Boris Johnson cannot play the "context" argument when his entire attack line on Corbyn has been precisely that. The media is broken.
Off topic: interesting that NE Hampshire and East Hampshire are 2 of 41 seats where the Tory share is projected to go down more than the Labour share according MRP YouGov study.
Presumably due to large swing to the Lib Dems?
Apart from last election when Labour came second, Lib Dems have always done well here. Hinds had a majority of something like 7000 at one point, which isn't that large bearing in mind it's 30,000 now.
I don't think he'll lose his seat - but his majority is going to be cut down a lot. And he might lose it next time.
If his majority gets cut in half say, the Tories are in deep trouble in the South.
No chance. Hinds is as safe as houses.
He’s also a moderate Tory, forward-looking and thoughtful, which helps him.
Not attending was a political act. Talking about that political act is news. Highlighting political acts of the PM is their job. This is what you sound like: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids
A Conservative did attend. Parties are entitled to choose who they send to the media, not the other way around. There is no precedence or Ofcom rule for what Channel 4 did.
Ch4 wanted a leaders debate on climate. Tories refused to send their leader, as did the BXP. Both were treated the same, with an ice sculpture in their place. Any commentary beforehand about the PM not being there being disproportionate to Farage not being there is pretty justifiable because the PM is magnitudes more important than Farage. Ch4 is free to pick the debate rules it wants and enforce them, that is up to them. If Johnson and the Tories refuse to accept those rules, the consequences are down to them. The media is not here to kowtow to the whims of politicians, it is there to hold them to account, and if they refuse to be held account on an equal footing, that is news. Therefore the news media should talk about it. So they did.
It doesn't matter what Channel 4 wanted. Ofcom rules are that representation must be offered to parties....
So what happened to the other parties with the Corbyn/Johnson debate ?
Doesn't matter. Absolutely everybody, even the Borisjugend on here, already knows he's an ill-informed liar.
Cameron used to do this all the time. His utterances rarely bore any relation to Tory policy or indeed reality. He just said things like 'We'll put everyone on the cheapest electricity tariff' and let others struggle to implement his nonsense. Yet his days are remembered as a golden era of majestic competence.
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
And you seem quite annoyed by it. I wonder why.
Because if Johnson thinks he deserves to lead this great country then he should submit himself to proper scrutiny. If he doesn't he is unworthy of the office, it's as simple as that. If you can't play the game fairly, you don't deserve to win. I thought that was one of the few useful things they taught at our great public schools.
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
If Corbyn had ducked the debate but sent someone else instead then it is fair to attack him for that if you want to. What is not fair and broke Ofcom rules was excluding the person sent instead. Make fun of the Tories for sending Gove if you want, but you can't exclude the parties representative they choose to send and put up an ice sculpture instead. Channel 4 broke Ofcom rules in line with their well established partisan bias.
Again, are we happier with a PM who tells journalists how to treat him and they comply, or one where journalists hold politicians to account? Had this been Corbyn with Owen Jones, how many currently defending Johnson would defend Corbyn? If Johnson had done the AN interview and Corbyn ducked out, how many currently defending Johnson would defend Corbyn? Had Corbyn sent Dianne Abbott to last nights debate, and Ch4 told her no and empty chaired Corbyn, how many here who are defending Johnson would defend Corbyn? This partisan hackery is all well and good, but we should have some universal standards, and I think both Corbyn and Johnson fail them to some degree in different ways. https://twitter.com/jnpaquet/status/1200349248786698240
Sad to see him so misrepresenting the polls though. The MRP shows completely the opposite of what he is claiming. It is worth viewing some of his recent headers on here as well in that light.
He could have made a case along the lines of: if you want Remain and don't want Corbyn etc. That might cut some ice in Battersea. But to make the claim for the LibDems in terms of polling is bizarre and wrong.
I think his case is rather that in a constituency which voted so solidly remain, the Conservatives have no chance at all this time - and the Lib Dems perhaps a slim chance.
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
And you seem quite annoyed by it. I wonder why.
Because the Tories don't get treated the same as other parties, because in most cases the media do what they tell them to. As is evident by their threat to Channel 4
No - because your man wasn't clever enough.
And as for threats to the media - isn't it Corbyn wanting to "democratise" the media? There's a euphemism if I ever heard one.
Get over it and worry about defending your seats in blue-collar marginal constituencies where the majority of people do not give a monkeys uncle about this bubble tittle-tattle.
If this was flipped, we know full well you'd be in here attacking Corbyn. Just admit you're as partisan as me and be done with it.
Gove turned up. It was a climate debate and he set the parties climate policies. Would you exclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer from an economy debate? Pathetic.
He’s certainly a more fluent liar than Corbyn. And far better at it than Boris. The best of the 3 I’d say. And the most dangerous in consequence.
Yes. Corbyn lies because he's not very bright, Boris lies because he's not remotely on top of his brief. There is an air of clear calculation to McDonnell's lies, which as you write makes him by far the most dangerous.
Johnson is a congenital liar. He just cannot help himself. He is incapable of telling the truth. McDonnell is, indeed, much more calculated. He lies specifically and forensically for the cause. And he is very good at it. You'd want him on your side in wartime, though you'd never be quite sure he was on your side.
They are both a disgrace.
The difference is that Johnson is lazy and isn’t ideological and only lies to further his career and his own personal interests, which makes him less dangerous.
Johnson's laziness and lack of beliefs makes him supremely dangerous because it means he is the perfect figurehead for a far right Thatcherite cabal determined to use the economic shock of Brexit to push us closer to the US and their economic model. While we all coo over his fucking dog and try to figure out how many kids he has, they work behind the scenes to rewire the economy in a way that will be very hard to unwind. Johnson won't know or care what they are up to as long as he gets to be World King.
Beyond the UK Johnson will be laughed at and played for the next five years. Within the UK he will be increasingly despised, but he will still be in charge. And that is the problem. But the great news is that people like Nick palmer will be able to feel good about themselves because Labour has a leader who hates Israel, hates the West, is coated with Bennite nostalgia and who is, in turn, held in total contempt by the electorate!!
Again, are we happier with a PM who tells journalists how to treat him and they comply, or one where journalists hold politicians to account? Had this been Corbyn with Owen Jones, how many currently defending Johnson would defend Corbyn? If Johnson had done the AN interview and Corbyn ducked out, how many currently defending Johnson would defend Corbyn? Had Corbyn sent Dianne Abbott to last nights debate, and Ch4 told her no and empty chaired Corbyn, how many here who are defending Johnson would defend Corbyn? This partisan hackery is all well and good, but we should have some universal standards, and I think both Corbyn and Johnson fail them to some degree in different ways. https://twitter.com/jnpaquet/status/1200349248786698240
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
And you seem quite annoyed by it. I wonder why.
Because if Johnson thinks he deserves to lead this great country then he should submit himself to proper scrutiny. If he doesn't he is unworthy of the office, it's as simple as that. If you can't play the game fairly, you don't deserve to win. I thought that was one of the few useful things they taught at our great public schools.
We have a Parliamentary Democracy not a Presidential one. What makes Gove who set the parties climate policies unsuitable to take part in a climate debate?
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny.
Boris Johnson cannot play the "context" argument when his entire attack line on Corbyn has been precisely that. The media is broken.
Off topic: interesting that NE Hampshire and East Hampshire are 2 of 41 seats where the Tory share is projected to go down more than the Labour share according MRP YouGov study.
Presumably due to large swing to the Lib Dems?
Apart from last election when Labour came second, Lib Dems have always done well here. Hinds had a majority of something like 7000 at one point, which isn't that large bearing in mind it's 30,000 now.
I don't think he'll lose his seat - but his majority is going to be cut down a lot. And he might lose it next time.
If his majority gets cut in half say, the Tories are in deep trouble in the South.
No chance. Hinds is as safe as houses.
He’s also a moderate Tory, forward-looking and thoughtful, which helps him.
He won't lose his seat - but his majority I think will be cut significantly. It's anecdotal of course but people around here who are true blue Tories are abandoning the party.
Sad to see him so misrepresenting the polls though. The MRP shows completely the opposite of what he is claiming. It is worth viewing some of his recent headers on here as well in that light.
He could have made a case along the lines of: if you want Remain and don't want Corbyn etc. That might cut some ice in Battersea. But to make the claim for the LibDems in terms of polling is bizarre and wrong.
I think his case is rather that in a constituency which voted so solidly remain, the Conservatives have no chance at all this time - and the Lib Dems perhaps a slim chance.
Perhaps, but he didn't say that.
I think that is precisely what he was arguing. Though admittedly he did gloss over the "slim chance" bit...
Again, are we happier with a PM who tells journalists how to treat him and they comply, or one where journalists hold politicians to account? Had this been Corbyn with Owen Jones, how many currently defending Johnson would defend Corbyn? If Johnson had done the AN interview and Corbyn ducked out, how many currently defending Johnson would defend Corbyn? Had Corbyn sent Dianne Abbott to last nights debate, and Ch4 told her no and empty chaired Corbyn, how many here who are defending Johnson would defend Corbyn? This partisan hackery is all well and good, but we should have some universal standards, and I think both Corbyn and Johnson fail them to some degree in different ways. https://twitter.com/jnpaquet/status/1200349248786698240
So the spineless buffoon backs out of the AN interview .
One of life's big challenges, these days, is finding suitable ways to describe Boris Johnson. You have to capture the essentials - the lying, the vacuous phoniness, the facetious lack of seriousness about anything and everything - but resist the temptation to use too many words. This here, "spineless buffoon", is IMO a very good effort. One of the best. So hats off.
Not attending was a political act. Talking about that political act is news. Highlighting political acts of the PM is their job. This is what you sound like: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids
A Conservative did attend. Parties are entitled to choose who they send to the media, not the other way around. There is no precedence or Ofcom rule for what Channel 4 did.
Ch4 wanted a leaders debate on climate. Tories refused to send their leader, as did the BXP. Both were treated the same, with an ice sculpture in their place. Any commentary beforehand about the PM not being there being disproportionate to Farage not being there is pretty justifiable because the PM is magnitudes more important than Farage. Ch4 is free to pick the debate rules it wants and enforce them, that is up to them. If Johnson and the Tories refuse to accept those rules, the consequences are down to them. The media is not here to kowtow to the whims of politicians, it is there to hold them to account, and if they refuse to be held account on an equal footing, that is news. Therefore the news media should talk about it. So they did.
It doesn't matter what Channel 4 wanted. Ofcom rules are that representation must be offered to parties....
So what happened to the other parties with the Corbyn/Johnson debate ?
Their parties weren't invited to that debate. The main parties are allowed to be given more airtime than the fringe parties under Ofcom rules.
Gove turned up. It was a climate debate and he set the parties climate policies. Would you exclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer from an economy debate? Pathetic.
As I've already pointed out, there would have be no debate had Gove been allowed on, so asked and answered. I note you have ignored my question about representation in the Corbyn/Johnson debate.
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny.
About time someone did. What kind of person won’t answer that question?
Someone who doesn't want to bring his kids into the glare of politics. The follow up to that question would inevitably be people trying to identify those kids and they would end up in the media spotlight. How is that fair or reasonable on them if that's not wanted? It doesn't have a single thing to do with politics or running the country.
Sad to see him so misrepresenting the polls though. The MRP shows completely the opposite of what he is claiming. It is worth viewing some of his recent headers on here as well in that light.
He could have made a case along the lines of: if you want Remain and don't want Corbyn etc. That might cut some ice in Battersea. But to make the claim for the LibDems in terms of polling is bizarre and wrong.
I think his case is rather that in a constituency which voted so solidly remain, the Conservatives have no chance at all this time - and the Lib Dems perhaps a slim chance.
Perhaps, but he didn't say that.
I think that is precisely what he was arguing. Though admittedly he did gloss over the "slim chance" bit...
And yet that is not what the polls show at all. Anyone reading that advice and not having seen the polls would believe that the Tories were completely out of it rather than being in second place miles ahead of the Lib Dems. It is dishonest and deceptive.
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny.
About time someone did. What kind of person won’t answer that question?
Someone who doesn't want to bring his kids into the glare of politics. The follow up to that question would inevitably be people trying to identify those kids and they would end up in the media spotlight. How is that fair or reasonable on them if that's not wanted? It doesn't have a single thing to do with politics or running the country.
My feeling at the momo is there are 4 elections going on 1) in a line south of the wash/bristol channel a rerun of 2017 with limited changes except for.. 2) london which is seeing a fracturing of labour dominance (that may well not translate into much seat wise this time around but will make the first post GE mayor polls interesting) 3) scotland which is becoming an SNP vs Tory slugfest with the SNP well ahead on points but the Tories possibly entrenching a few seats as safe Scottish havens. Lds just trying to save Jo and tread water, and possibly failing, labour gone gone gone and 4) the Midlands and north where my feeling is labour are overstated and are in for an absolute horror show. This is where the usual non voters/only voted fir Brexit I'll do it one more time votes are and are imo under the polling radar. There will be some eye watering swings Morning all by the way
Interesting and IMO accurate analysis. Love to see more of this type of thing and less of the other type of thing from your pen.
My feeling at the momo is there are 4 elections going on 1) in a line south of the wash/bristol channel a rerun of 2017 with limited changes except for.. 2) london which is seeing a fracturing of labour dominance (that may well not translate into much seat wise this time around but will make the first post GE mayor polls interesting) 3) scotland which is becoming an SNP vs Tory slugfest with the SNP well ahead on points but the Tories possibly entrenching a few seats as safe Scottish havens. Lds just trying to save Jo and tread water, and possibly failing, labour gone gone gone and 4) the Midlands and north where my feeling is labour are overstated and are in for an absolute horror show. This is where the usual non voters/only voted fir Brexit I'll do it one more time votes are and are imo under the polling radar. There will be some eye watering swings Morning all by the way
I think this is about right although a lot of uncertainty about how those Midlands/North battles will pan out - if a lot of the usual non voters mostly vote BXP it may not lead to as big a Lab to Con swing as you need for a comfortable majority. If I were Lab that is where I;'d be chucking my GOTV resources as well heavily pushing the Tory threat to the NHS message.
Sad to see him so misrepresenting the polls though. The MRP shows completely the opposite of what he is claiming. It is worth viewing some of his recent headers on here as well in that light.
He could have made a case along the lines of: if you want Remain and don't want Corbyn etc. That might cut some ice in Battersea. But to make the claim for the LibDems in terms of polling is bizarre and wrong.
I think his case is rather that in a constituency which voted so solidly remain, the Conservatives have no chance at all this time - and the Lib Dems perhaps a slim chance.
I'm amazed that people are defending something so misleading. But on the Internet some people will defend anything.
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
You're absolutely right.
So disappointing. Tories literally had this election handed to them on a plate, and they still can't put this election away.
Gove turned up. It was a climate debate and he set the parties climate policies. Would you exclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer from an economy debate? Pathetic.
Yes, yes, yes - but Johnson is still a lying coward. The anti-Churchill, if you like.
This might be a Cummings super strategy ! But the dead cat strategy only works if you’re trying to change the story of the day from something more damaging .
There’s nothing else going on today so the dead cat is now the story .
I thought he did it last election in marginal seats where the Lib Dems were actually in the running? Not in seats where the Lib Dems are a distant nowhere.
Afaik he only did it in Jo Swinson's seat in 2017, however perhaps the great man can confirm?
In Jo Swinson's seat in 2017 it was suitable. That was a seat the Lib Dems were the primary contender for as the result and evidence showed. Some of these seats though it is entirely unsuitable. If the Our Genial Host seriously thinks the Liberal Democrats are in the running to win Warrington South then I'm curious the logic and given the odds of 66/1 available I wonder how much he's got riding on that? Similar for the other seats that both the polls and odds show the Lib Dems are nowhere near.
Sounds like he's fighting the good fight to keep Jezza out to me - more power to him.
The logic of that is that the things he posts here may be equally misleading.
He didn't sound like a total pro when he was on Radio 5 earlier. He was getting quite angry and ranty when asked some fairly simple question. I also noted that the Labour Party has found a new economic "think tank" to tout the opinions of, now that the IFS have called them out.
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny.
About time someone did. What kind of person won’t answer that question?
Someone who doesn't want to bring his kids into the glare of politics. The follow up to that question would inevitably be people trying to identify those kids and they would end up in the media spotlight. How is that fair or reasonable on them if that's not wanted? It doesn't have a single thing to do with politics or running the country.
Ferrari pointed out the Boris has commented on other people's kids highlighting his hypocrisy on the issue.
Gove turned up. It was a climate debate and he set the parties climate policies. Would you exclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer from an economy debate? Pathetic.
As I've already pointed out, there would have be no debate had Gove been allowed on, so asked and answered. I note you have ignored my question about representation in the Corbyn/Johnson debate.
Was there no debate had Rudd been allowed on? If the other parties don't want to debate the Tory representative they can be empty chaired but they're not permitted to pick and choose who represents the Tory Party in a Parliamentary election. Ofcom rules are that parties are invited and the parties can send representatives. I didn't ignore your question about representation in the Corbyn/Johnson debate I answered it. Invites to that were only sent to the main parties, the fringe parties weren't invited to that but were invited to another show later that night. As Ofcom rules permit.
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
And you seem quite annoyed by it. I wonder why.
Its like the Neil interview. "It was a triumph for Corbyn" - so why are they so upset about Johnson potentially not taking part? Leaves their man ahead, surely?
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny.
About time someone did. What kind of person won’t answer that question?
Someone who doesn't want to bring his kids into the glare of politics. The follow up to that question would inevitably be people trying to identify those kids and they would end up in the media spotlight. How is that fair or reasonable on them if that's not wanted? It doesn't have a single thing to do with politics or running the country.
Ferrari pointed out the Boris has commented on other people's kids highlighting his hypocrisy on the issue.
He is also using his own dad as a surrogate, so obviously non political family members are allowed to be in the media spotlight as long as it isn't embarrassing for the PM.
Doesn't matter. Absolutely everybody, even the Borisjugend on here, already knows he's an ill-informed liar.
Cameron used to do this all the time. His utterances rarely bore any relation to Tory policy or indeed reality. He just said things like 'We'll put everyone on the cheapest electricity tariff' and let others struggle to implement his nonsense. Yet his days are remembered as a golden era of majestic competence.
Thats true - "we're paying down the debt" was one of the most egregious ones, while the debt was still going up.
My feeling at the momo is there are 4 elections going on 1) in a line south of the wash/bristol channel a rerun of 2017 with limited changes except for.. 2) london which is seeing a fracturing of labour dominance (that may well not translate into much seat wise this time around but will make the first post GE mayor polls interesting) 3) scotland which is becoming an SNP vs Tory slugfest with the SNP well ahead on points but the Tories possibly entrenching a few seats as safe Scottish havens. Lds just trying to save Jo and tread water, and possibly failing, labour gone gone gone and 4) the Midlands and north where my feeling is labour are overstated and are in for an absolute horror show. This is where the usual non voters/only voted fir Brexit I'll do it one more time votes are and are imo under the polling radar. There will be some eye watering swings Morning all by the way
Interesting and IMO accurate analysis. Love to see more of this type of thing and less of the other type of thing from your pen.
You get plenty of meat from me along with a side of bitter gruel. I hope PBers took advantage of my 20/1 SCons in Kirkcakdy tip from last night for example! Absurdly long price given the SNP withdrawing support from their candidate, slab implosion and the SCons starting from 23%
First time I’ve heard him speak. I thought he was very impressive (although he closes his eyes and sways back slightly when thinking which looks a little odd but can be trained out)
Doesn't matter. Absolutely everybody, even the Borisjugend on here, already knows he's an ill-informed liar.
Cameron used to do this all the time. His utterances rarely bore any relation to Tory policy or indeed reality. He just said things like 'We'll put everyone on the cheapest electricity tariff' and let others struggle to implement his nonsense. Yet his days are remembered as a golden era of majestic competence.
Thats true - "we're paying down the debt" was one of the most egregious ones, while the debt was still going up.
Depends how you want to look at it. Nominal debt is going up. Debt to GDP is going down.
Not attending was a political act. Talking about that political act is news. Highlighting political acts of the PM is their job. This is what you sound like: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids
A Conservative did attend. Parties are entitled to choose who they send to the media, not the other way around. There is no precedence or Ofcom rule for what Channel 4 did.
Ch4 wanted a leaders debate on climate. Tories refused to send their leader, as did the BXP. Both were treated the same, with an ice sculpture in their place. Any commentary beforehand about the PM not being there being disproportionate to Farage not being there is pretty justifiable because the PM is magnitudes more important than Farage. Ch4 is free to pick the debate rules it wants and enforce them, that is up to them. If Johnson and the Tories refuse to accept those rules, the consequences are down to them. The media is not here to kowtow to the whims of politicians, it is there to hold them to account, and if they refuse to be held account on an equal footing, that is news. Therefore the news media should talk about it. So they did.
It doesn't matter what Channel 4 wanted. Ofcom rules are that representation must be offered to parties. Gove was sent as a representative of the party. We do not have a Presidential Election we have a Parliamentary one and Gove is a representative of the party just as much as Johnson is. Channel 4 is not permitted to create its own media rules. Ofcom creates the rules.
And the courts determine whether Ch4's interpretation of those rules is more correct than that of the Conservatives. Thank goodness for the courts. They may not always give the verdict I would prefer but at least they are not in the pocket of the politicians.
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny.
About time someone did. What kind of person won’t answer that question?
Someone who doesn't want to bring his kids into the glare of politics. The follow up to that question would inevitably be people trying to identify those kids and they would end up in the media spotlight. How is that fair or reasonable on them if that's not wanted? It doesn't have a single thing to do with politics or running the country.
Ferrari pointed out the Boris has commented on other people's kids highlighting his hypocrisy on the issue.
In this election campaign? Or in an article in the 1990s?
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny.
About time someone did. What kind of person won’t answer that question?
Someone who doesn't want to bring his kids into the glare of politics. The follow up to that question would inevitably be people trying to identify those kids and they would end up in the media spotlight. How is that fair or reasonable on them if that's not wanted? It doesn't have a single thing to do with politics or running the country.
Ferrari pointed out the Boris has commented on other people's kids highlighting his hypocrisy on the issue.
He is also using his own dad as a surrogate, so obviously non political family members are allowed to be in the media spotlight as long as it isn't embarrassing for the PM.
You don't see a difference between consensual adults and children? 🙄😲
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage. The BBC have let 4 parties send non leaders, which is up to them. As for Johnson's words this morning, apologies if I think even the chilling effect of the briefing against CH4 is more important than the words of known liar and untrustworthy bastard, Johnson.
They didn’t just empty chair him, though, did they?
They also pulled a provocative partisan stunt on it too to highlight it, which they advertised on their twitter.
If they’d just said, “sadly, the leaders of the Cons and BXP have declined to attend but we’ll be going ahead anyway” there wouldn’t have been such a fuss.
It was Johnson's right not to attend. But to then threaten C4 for how they framed that non-attendance rather than just letting it pass is not a good look imo especially coupled with him turning down the AN interview (although in itself that is probably a sensible choice)
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
I have no objection to Labour and other parties using this attack line. The issue is entirely with Channel 4 failing miserably to even offer the pretence that they're unbiased. The story is more about what Channel 4 did than what Johnson did (or didn't do). They've become the story; which, as journalists, is always an issue.
I thought he did it last election in marginal seats where the Lib Dems were actually in the running? Not in seats where the Lib Dems are a distant nowhere.
Afaik he only did it in Jo Swinson's seat in 2017, however perhaps the great man can confirm?
In Jo Swinson's seat in 2017 it was suitable. That was a seat the Lib Dems were the primary contender for as the result and evidence showed. Some of these seats though it is entirely unsuitable. If the Our Genial Host seriously thinks the Liberal Democrats are in the running to win Warrington South then I'm curious the logic and given the odds of 66/1 available I wonder how much he's got riding on that? Similar for the other seats that both the polls and odds show the Lib Dems are nowhere near.
Sounds like he's fighting the good fight to keep Jezza out to me - more power to him.
The logic of that is that the things he posts here may be equally misleading.
You mean you bought the 'Tory remainers can safely vote Lib Dem" line? He's obviously working a party line - which is the same as most people and he's fully entitled to do it.
With regard to Chlorinated Chicken, I went to America in the summer, and guess what we ate loads of chicken and didn’t get ill - i think the problem is it sounds bad.
Not attending was a political act. Talking about that political act is news. Highlighting political acts of the PM is their job. This is what you sound like: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids
A Conservative did attend. Parties are entitled to choose who they send to the media, not the other way around. There is no precedence or Ofcom rule for what Channel 4 did.
Ch4 wanted a leaders debate on climate. Tories refused to send their leader, as did the BXP. Both were treated the same, with an ice sculpture in their place. Any commentary beforehand about the PM not being there being disproportionate to Farage not being there is pretty justifiable because the PM is magnitudes more important than Farage. Ch4 is free to pick the debate rules it wants and enforce them, that is up to them. If Johnson and the Tories refuse to accept those rules, the consequences are down to them. The media is not here to kowtow to the whims of politicians, it is there to hold them to account, and if they refuse to be held account on an equal footing, that is news. Therefore the news media should talk about it. So they did.
It doesn't matter what Channel 4 wanted. Ofcom rules are that representation must be offered to parties. Gove was sent as a representative of the party. We do not have a Presidential Election we have a Parliamentary one and Gove is a representative of the party just as much as Johnson is. Channel 4 is not permitted to create its own media rules. Ofcom creates the rules.
And the courts determine whether Ch4's interpretation of those rules is more correct than that of the Conservatives. Thank goodness for the courts. They may not always give the verdict I would prefer but at least they are not in the pocket of the politicians.
Indeed and I suspect Ofcom will side with the BBC and every other media organisation before that the party is entitled to send the representative the party wants to send. There is zero precedence I can think of for Channel 4's outrageous and pathetic stunt. Would you want to see the Chancellor excluded from a debate on the economy?
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny. Very very dangerous.
About time someone did. What kind of person won’t answer that question?
Someone who doesn't want to bring his kids into the glare of politics. The follow up to that question would inevitably be people trying to identify those kids and they would end up in the media spotlight. How is that fair or reasonable on them if that's not wanted? It doesn't have a single thing to do with politics or running the country.
Ferrari pointed out the Boris has commented on other people's kids highlighting his hypocrisy on the issue.
He is also using his own dad as a surrogate, so obviously non political family members are allowed to be in the media spotlight as long as it isn't embarrassing for the PM.
You don't see a difference between consensual adults and children? 🙄😲
Ferrari didn't ask who those children were, or to interview them. Just how many he had.
I thought he did it last election in marginal seats where the Lib Dems were actually in the running? Not in seats where the Lib Dems are a distant nowhere.
Afaik he only did it in Jo Swinson's seat in 2017, however perhaps the great man can confirm?
In Jo Swinson's seat in 2017 it was suitable. That was a seat the Lib Dems were the primary contender for as the result and evidence showed. Some of these seats though it is entirely unsuitable. If the Our Genial Host seriously thinks the Liberal Democrats are in the running to win Warrington South then I'm curious the logic and given the odds of 66/1 available I wonder how much he's got riding on that? Similar for the other seats that both the polls and odds show the Lib Dems are nowhere near.
Sounds like he's fighting the good fight to keep Jezza out to me - more power to him.
The logic of that is that the things he posts here may be equally misleading.
You mean you bought the 'Tory remainers can safely vote Lib Dem" line? He's obviously working a party line - which is the same as most people and he's fully entitled to do it.
It depends surely if he's claiming it as a party activist or on his own credibility. I would think the latter would be quite important to him?
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage.
In addition, the other leaders apparently would have not taken part had Gove been allowed in. As you say, it was set up as a leaders debate, and Johnson declined the opportunity. He's entirely entitled to have done so, but not to complain about the consequences of his decision. "Subversion of democracy" LOL.
It was billed as a Climate debate. The name for it was Climate Debate and they were using the hashtag #ClimateDebate. Seems to me that having a senior Cabinet Minister who set the parties Climate policies would be eminently appropriate. Ofcom rules say representation must be given to parties, not leaders. Gove is entirely suited to represent the party. Had this been a debate on the economy would you have been approving of denying the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity to take part in that?
As the other party leaders would have walked out, he was being denied nothing. The Tories made their bed with their attitude to the Corbyn/Johnson debate. And their evidently frit leader.
The other party leaders would have walked out at having to debate climate change with a former SoS in charge of DEFRA? And Johnson is the one who's frit?
My feeling at the momo is there are 4 elections going on 1) in a line south of the wash/bristol channel a rerun of 2017 with limited changes except for.. 2) london which is seeing a fracturing of labour dominance (that may well not translate into much seat wise this time around but will make the first post GE mayor polls interesting) 3) scotland which is becoming an SNP vs Tory slugfest with the SNP well ahead on points but the Tories possibly entrenching a few seats as safe Scottish havens. Lds just trying to save Jo and tread water, and possibly failing, labour gone gone gone and 4) the Midlands and north where my feeling is labour are overstated and are in for an absolute horror show. This is where the usual non voters/only voted fir Brexit I'll do it one more time votes are and are imo under the polling radar. There will be some eye watering swings Morning all by the way
Interesting and IMO accurate analysis. Love to see more of this type of thing and less of the other type of thing from your pen.
You get plenty of meat from me along with a side of bitter gruel. I hope PBers took advantage of my 20/1 SCons in Kirkcakdy tip from last night for example! Absurdly long price given the SNP withdrawing support from their candidate, slab implosion and the SCons starting from 23%
Not attending was a political act. Talking about that political act is news. Highlighting political acts of the PM is their job. This is what you sound like: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids
A Conservative did attend. Parties are entitled to choose who they send to the media, not the other way around. There is no precedence or Ofcom rule for what Channel 4 did.
Ch4 wanted a leaders debate on climate. Tories refused to send their leader, as did the BXP. Both were treated the same, with an ice sculpture in their place. Any commentary beforehand about the PM not being there being disproportionate to Farage not being there is pretty justifiable because the PM is magnitudes more important than Farage. Ch4 is free to pick the debate rules it wants and enforce them, that is up to them. If Johnson and the Tories refuse to accept those rules, the consequences are down to them. The media is not here to kowtow to the whims of politicians, it is there to hold them to account, and if they refuse to be held account on an equal footing, that is news. Therefore the news media should talk about it. So they did.
It doesn't matter what Channel 4 wanted. Ofcom rules are that representation must be offered to parties. Gove was sent as a representative of the party. We do not have a Presidential Election we have a Parliamentary one and Gove is a representative of the party just as much as Johnson is. Channel 4 is not permitted to create its own media rules. Ofcom creates the rules.
And the courts determine whether Ch4's interpretation of those rules is more correct than that of the Conservatives. Thank goodness for the courts. They may not always give the verdict I would prefer but at least they are not in the pocket of the politicians.
Indeed and I suspect Ofcom will side with the BBC and every other media organisation before that the party is entitled to send the representative the party wants to send. There is zero precedence I can think of for Channel 4's outrageous and pathetic stunt. Would you want to see the Chancellor excluded from a debate on the economy?
Or, as noted last night, a leaders debate on defence and (for example) labour sending Nia Griffith and Ch4 saying nope, we will put this giant white surrender flag there instead
I thought he did it last election in marginal seats where the Lib Dems were actually in the running? Not in seats where the Lib Dems are a distant nowhere.
Afaik he only did it in Jo Swinson's seat in 2017, however perhaps the great man can confirm?
In Jo Swinson's seat in 2017 it was suitable. That was a seat the Lib Dems were the primary contender for as the result and evidence showed. Some of these seats though it is entirely unsuitable. If the Our Genial Host seriously thinks the Liberal Democrats are in the running to win Warrington South then I'm curious the logic and given the odds of 66/1 available I wonder how much he's got riding on that? Similar for the other seats that both the polls and odds show the Lib Dems are nowhere near.
Sounds like he's fighting the good fight to keep Jezza out to me - more power to him.
The logic of that is that the things he posts here may be equally misleading.
Newsflash: guy who runs personal blog will occasionally post personal opinions on personal blog.
It doesn't matter what Channel 4 wanted. Ofcom rules are that representation must be offered to parties. Gove was sent as a representative of the party. We do not have a Presidential Election we have a Parliamentary one and Gove is a representative of the party just as much as Johnson is. Channel 4 is not permitted to create its own media rules. Ofcom creates the rules.
FWIW, Stephen Bush disagrees with you:
"The Conservatives are threatening to take Channel 4 to Ofcom, but the broadcaster's rights are clear: they have an obligation to grant an equal opportunity to the leader of those parties but if those leaders decline they can response as they wish. But the complaint - and the threat by that party to revisit Channel 4's license after the election - is the latest example of the ruling party's willingness to break norms to avoid scrutiny."
I'd be mildly (though not very) interested to see the official Ofcom chapter & verse.
The letter signed by Mike Smithson begins "The election in Battersea is between the Labour and the Liberal Democrats."
It's deliberately misleading. I'm surprised it's not illegal and, unless it's being done without his consent, seriously undermining his brand.
Political leaflet reform proposal: Any leaflet claiming that Party X had a better chance in the seat that Party Y implicitly constitutes an offer to bet, at evens, that Party X will beat Party Y.
The figures for those no longer voting are not so explicit, so a couple of first order approximations have been made (1) that 2019 electoral roll is of similar size to 2017 - roll size hasn't changed by much judging by end of year stats, so 1% of 2017 electorate is approx 1% of 2019 electorate for a given turnout (2) YouGov don't split lost 2017 voters, they just state who is left, so I've gone with the assumption that no longer eligibles are an approx mirror image of newly eligibles and the rest of the loss for each party is DNV
2019 no longer eligibles (died or 15yrs an ex-pat): assumed 2.5% of 2017 ~= 2.5% of 19 Assumed break: -1.2% Con, -0.5% Lab
2019 newly DNVs: assumed 10.8% of current electorate (YouGov turnout figures by GE17 VI suggest close to 10%) Assumed break: -3.8% Con, -5.7% Lab
In any case in total from YouGov, 34.8% of GE19 electorate will be Lab 17 voters, as against 41% last time -> 6.2% (of total 2027 electorate) gone 38.5% of GE19 will be Con 17 voters, meaning 5% of electorate gone
CONCLUSIONS: electorate churn driving an approximate 1% Labour to Tory swing in GE19 eligibility churn, approx 0.7% Con to Lab swing is more than cancelled by turnout churn, approx 1.7% Lab to Con swing
Interesting because few normal polls are quite so explicit on voter changeover, so the standard common knowledge of demographic assumptions, that things will trend leftwards, is rarely challenged in numbers.
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories.
Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny. Very very dangerous.
About time someone did. What kind of person won’t answer that question?
Someone who doesn't want to bring his kids into the glare of politics. The follow up to that question would inevitably be people trying to identify those kids and they would end up in the media spotlight. How is that fair or reasonable on them if that's not wanted? It doesn't have a single thing to do with politics or running the country.
Ferrari pointed out the Boris has commented on other people's kids highlighting his hypocrisy on the issue.
He is also using his own dad as a surrogate, so obviously non political family members are allowed to be in the media spotlight as long as it isn't embarrassing for the PM.
You don't see a difference between consensual adults and children? 🙄😲
Ferrari didn't ask who those children were, or to interview them. Just how many he had.
Don't be an idiot. The second he answers that question people across the internet and media will be trying to identify who they are. For what? What business is it of the media's? Its not a matter of politics.
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny.
About time someone did. What kind of person won’t answer that question?
Someone who doesn't want to bring his kids into the glare of politics. The follow up to that question would inevitably be people trying to identify those kids and they would end up in the media spotlight. How is that fair or reasonable on them if that's not wanted? It doesn't have a single thing to do with politics or running the country.
Ferrari pointed out the Boris has commented on other people's kids highlighting his hypocrisy on the issue.
He is also using his own dad as a surrogate, so obviously non political family members are allowed to be in the media spotlight as long as it isn't embarrassing for the PM.
Or, as long as they're adults who can make an informed choice?
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny. Very very dangerous.
About time someone did. What kind of person won’t answer that question?
Someone who doesn't want to bring his kids into the glare of politics. The follow up to that question would inevitably be people trying to identify those kids and they would end up in the media spotlight. How is that fair or reasonable on them if that's not wanted? It doesn't have a single thing to do with politics or running the country.
Ferrari pointed out the Boris has commented on other people's kids highlighting his hypocrisy on the issue.
He is also using his own dad as a surrogate, so obviously non political family members are allowed to be in the media spotlight as long as it isn't embarrassing for the PM.
You don't see a difference between consensual adults and children? 🙄😲
Ferrari didn't ask who those children were, or to interview them. Just how many he had.
Don't be an idiot. The second he answers that question people across the internet and media will be trying to identify who they are. For what? What business is it of the media's? Its not a matter of politics.
So it was the business of the media that Ed Miliband wasn't married, (see the Daily Mail when he was elected as leader), and it is the business of the media that Dianne Abbott is Corbyn's ex, but it is not the business of the media to know if the PM has illegitimate children and/or fulfils his legal obligations to those children?
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage.
In addition, the other leaders apparently would have not taken part had Gove been allowed in. As you say, it was set up as a leaders debate, and Johnson declined the opportunity. He's entirely entitled to have done so, but not to complain about the consequences of his decision. "Subversion of democracy" LOL.
It was billed as a Climate debate. The name for it was Climate Debate and they were using the hashtag #ClimateDebate. Seems to me that having a senior Cabinet Minister who set the parties Climate policies would be eminently appropriate. Ofcom rules say representation must be given to parties, not leaders. Gove is entirely suited to represent the party. Had this been a debate on the economy would you have been approving of denying the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity to take part in that?
As the other party leaders would have walked out, he was being denied nothing. The Tories made their bed with their attitude to the Corbyn/Johnson debate. And their evidently frit leader.
The other party leaders would have walked out at having to debate climate change with a former SoS in charge of DEFRA? And Johnson is the one who's frit?
No - they had agreed to a leaders debate. Insisting on status is not unreasonable, and has the side effect of very effectively pointing out the priority the current Tory leader gives to the issue.
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories.
Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
A lot of increasingly desperate thrashing about for a gotcha moment going on
My feeling at the momo is there are 4 elections going on 1) in a line south of the wash/bristol channel a rerun of 2017 with limited changes except for.. 2) london which is seeing a fracturing of labour dominance (that may well not translate into much seat wise this time around but will make the first post GE mayor polls interesting) 3) scotland which is becoming an SNP vs Tory slugfest with the SNP well ahead on points but the Tories possibly entrenching a few seats as safe Scottish havens. Lds just trying to save Jo and tread water, and possibly failing, labour gone gone gone and 4) the Midlands and north where my feeling is labour are overstated and are in for an absolute horror show. This is where the usual non voters/only voted fir Brexit I'll do it one more time votes are and are imo under the polling radar. There will be some eye watering swings Morning all by the way
Interesting and IMO accurate analysis. Love to see more of this type of thing and less of the other type of thing from your pen.
You get plenty of meat from me along with a side of bitter gruel. I hope PBers took advantage of my 20/1 SCons in Kirkcakdy tip from last night for example! Absurdly long price given the SNP withdrawing support from their candidate, slab implosion and the SCons starting from 23%
Betfair had them at 22/1.
Beyfair let me have £1.25 on them.
Kirkcaldy may be the birthplace of Adam Smith but if it falls to the Tories we truly are living in the End Times.
I have no objection to Labour and other parties using this attack line. The issue is entirely with Channel 4 failing miserably to even offer the pretence that they're unbiased. The story is more about what Channel 4 did than what Johnson did (or didn't do). They've become the story; which, as journalists, is always an issue
Similar with the BBC and Neil if they secured Corbyn on the basis that they had Johnson when they didn't.
It doesn't matter what Channel 4 wanted. Ofcom rules are that representation must be offered to parties. Gove was sent as a representative of the party. We do not have a Presidential Election we have a Parliamentary one and Gove is a representative of the party just as much as Johnson is. Channel 4 is not permitted to create its own media rules. Ofcom creates the rules.
FWIW, Stephen Bush disagrees with you: "The Conservatives are threatening to take Channel 4 to Ofcom, but the broadcaster's rights are clear: they have an obligation to grant an equal opportunity to the leader of those parties but if those leaders decline they can response as they wish. But the complaint - and the threat by that party to revisit Channel 4's license after the election - is the latest example of the ruling party's willingness to break norms to avoid scrutiny." I'd be mildly (though not very) interested to see the official Ofcom chapter & verse.
Philip's omniscience regarding Ofcom rules is legendary.
My feeling at the momo is there are 4 elections going on 1) in a line south of the wash/bristol channel a rerun of 2017 with limited changes except for.. 2) london which is seeing a fracturing of labour dominance (that may well not translate into much seat wise this time around but will make the first post GE mayor polls interesting) 3) scotland which is becoming an SNP vs Tory slugfest with the SNP well ahead on points but the Tories possibly entrenching a few seats as safe Scottish havens. Lds just trying to save Jo and tread water, and possibly failing, labour gone gone gone and 4) the Midlands and north where my feeling is labour are overstated and are in for an absolute horror show. This is where the usual non voters/only voted fir Brexit I'll do it one more time votes are and are imo under the polling radar. There will be some eye watering swings Morning all by the way
Interesting and IMO accurate analysis. Love to see more of this type of thing and less of the other type of thing from your pen.
You get plenty of meat from me along with a side of bitter gruel. I hope PBers took advantage of my 20/1 SCons in Kirkcakdy tip from last night for example! Absurdly long price given the SNP withdrawing support from their candidate, slab implosion and the SCons starting from 23%
Betfair had them at 22/1.
Beyfair let me have £1.25 on them.
Kirkcaldy may be the birthplace of Adam Smith but if it falls to the Tories we truly are living in the End Times.
Indeed but it was 36/35/23 last time or thereabouts. Snp have withdrawn support from their candidate, labour are ten points down on 2017. I dont think the Scons are a shoo in but 20/1 is not remotely realistic given the circumstances on the ground. If they did take it, theyll lose it in 2024 to the biggest swing in history!
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories. Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
A lot of increasingly desperate thrashing about for a gotcha moment going on
Whatever the technicalities, it is quite clear the Tories don't give a tuppenny damn about climate change.
The figures for those no longer voting are not so explicit, so a couple of first order approximations have been made (1) that 2019 electoral roll is of similar size to 2017 - roll size hasn't changed by much judging by end of year stats, so 1% of 2017 electorate is approx 1% of 2019 electorate for a given turnout (2) YouGov don't split lost 2017 voters, they just state who is left, so I've gone with the assumption that no longer eligibles are an approx mirror image of newly eligibles and the rest of the loss for each party is DNV
2019 no longer eligibles (died or 15yrs an ex-pat): assumed 2.5% of 2017 ~= 2.5% of 19 Assumed break: -1.2% Con, -0.5% Lab
2019 newly DNVs: assumed 10.8% of current electorate (YouGov turnout figures by GE17 VI suggest close to 10%) Assumed break: -3.8% Con, -5.7% Lab
In any case in total from YouGov, 34.8% of GE19 electorate will be Lab 17 voters, as against 41% last time -> 6.2% (of total 2027 electorate) gone 38.5% of GE19 will be Con 17 voters, meaning 5% of electorate gone
CONCLUSIONS: electorate churn driving an approximate 1% Labour to Tory swing in GE19 eligibility churn, approx 0.7% Con to Lab swing is more than cancelled by turnout churn, approx 1.7% Lab to Con swing
Interesting because few normal polls are quite so explicit on voter changeover, so the standard common knowledge of demographic assumptions, that things will trend leftwards, is rarely challenged in numbers.
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories. Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
A lot of increasingly desperate thrashing about for a gotcha moment going on
Whatever the technicalities, it is quite clear the Tories don't give a tuppenny damn about climate change.
It really doesn't warrant it's own debate in a GE campaign, it's not and has never been the electorates number 1 concern.
Boris Johnson cannot play the "context" argument when his entire attack line on Corbyn has been precisely that. The media is broken.
Off topic: interesting that NE Hampshire and East Hampshire are 2 of 41 seats where the Tory share is projected to go down more than the Labour share according MRP YouGov study.
Presumably due to large swing to the Lib Dems?
Apart from last election when Labour came second, Lib Dems have always done well here. Hinds had a majority of something like 7000 at one point, which isn't that large bearing in mind it's 30,000 now.
I don't think he'll lose his seat - but his majority is going to be cut down a lot. And he might lose it next time.
If his majority gets cut in half say, the Tories are in deep trouble in the South.
Always been a bit libdemmy round there. Lots of London commuters
Edit: although they may get a bit more Conservative with the SW trains strike.
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories. Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
A lot of increasingly desperate thrashing about for a gotcha moment going on
Whatever the technicalities, it is quite clear the Tories don't give a tuppenny damn about climate change.
Brexit will probably decide this election, climate change will not. That is down to the voters and not the Tory party fault.
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories. Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
A lot of increasingly desperate thrashing about for a gotcha moment going on
Whatever the technicalities, it is quite clear the Tories don't give a tuppenny damn about climate change.
It really doesn't warrant it's own debate in a GE campaign, it's not and has never been the electorates number 1 concern.
But it should be, and it does. Sure, the Tory attitude is to downplay or ignore it; that does not alter the reality.
It doesn't matter what Channel 4 wanted. Ofcom rules are that representation must be offered to parties. Gove was sent as a representative of the party. We do not have a Presidential Election we have a Parliamentary one and Gove is a representative of the party just as much as Johnson is. Channel 4 is not permitted to create its own media rules. Ofcom creates the rules.
FWIW, Stephen Bush disagrees with you: "The Conservatives are threatening to take Channel 4 to Ofcom, but the broadcaster's rights are clear: they have an obligation to grant an equal opportunity to the leader of those parties but if those leaders decline they can response as they wish. But the complaint - and the threat by that party to revisit Channel 4's license after the election - is the latest example of the ruling party's willingness to break norms to avoid scrutiny." I'd be mildly (though not very) interested to see the official Ofcom chapter & verse.
Philip's omniscience regarding Ofcom rules is legendary.
Have you not been paying attention? The rules were much quoted by the Liberal Democrats in the lead up to their court case, and again in the complaint that has been filed in an open document by the Tories. The quoted rules say "parties" not "leaders of parties". Gove is a member of the party and a representative for the party.
It doesn't matter what Channel 4 wanted. Ofcom rules are that representation must be offered to parties. Gove was sent as a representative of the party. We do not have a Presidential Election we have a Parliamentary one and Gove is a representative of the party just as much as Johnson is. Channel 4 is not permitted to create its own media rules. Ofcom creates the rules.
FWIW, Stephen Bush disagrees with you:
"The Conservatives are threatening to take Channel 4 to Ofcom, but the broadcaster's rights are clear: they have an obligation to grant an equal opportunity to the leader of those parties but if those leaders decline they can response as they wish. But the complaint - and the threat by that party to revisit Channel 4's license after the election - is the latest example of the ruling party's willingness to break norms to avoid scrutiny."
I'd be mildly (though not very) interested to see the official Ofcom chapter & verse.
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories. Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
A lot of increasingly desperate thrashing about for a gotcha moment going on
Whatever the technicalities, it is quite clear the Tories don't give a tuppenny damn about climate change.
It really doesn't warrant it's own debate in a GE campaign, it's not and has never been the electorates number 1 concern.
But it should be, and it does. Sure, the Tory attitude is to downplay or ignore it; that does not alter the reality.
My feeling at the momo is there are 4 elections going on 1) in a line south of the wash/bristol channel a rerun of 2017 with limited changes except for.. 2) london which is seeing a fracturing of labour dominance (that may well not translate into much seat wise this time around but will make the first post GE mayor polls interesting) 3) scotland which is becoming an SNP vs Tory slugfest with the SNP well ahead on points but the Tories possibly entrenching a few seats as safe Scottish havens. Lds just trying to save Jo and tread water, and possibly failing, labour gone gone gone and 4) the Midlands and north where my feeling is labour are overstated and are in for an absolute horror show. This is where the usual non voters/only voted fir Brexit I'll do it one more time votes are and are imo under the polling radar. There will be some eye watering swings Morning all by the way
Interesting and IMO accurate analysis. Love to see more of this type of thing and less of the other type of thing from your pen.
You get plenty of meat from me along with a side of bitter gruel. I hope PBers took advantage of my 20/1 SCons in Kirkcakdy tip from last night for example! Absurdly long price given the SNP withdrawing support from their candidate, slab implosion and the SCons starting from 23%
Betfair had them at 22/1.
Beyfair let me have £1.25 on them.
Kirkcaldy may be the birthplace of Adam Smith but if it falls to the Tories we truly are living in the End Times.
Indeed but it was 36/35/23 last time or thereabouts. Snp have withdrawn support from their candidate, labour are ten points down on 2017. I dont think the Scons are a shoo in but 20/1 is not remotely realistic given the circumstances on the ground. If they did take it, theyll lose it in 2024 to the biggest swing in history!
100/1 would be decent odds. Seriously, have you ever been to Kirkcaldy?
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage.
In addition, the other leaders apparently would have not taken part had Gove been allowed in. As you say, it was set up as a leaders debate, and Johnson declined the opportunity. He's entirely entitled to have done so, but not to complain about the consequences of his decision. "Subversion of democracy" LOL.
It was billed as a Climate debate. The name for it was Climate Debate and they were using the hashtag #ClimateDebate. Seems to me that having a senior Cabinet Minister who set the parties Climate policies would be eminently appropriate. Ofcom rules say representation must be given to parties, not leaders. Gove is entirely suited to represent the party. Had this been a debate on the economy would you have been approving of denying the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity to take part in that?
As the other party leaders would have walked out, he was being denied nothing. The Tories made their bed with their attitude to the Corbyn/Johnson debate. And their evidently frit leader.
The other party leaders would have walked out at having to debate climate change with a former SoS in charge of DEFRA? And Johnson is the one who's frit?
No - they had agreed to a leaders debate. Insisting on status is not unreasonable, and has the side effect of very effectively pointing out the priority the current Tory leader gives to the issue.
They had agreed to a leaders debate when Amber Rudd represented the Tory Party in 2017. This was even billed as a climate debate not a generic leaders debate. Ofcom rules say representation must be offered to parties, the party sent a representative.
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories. Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
A lot of increasingly desperate thrashing about for a gotcha moment going on
Whatever the technicalities, it is quite clear the Tories don't give a tuppenny damn about climate change.
Really? I would be interested to see the extent of the progress the country has made on that front since 2010. Quite a lot, is my impression.
And it isn't even an evil capitalist position to be unconcerned about it. There's money to be made: even I hold a certain amount of TRIG to counterbalance and complement those lovely, lovely rdsb divis.
So it appears we're reaching the Trumpian 'We'd still vote for BJ even if he was caught having a dump on the Cenotaph' end game.
Mmm. Although in some cases with such a heavy heart and only because the alternative is a hung parliament and the very real risk that Jeremy Corbyn will emerge as PM from the subsequent multi party negotiations and then at the head of a minority government proceed to turn us into Venezuela with a side helping of brutal oppression of the wealthy, our jewish citizens, and whatever other minority takes his fancy. Rock. Hard place.
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories. Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
A lot of increasingly desperate thrashing about for a gotcha moment going on
Whatever the technicalities, it is quite clear the Tories don't give a tuppenny damn about climate change.
It really doesn't warrant it's own debate in a GE campaign, it's not and has never been the electorates number 1 concern.
I see why Tories don't want it discussed, particularly by someone as inept as BoZo at interviews and debates! Just caught up with the buffoon on twitter. He really cannot cope, and a complete breakdown on air is very possible. https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1200367347854446592?s=19 Usually it is the opposition chorusing "lock him up!", with BoZo it is Conservative Central Office! Back to work...
It doesn't matter what Channel 4 wanted. Ofcom rules are that representation must be offered to parties. Gove was sent as a representative of the party. We do not have a Presidential Election we have a Parliamentary one and Gove is a representative of the party just as much as Johnson is. Channel 4 is not permitted to create its own media rules. Ofcom creates the rules.
FWIW, Stephen Bush disagrees with you:
"The Conservatives are threatening to take Channel 4 to Ofcom, but the broadcaster's rights are clear: they have an obligation to grant an equal opportunity to the leader of those parties but if those leaders decline they can response as they wish. But the complaint - and the threat by that party to revisit Channel 4's license after the election - is the latest example of the ruling party's willingness to break norms to avoid scrutiny."
I'd be mildly (though not very) interested to see the official Ofcom chapter & verse.
By the end of the show it actually had less viewers than 'The UK's Strongest Man' on Channel 5
Conservative Party Election broadcast on BBC1: 3.6m Celebrity Antiques Road Trip on BBC2 : 1.4m
For those yesterday proclaiming that this was too important for Boris to miss I think these viewing figures speak volumes for how little people care for Channel 4 News and how climate change is not high up public priority lists.
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories. Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
A lot of increasingly desperate thrashing about for a gotcha moment going on
Whatever the technicalities, it is quite clear the Tories don't give a tuppenny damn about climate change.
It really doesn't warrant it's own debate in a GE campaign, it's not and has never been the electorates number 1 concern.
But it should be, and it does. Sure, the Tory attitude is to downplay or ignore it; that does not alter the reality.
More important than "saving the NHS?"
Yes, IMO. Clearly what the UK does is not going to make a huge difference in absolute terms to the global output of CO2. But if someone doesn't demonstrate pretty damn soon that it is possible to re-engineer a country's energy production and usage to cut out CO2, while still maintaining a growth economy, then there is little hope for any global efforts. We are exceedingly well placed to both do that and prosper from it.
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories. Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
A lot of increasingly desperate thrashing about for a gotcha moment going on
Whatever the technicalities, it is quite clear the Tories don't give a tuppenny damn about climate change.
It really doesn't warrant it's own debate in a GE campaign, it's not and has never been the electorates number 1 concern.
Channel 4 is a fringe broadcaster. If they want to have a fringe debate I see no reason why they shoudn't. They have no right to demand the Prime Minister attends it though and fringe parties no doubt will want the attention but for a fringe debate on a fringe channel sending a Secretary of State is entirely appropriate.
The orthodox Rabbis, the letter and the offices that weren’t. It is quite a long read, but very interesting in how the Corbynista online fake news outlets work.....
Suddenly and without warning a pro-Corbyn letter emerged. It was apparently written by a group of ultra-orthodox Rabbis presenting themselves as a group called ‘United European Jews’. The letter condemned the words of the Chief Rabbi. It was dated 26th November, signed by a Rabbi Mayer Weinberger and it carried a letterhead with several other Rabbi’s listed.
The pro-Corbyn machinery sprang to life. Jewish Voice for Labour, Socialist voice, the Canary and Skwawkbox all pushed the letter. JVL’s tweet alone had over 1000 retweets. Official Labour outlets such as ‘Southgate Labour’ retweeted it. The letter went viral....
The letter was circulated with a fake phone number and apparently two fake addresses. The only signature is not even British.
It does feel a lot to me after the climate debate debacle, then McDonnell going all Keegan this morning on the BBC and now outrage over Boris on LBC that the opposition are losing the plot somewhat and are windmilling a lot without any focus, which does seem a good sign for the Tories. Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
A lot of increasingly desperate thrashing about for a gotcha moment going on
Whatever the technicalities, it is quite clear the Tories don't give a tuppenny damn about climate change.
It really doesn't warrant it's own debate in a GE campaign, it's not and has never been the electorates number 1 concern.
I see why Tories don't want it discussed, particularly by someone as inept as BoZo at interviews and debates! Just caught up with the buffoon on twitter. He really cannot cope, and a complete breakdown on air is very possible. https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1200367347854446592?s=19 Usually it is the opposition chorusing "lock him up!", with BoZo it is Conservative Central Office! Back to work...
Sounds like you're the one having a meltdown! Oh dear!
Comments
He’s also a moderate Tory, forward-looking and thoughtful, which helps him.
What is not fair and broke Ofcom rules was excluding the person sent instead. Make fun of the Tories for sending Gove if you want, but you can't exclude the parties representative they choose to send and put up an ice sculpture instead. Channel 4 broke Ofcom rules in line with their well established partisan bias.
https://twitter.com/jnpaquet/status/1200349248786698240
https://twitter.com/baddeepfakes/status/1200342727642288135?s=21
It doesn't have a single thing to do with politics or running the country.
https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/1200166068741902337
So disappointing. Tories literally had this election handed to them on a plate, and they still can't put this election away.
We are heading for stalemate. I want to cry.
There’s nothing else going on today so the dead cat is now the story .
Ofcom rules are that parties are invited and the parties can send representatives. I didn't ignore your question about representation in the Corbyn/Johnson debate I answered it. Invites to that were only sent to the main parties, the fringe parties weren't invited to that but were invited to another show later that night. As Ofcom rules permit.
Nominal debt is going up.
Debt to GDP is going down.
The story is more about what Channel 4 did than what Johnson did (or didn't do). They've become the story; which, as journalists, is always an issue.
Would you want to see the Chancellor excluded from a debate on the economy?
Beyfair let me have £1.25 on them.
"The Conservatives are threatening to take Channel 4 to Ofcom, but the broadcaster's rights are clear: they have an obligation to grant an equal opportunity to the leader of those parties but if those leaders decline they can response as they wish. But the complaint - and the threat by that party to revisit Channel 4's license after the election - is the latest example of the ruling party's willingness to break norms to avoid scrutiny."
I'd be mildly (though not very) interested to see the official Ofcom chapter & verse.
Some slightly rough voter churn figures relative to 2017, according to the MRP:
2019 newly eligibles (18-20 or naturalised) - 2.5% of 2019 electorate
Break 0.5% (of total electorate) Con, 1.2% Labour
2019 previous DNVs - 10.8% of 2019 electorate
Break 4.4% Con, 3.0% Lab
The figures for those no longer voting are not so explicit, so a couple of first order approximations have been made
(1) that 2019 electoral roll is of similar size to 2017 - roll size hasn't changed by much judging by end of year stats, so 1% of 2017 electorate is approx 1% of 2019 electorate for a given turnout
(2) YouGov don't split lost 2017 voters, they just state who is left, so I've gone with the assumption that no longer eligibles are an approx mirror image of newly eligibles and the rest of the loss for each party is DNV
2019 no longer eligibles (died or 15yrs an ex-pat): assumed 2.5% of 2017 ~= 2.5% of 19
Assumed break: -1.2% Con, -0.5% Lab
2019 newly DNVs: assumed 10.8% of current electorate
(YouGov turnout figures by GE17 VI suggest close to 10%)
Assumed break: -3.8% Con, -5.7% Lab
In any case in total from YouGov,
34.8% of GE19 electorate will be Lab 17 voters, as against 41% last time -> 6.2% (of total 2027 electorate) gone
38.5% of GE19 will be Con 17 voters, meaning 5% of electorate gone
CONCLUSIONS:
electorate churn driving an approximate 1% Labour to Tory swing in GE19
eligibility churn, approx 0.7% Con to Lab swing is more than cancelled by
turnout churn, approx 1.7% Lab to Con swing
Interesting because few normal polls are quite so explicit on voter changeover, so the standard common knowledge of demographic assumptions, that things will trend leftwards, is rarely challenged in numbers.
Though I don't approve of it there does seem to be a lot of Tory trolling of the opposition this election and as the Tom McTeague article earlier suggested this campaign is more Lynton Crosby and up until now at least more controlled and successful than 2 years ago.
The second he answers that question people across the internet and media will be trying to identify who they are. For what? What business is it of the media's? Its not a matter of politics.
Insisting on status is not unreasonable, and has the side effect of very effectively pointing out the priority the current Tory leader gives to the issue.
https://twitter.com/Junkyard_Fool/status/1199794683028918273?s=20
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1200368810714263552?s=20
If they did take it, theyll lose it in 2024 to the biggest swing in history!
Edit: although they may get a bit more Conservative with the SW trains strike.
The rules were much quoted by the Liberal Democrats in the lead up to their court case, and again in the complaint that has been filed in an open document by the Tories. The quoted rules say "parties" not "leaders of parties". Gove is a member of the party and a representative for the party.
ii) Bush is wrong - the Tories HAVE complained to OfCom:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1200123409050619905?s=20
And it isn't even an evil capitalist position to be unconcerned about it. There's money to be made: even I hold a certain amount of TRIG to counterbalance and complement those lovely, lovely rdsb divis.
Just caught up with the buffoon on twitter. He really cannot cope, and a complete breakdown on air is very possible.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1200367347854446592?s=19
Usually it is the opposition chorusing "lock him up!", with BoZo it is Conservative Central Office!
Back to work...
By the end of the show it actually had less viewers than 'The UK's Strongest Man' on Channel 5
Conservative Party Election broadcast on BBC1: 3.6m
Celebrity Antiques Road Trip on BBC2 : 1.4m
For those yesterday proclaiming that this was too important for Boris to miss I think these viewing figures speak volumes for how little people care for Channel 4 News and how climate change is not high up public priority lists.
Clearly what the UK does is not going to make a huge difference in absolute terms to the global output of CO2. But if someone doesn't demonstrate pretty damn soon that it is possible to re-engineer a country's energy production and usage to cut out CO2, while still maintaining a growth economy, then there is little hope for any global efforts.
We are exceedingly well placed to both do that and prosper from it.
They have no right to demand the Prime Minister attends it though and fringe parties no doubt will want the attention but for a fringe debate on a fringe channel sending a Secretary of State is entirely appropriate.
Suddenly and without warning a pro-Corbyn letter emerged. It was apparently written by a group of ultra-orthodox Rabbis presenting themselves as a group called ‘United European Jews’. The letter condemned the words of the Chief Rabbi. It was dated 26th November, signed by a Rabbi Mayer Weinberger and it carried a letterhead with several other Rabbi’s listed.
The pro-Corbyn machinery sprang to life. Jewish Voice for Labour, Socialist voice, the Canary and Skwawkbox all pushed the letter. JVL’s tweet alone had over 1000 retweets. Official Labour outlets such as ‘Southgate Labour’ retweeted it. The letter went viral....
The letter was circulated with a fake phone number and apparently two fake addresses. The only signature is not even British.
http://david-collier.com/letter-orthodox-rabbi/
And if Jezza wins in two weeks he is going to give public money to these "media" outlets.