No opinion polling may be published while polls are open.
The right move by Boris, as shown by Mikes anger. It won’t be the same as Theresa May skipping the 2017 debates, because in that case her swerving was highlighted by the show going on in her absence. No ones going to notice a show that’s not usually on not being on
Not as he is doing a one on one with Corbyn on the BBC on Friday 6th December
Would it be actually criminal offence for people to play silly buggers on Twitter with the the exit poll on 12/12/19? Or is just "not the done thing" to reveal an exit poll before polls close?
John Curtice is a lot more discreet than the likes of Owen Jones.
Would it be actually criminal offence for people to play silly buggers on Twitter with the the exit poll on 12/12/19? Or is just "not the done thing" to reveal an exit poll before polls close?
Only a handful of people will see it before the bong, only people working on it
Would it be actually criminal offence for people to play silly buggers on Twitter with the the exit poll on 12/12/19? Or is just "not the done thing" to reveal an exit poll before polls close?
Any release of information about the progress of the vote during the day or even the count is illegal. Tweeting your impressions at the count is technically illegal but nobody gets prosecuted. I think if anyone was proven to try and influence the actual vote by releasing information might be in trouble.
Would it be actually criminal offence for people to play silly buggers on Twitter with the the exit poll on 12/12/19? Or is just "not the done thing" to reveal an exit poll before polls close?
John Curtice is a lot more discreet than the likes of Owen Jones.
Aren’t the three boffs that compile it locked away in a secure facility in London while they crunch the numbers?
The right move by Boris, as shown by Mikes anger. It won’t be the same as Theresa May skipping the 2017 debates, because in that case her swerving was highlighted by the show going on in her absence. No ones going to notice a show that’s not usually on not being on
If I am being brutally honest, the only reason I want Johnson to win is because it means Corbyn won't be PM and because it means we will get Brexit.
It may well be that running scared of Neil is the right thing to do politically - though I am not sure of that - but it is absolutely the wrong thing for a prospective PM to do and it makes me think even less of him than I did before.
It is cowardice plain and simple and is disrespectful to the British people who want to see their prospective leaders out there making their case and fighting their corner.
Would it be actually criminal offence for people to play silly buggers on Twitter with the the exit poll on 12/12/19? Or is just "not the done thing" to reveal an exit poll before polls close?
John Curtice is a lot more discreet than the likes of Owen Jones.
John Curtice “leaks” to about four or five trusted journalists only about 10 minutes early.
Curse of the new thread! Well, that was a fun and fascinating day. Drove Carrie Symonds and Dilyn about the South Hams. They had a drink with half a dozen canvassers and the candidate. Some fascinating bits of gossip that would be very indiscreet to share. However, people might like to know that Dilyn loves to shred paper into tiny bits. And he gets given Dominic Cummins' hate mail to savage!
Didn't they meet voters? Isn't that the point of campaigning?
Yes, they met voters. They were fine. A bit softball, considering we were in a rather beautful bit of the constituency and not amidst the social housing. It's not always so. Carrie did tell me that some people have said very rude things to her about Boris. Before they know who she is....
I heard that someone told Carrie that he “wasn’t in love with Boris” to which she replied “well that’s a relief” 😂
There will be no traction with the public on Boris not being able to schedule in an interview...if he'd skipped the debates then yes, it would have been a story.
As it is there is just fury from the left that their man has been humiliated and their hopes of it being repeated on the PM have been dashed.
File under 'sour grapes'.
Bollocks. How can he expect to be prime minister if he can't answer a few questions from a journalist? The sense of entitlement is disgusting. Not to mention the cowardice.
I don’t get why anyone is surprised. Johnson’s been running away from scrutiny his entire political career. Anyone who’s seen him in action when he can’t avoid it knows why!
Just to be clear about the MRP poll: as I understand it, what it does is use a very large sample in order to get detailed polling on demographic subgroups. Thus, if young women with children are swinging more Labour and elderly working-class men are swinging more Tory, it will detect that. It then projects that onto detailed demographic data for each seat - so if a seat has a lot of elderly working-class men, on the above assumption the Tory swing will be higher.
What is does not do is poll by constituency. So no tactical voting is taken into account, nor are special circumstances, such as a well-known independent standing in the seat. It's therefore of limited benefit in seats like Broxtowe, which re a mess with half a dozen very different types of candidate.
Correct?
That's my understanding.
One other point, is that the dramatic MRP poll from the last election, showing a hung parliament for the first time, was released later in the campaign, and reflected a narrowing of the lead. I'd expect tonight to be nowhere near as close, but the direction of travel may be important.
The right move by Boris, as shown by Mikes anger. It won’t be the same as Theresa May skipping the 2017 debates, because in that case her swerving was highlighted by the show going on in her absence. No ones going to notice a show that’s not usually on not being on
Not as he is doing a one on one with Corbyn on the BBC on Friday 6th December
Looks as if labour have been outflanked on this
Ask yourself how you would have assessed and reported it if it had been Corbyn ducking the AN interview after Johnson had suffered a serious grilling.
The right move by Boris, as shown by Mikes anger. It won’t be the same as Theresa May skipping the 2017 debates, because in that case her swerving was highlighted by the show going on in her absence. No ones going to notice a show that’s not usually on not being on
If I am being brutally honest, the only reason I want Johnson to win is because it means Corbyn won't be PM and because it means we will get Brexit.
It may well be that running scared of Neil is the right thing to do politically - though I am not sure of that - but it is absolutely the wrong thing for a prospective PM to do and it makes me think even less of him than I did before.
It is cowardice plain and simple and is disrespectful to the British people who want to see their prospective leaders out there making their case and fighting their corner.
There are three things I disagree with in this post. I’m not looking forward to Brexit. I couldn’t possibly think less of Johnson than I already do. I don’t want Johnson to win, I want the Conservatives to. Other than that, seems pretty bang on to me,
Would it be actually criminal offence for people to play silly buggers on Twitter with the the exit poll on 12/12/19? Or is just "not the done thing" to reveal an exit poll before polls close?
John Curtice is a lot more discreet than the likes of Owen Jones.
Aren’t the three boffs that compile it locked away in a secure facility in London while they crunch the numbers?
Yes , I think they’re stuck in a bunker underground !
The problem with leaks during the day is they’re likely to be wrong anyway . At the last election the Tories looked on course for a majority earlier in the day but then as further results came in that changed . I remember the exit poll 3 mentioning that after the exit poll had been released .
The right move by Boris, as shown by Mikes anger. It won’t be the same as Theresa May skipping the 2017 debates, because in that case her swerving was highlighted by the show going on in her absence. No ones going to notice a show that’s not usually on not being on
If I am being brutally honest, the only reason I want Johnson to win is because it means Corbyn won't be PM and because it means we will get Brexit.
It may well be that running scared of Neil is the right thing to do politically - though I am not sure of that - but it is absolutely the wrong thing for a prospective PM to do and it makes me think even less of him than I did before.
It is cowardice plain and simple and is disrespectful to the British people who want to see their prospective leaders out there making their case and fighting their corner.
Same reason I want him to be PM. I probably agree with Corbyn on as many things as Johnson, it not more. But Brexit is the main thing. Doubt I’ll vote anyway.
Only 3m watched Corbyns interview. Very small % of the public are interested.
Just to be clear about the MRP poll: as I understand it, what it does is use a very large sample in order to get detailed polling on demographic subgroups. Thus, if young women with children are swinging more Labour and elderly working-class men are swinging more Tory, it will detect that. It then projects that onto detailed demographic data for each seat - so if a seat has a lot of elderly working-class men, on the above assumption the Tory swing will be higher.
What is does not do is poll by constituency. So no tactical voting is taken into account, nor are special circumstances, such as a well-known independent standing in the seat. It's therefore of limited benefit in seats like Broxtowe, which re a mess with half a dozen very different types of candidate.
Correct?
I think propensity to tactical voting is part of their MRP. I was asked about who I would vote for in Rutland and Melton if only LDs had a chance of beating the Tories. Not a difficult answer for me!
I wonder how that works, though. OK, say they find that doctors in the E Mids are more likely to vote tactically. They then look at a constituency with lots of doctors or lots of East Midlanders. Do they then make a subjective decision on whether this other constituency is marginal enough to trigger lots of tactical anti-Tory votes? They give the impression that no human judgment is involved.
I've not seen the poll and am not trying to spin it in any way. I'm just not sure how it works for tactical voting, if at all.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
Just to be clear about the MRP poll: as I understand it, what it does is use a very large sample in order to get detailed polling on demographic subgroups. Thus, if young women with children are swinging more Labour and elderly working-class men are swinging more Tory, it will detect that. It then projects that onto detailed demographic data for each seat - so if a seat has a lot of elderly working-class men, on the above assumption the Tory swing will be higher.
What is does not do is poll by constituency. So no tactical voting is taken into account, nor are special circumstances, such as a well-known independent standing in the seat. It's therefore of limited benefit in seats like Broxtowe, which re a mess with half a dozen very different types of candidate.
Correct?
No.
It gives the respondent the ballot paper as they will face in their constituency, replete with candidate name.
The right move by Boris, as shown by Mikes anger. It won’t be the same as Theresa May skipping the 2017 debates, because in that case her swerving was highlighted by the show going on in her absence. No ones going to notice a show that’s not usually on not being on
Not as he is doing a one on one with Corbyn on the BBC on Friday 6th December
Looks as if labour have been outflanked on this
Big G. Boris would be wise to tell Corbyn to do one, over the BBC debate! Boris is so inconsistent that he is more likely to come off second best. This way he can just point at Corbyn's performance and laugh.
There will be no traction with the public on Boris not being able to schedule in an interview...if he'd skipped the debates then yes, it would have been a story.
As it is there is just fury from the left that their man has been humiliated and their hopes of it being repeated on the PM have been dashed.
File under 'sour grapes'.
Conned and then humiliated yes but an absolute disgrace as is leaders not turning up to the debates and sending substitutes. Just empty podium them and let those willing to debate with everybody in public get on with it. It a disgraceful affront to democracy and shows the degree of contempt that corbyn and Johnson have of the electorate.
We have a Parliamentary democracy not a Presidency. Other MP candidates attending the debates is entirely appropriate. We have far too many debates involving just the party leaders - where are the debates involving the Chancellor, Health Secretary etc etc etc
Barry Gardiner is good. Years of theological debate are perfect for these interviews. He has Andrew Neil agreeing that pharma prices are an inevitable part of a US trade deal!
That is simply not true. You are catching the Labour disease. Neil said that the US would raise it as part of the negotiations, not that it would definitely be part of any deal.
Neil now getting Buckland to agree that US Pharma pricing is an essential part of any deal.
I was assured today, by the Tory drones on here, that this was not the case
Barry Gardiner is good. Years of theological debate are perfect for these interviews. He has Andrew Neil agreeing that pharma prices are an inevitable part of a US trade deal!
That is simply not true. You are catching the Labour disease. Neil said that the US would raise it as part of the negotiations, not that it would definitely be part of any deal.
Neil now getting Buckland to agree that US Pharma pricing is an essential part of any deal.
I was assured today, by the Tory drones on here, that this was not the case
I was assured categorically that PB Tories were never wrong, and they always learn.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
There will be no traction with the public on Boris not being able to schedule in an interview...if he'd skipped the debates then yes, it would have been a story.
As it is there is just fury from the left that their man has been humiliated and their hopes of it being repeated on the PM have been dashed.
File under 'sour grapes'.
Conned and then humiliated yes but an absolute disgrace as is leaders not turning up to the debates and sending substitutes. Just empty podium them and let those willing to debate with everybody in public get on with it. It a disgraceful affront to democracy and shows the degree of contempt that corbyn and Johnson have of the electorate.
We have a Parliamentary democracy not a Presidency. Other MP candidates attending the debates is entirely appropriate. We have far too many debates involving just the party leaders - where are the debates involving the Chancellor, Health Secretary etc etc etc
I’d pay good money to see one between spokespeople on foreign affairs. I would love to see Raab being brutally hammered to pieces by Thornberry. And that’s said without any particular affection for Colonel the Lady Nugee.
Boris should do the interview. The risks of a backlash from not doing it might be as severe as going on it and Doing A Corbyn.
I will be voting Conservative, not out of any love for Boris but because I do not want Corbyn in No 10 and I am worried any other vote risks that. But the Tories deserve to be scrutinised like every party does.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
The right move by Boris, as shown by Mikes anger. It won’t be the same as Theresa May skipping the 2017 debates, because in that case her swerving was highlighted by the show going on in her absence. No ones going to notice a show that’s not usually on not being on
Not as he is doing a one on one with Corbyn on the BBC on Friday 6th December
Looks as if labour have been outflanked on this
"Outflanked" in the sense that their leader understands that proper scrutiny is an essential part of the democratic process and not an inconvenience to be ducked on the way to one's coronation. To be honest Big G I am disappointed in you. I always thought you were a Tory, but fair minded and decent with it. This comment just makes you look like a partisan hack. Very poor.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
That attitude may have been right then - but I can tell you it's a very big issue to a lot of people. And this won't look good.
There will be no traction with the public on Boris not being able to schedule in an interview...if he'd skipped the debates then yes, it would have been a story.
As it is there is just fury from the left that their man has been humiliated and their hopes of it being repeated on the PM have been dashed.
File under 'sour grapes'.
Conned and then humiliated yes but an absolute disgrace as is leaders not turning up to the debates and sending substitutes. Just empty podium them and let those willing to debate with everybody in public get on with it. It a disgraceful affront to democracy and shows the degree of contempt that corbyn and Johnson have of the electorate.
We have a Parliamentary democracy not a Presidency. Other MP candidates attending the debates is entirely appropriate. We have far too many debates involving just the party leaders - where are the debates involving the Chancellor, Health Secretary etc etc etc
Would it be actually criminal offence for people to play silly buggers on Twitter with the the exit poll on 12/12/19? Or is just "not the done thing" to reveal an exit poll before polls close?
John Curtice is a lot more discreet than the likes of Owen Jones.
John Curtice “leaks” to about four or five trusted journalists only about 10 minutes early.
They're very restricted about things. Even Dimbleby in past years didn't know I believe.
There will be no traction with the public on Boris not being able to schedule in an interview...if he'd skipped the debates then yes, it would have been a story.
As it is there is just fury from the left that their man has been humiliated and their hopes of it being repeated on the PM have been dashed.
File under 'sour grapes'.
Conned and then humiliated yes but an absolute disgrace as is leaders not turning up to the debates and sending substitutes. Just empty podium them and let those willing to debate with everybody in public get on with it. It a disgraceful affront to democracy and shows the degree of contempt that corbyn and Johnson have of the electorate.
We have a Parliamentary democracy not a Presidency. Other MP candidates attending the debates is entirely appropriate. We have far too many debates involving just the party leaders - where are the debates involving the Chancellor, Health Secretary etc etc etc
I’d pay good money to see one between spokespeople on foreign affairs. I would love to see Raab being brutally hammered to pieces by Thornberry. And that’s said without any particular affection for Colonel the Lady Nugee.
I vaguely remember debates between spokespersons from parties debating differentvaspects of policy, finance etc but it seems to have disappeared.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
That attitude may have been right then - but I can tell you it's a very big issue to a lot of people. And this won't look good.
Yes, I’m aware it’s a big issue. I am pointing out this will have no bearing on it. Just a lot of wealthy over-consumers boasting about how virtuous they will be at some point, in order to try and buy votes. Hard to think of a less edifying spectacle.
Barry Gardiner is good. Years of theological debate are perfect for these interviews. He has Andrew Neil agreeing that pharma prices are an inevitable part of a US trade deal!
That is simply not true. You are catching the Labour disease. Neil said that the US would raise it as part of the negotiations, not that it would definitely be part of any deal.
Neil now getting Buckland to agree that US Pharma pricing is an essential part of any deal.
I was assured today, by the Tory drones on here, that this was not the case
I was assured categorically that PB Tories were never wrong, and they always learn.
Only when the email arrives from CCHQ with today's attack lines...
There will be no traction with the public on Boris not being able to schedule in an interview...if he'd skipped the debates then yes, it would have been a story.
As it is there is just fury from the left that their man has been humiliated and their hopes of it being repeated on the PM have been dashed.
File under 'sour grapes'.
Conned and then humiliated yes but an absolute disgrace as is leaders not turning up to the debates and sending substitutes. Just empty podium them and let those willing to debate with everybody in public get on with it. It a disgraceful affront to democracy and shows the degree of contempt that corbyn and Johnson have of the electorate.
We have a Parliamentary democracy not a Presidency. Other MP candidates attending the debates is entirely appropriate. We have far too many debates involving just the party leaders - where are the debates involving the Chancellor, Health Secretary etc etc etc
I’d pay good money to see one between spokespeople on foreign affairs. I would love to see Raab being brutally hammered to pieces by Thornberry. And that’s said without any particular affection for Colonel the Lady Nugee.
That's the way it should be. A series of debates on specific topics with the applicable ministers/shadows invited culminating in the leaders debate(s).
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
In what sense will the C4 be a debate? Only one opinion will be permitted.
The Tory Party is being absolutely destroyed on Islamophobia here
I'm not at all sure that these accusations are going to make much difference, firstly because the Labour anti-Semitism problem has been more widely publicised, has been dragging on for a lot longer and appears to be more deep-rooted, but also because certain campaign themes gain traction because they chime with voters' preconceived ideas about the people and the parties taking part.
Thus, the anti-Semitism mud sticks to Corbyn because so many voters think he's extreme, and Labour always leads on "X days to save the NHS" in every election campaign because the Tories are known for privatising stuff, and so many voters suspect them of ill-intent towards public services.
Of course, in the final analysis most people do care about the NHS and don't care about Jews, which is one of the reasons why I'm still very nervous that this is all going to end in another Hung Parliament.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
That attitude may have been right then - but I can tell you it's a very big issue to a lot of people. And this won't look good.
Yes, I’m aware it’s a big issue. I am pointing out this will have no bearing on it. Just a lot of wealthy over-consumers boasting about how virtuous they will be at some point, in order to try and buy votes. Hard to think of a less edifying spectacle.
It might have a lot of bearing on young voters, if they turn out to vote that is.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
In what sense will the C4 be a debate? Only one opinion will be permitted.
Why are there 60 or 70 seats missing? I noticed Broxtowe is not included. Does anyone have any idea how they do these predictions and why some seats are included but not others?
There will be no traction with the public on Boris not being able to schedule in an interview...if he'd skipped the debates then yes, it would have been a story.
As it is there is just fury from the left that their man has been humiliated and their hopes of it being repeated on the PM have been dashed.
File under 'sour grapes'.
Conned and then humiliated yes but an absolute disgrace as is leaders not turning up to the debates and sending substitutes. Just empty podium them and let those willing to debate with everybody in public get on with it. It a disgraceful affront to democracy and shows the degree of contempt that corbyn and Johnson have of the electorate.
We have a Parliamentary democracy not a Presidency. Other MP candidates attending the debates is entirely appropriate. We have far too many debates involving just the party leaders - where are the debates involving the Chancellor, Health Secretary etc etc etc
Fine if it is key party treasury spokesperson or environmental lead roles, which we used to get but a leaders debate is just that and a classic lab/con disrespect for other parties because they want to keep their duopoly going.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
That attitude may have been right then - but I can tell you it's a very big issue to a lot of people. And this won't look good.
I hate to be contrarian and sound dinosaur-ish, but I strongly doubt climate change will be a factor in anyone changing their votes. Those who are concerned about the environment enough to form an opinion on which way they will vote are unlikely to have their minds changed by politicians in a room talking about it. In the general population, I think there is a push to be greener but I highly doubt it will make someone who’s main motivation to vote is the economy, or Brexit, or the NHS, or jobs, shift allegiance.
One opinion being, the one based on facts? You seriously think we should debate climate change denial?
It’s pointless because what the UK does is a rounding error when it comes to global emissions. It is already on course to be Carbon neutral in a few decades, with emissions forecast to drop dramatically in the intervening period. For real action on climate change the developing economies need to do things, not the UK.
Will this YouGov model be updated every day like in the last election .
YouGov does two sets of polls:
* The classic one using an online panel to deduce voting intention, * and the MRP poll that uses that panel to deduce the voting intention by age/sex/socioeconomic group and cross-references that to each constituency to deduce seat counts
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
But as we keep on hearing all those younger voters are voting Labour.
One opinion being, the one based on facts? You seriously think we should debate climate change denial?
It’s pointless because what the UK does is a rounding error when it comes to global emissions. It is already on course to be Carbon neutral in a few decades, with emissions forecast to drop dramatically in the intervening period. For real action on climate change the developing economies need to do things, not the UK.
Then why doesn't Boris Johnson come on and say that?
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
That attitude may have been right then - but I can tell you it's a very big issue to a lot of people. And this won't look good.
I strongly suspect the amount of potential Conservative voters who would switch based on that non-attendance could be expressed in single figures
One opinion being, the one based on facts? You seriously think we should debate climate change denial?
It’s pointless because what the UK does is a rounding error when it comes to global emissions. It is already on course to be Carbon neutral in a few decades, with emissions forecast to drop dramatically in the intervening period. For real action on climate change the developing economies need to do things, not the UK.
Then why doesn't Boris Johnson come on and say that?
Perhaps because that would be spun as not doing enough or some guff like that? What the UK does is frankly irrelevant.
Comments
Yes, he’ll get torn a couple of new ones anyway by Neil, but he’ll get respect for doing it anyway, look Prime Ministerial and the relative contrast will still be strong.
https://dominiccummings.com/2019/11/27/on-the-referendum-34-batsignal-dont-let-corbyn-sturgeon-cheat-a-second-referendum-with-millions-of-foreign-votes/
What is does not do is poll by constituency. So no tactical voting is taken into account, nor are special circumstances, such as a well-known independent standing in the seat. It's therefore of limited benefit in seats like Broxtowe, which re a mess with half a dozen very different types of candidate.
Correct?
‘How many have been expelled?’
‘I don’t have the figures.’
‘How many have been disciplined?’
‘I don’t know.’
How do we have politicians as useless as this on both sides?
Maybe the best way to view it is as an entry-poll just as voting starts, just as John Curtice 2 weeks one day later will provide the exit poll as voting finishes.
Ying to the yang.
Looks as if labour have been outflanked on this
Con 43%
Lab 31%
LD 15%
BRX 4%
Grn 3%
https://www.ft.com/content/263615ca-d873-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
I’ve adopted a very defensive position, for now.
It may well be that running scared of Neil is the right thing to do politically - though I am not sure of that - but it is absolutely the wrong thing for a prospective PM to do and it makes me think even less of him than I did before.
It is cowardice plain and simple and is disrespectful to the British people who want to see their prospective leaders out there making their case and fighting their corner.
That's what is known as a "tell".
Wonder what the public will make of it?
Replaced by Fake Britain..how apt
One other point, is that the dramatic MRP poll from the last election, showing a hung parliament for the first time, was released later in the campaign, and reflected a narrowing of the lead. I'd expect tonight to be nowhere near as close, but the direction of travel may be important.
I’m not looking forward to Brexit.
I couldn’t possibly think less of Johnson than I already do.
I don’t want Johnson to win, I want the Conservatives to.
Other than that, seems pretty bang on to me,
I’ve always been intrigued how they get it so accurate from just one or two polling stations in 100-150 consistencies.
I presume then upscale and model the samples and then the MoE closes through the day but it’s pretty impressive statistical work.
The problem with leaks during the day is they’re likely to be wrong anyway . At the last election the Tories looked on course for a majority earlier in the day but then as further results came in that changed . I remember the exit poll 3 mentioning that after the exit poll had been released .
She's further behind in the race than Michael Bl
Epstein'ssuicidewasfaked00mberg. Why is she avoiding NeilOnly 3m watched Corbyns interview. Very small % of the public are interested.
I've not seen the poll and am not trying to spin it in any way. I'm just not sure how it works for tactical voting, if at all.
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
It gives the respondent the ballot paper as they will face in their constituency, replete with candidate name.
I would love to see Raab being brutally hammered to pieces by Thornberry.
And that’s said without any particular affection for Colonel the Lady Nugee.
I will be voting Conservative, not out of any love for Boris but because I do not want Corbyn in No 10 and I am worried any other vote risks that. But the Tories deserve to be scrutinised like every party does.
Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
To be honest Big G I am disappointed in you. I always thought you were a Tory, but fair minded and decent with it. This comment just makes you look like a partisan hack. Very poor.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sajid-javid-tv-debate-tory-party-labour-spending-plan-dossier-conservative-a9200546.html
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1199773788335943680
you could do Health, Economy, Foreign Affairs
I think, if not sure, it is around the clive James tribute so until we know why maybe we should wait to do your ritual disembowelment of Swinson.
Thus, the anti-Semitism mud sticks to Corbyn because so many voters think he's extreme, and Labour always leads on "X days to save the NHS" in every election campaign because the Tories are known for privatising stuff, and so many voters suspect them of ill-intent towards public services.
Of course, in the final analysis most people do care about the NHS and don't care about Jews, which is one of the reasons why I'm still very nervous that this is all going to end in another Hung Parliament.
* The classic one using an online panel to deduce voting intention,
* and the MRP poll that uses that panel to deduce the voting intention by age/sex/socioeconomic group and cross-references that to each constituency to deduce seat counts
Which one are you referring to?
But as we keep on hearing all those younger voters are voting Labour.