A few things to take from this People of Colour/Talent episode.
1) Twitter has destroyed journalism in this country and it is very close to destroying the very essence of truth. Journalists simply do not operate within editorial boundaries on Twitter. Channel 4 need severely reprimanding for their role in this affair as an example to all.
2) A great many people got exposed as being part of the hive-mind of Twitter. In one respect this episode is a salutary lesson for them but will it be heeded? Doubtful.
3) By accident, this episode reveals the dangers in the next few years of the deep fake videos. If you have the hive-mind of Twitter searching for a gotcha moment and you have someone else ready to supply it, then its clear we are about to enter a new era where truth is destroyed. I'm sure our enemies are rubbing their hands with glee.
Very fair, but in this case the thinking (and hearing) was conditioned by Boris' past record of far worse casual racism. I suspect there would have been much more investigation had he not had such a record.
ah, so it is actually Boris' fault.
burning hot take, pal. Burning.
I assume you can read - in which case you are deliberately misrepresenting and would get a ban on many sites. I did not say it was his fault. I said his past had conditioned the response of others. If you do not understand the difference you are even dimmer than Mark Francois.
According to your logic, if someone said 2+2=5 yesterday, we should disbelieve them when they say 2+2=4 today.
You are also misrepresenting. Is there an epidemic of stupidity on PB today? I said nothing about what is the truth. I made a comment about past events conditioning understanding and response to new events, regardless of what is true or not. In this case people who were aware of Boris' past of casual racism were conditioned to hear words which reinforced their existing belief that he is a racist.
A few things to take from this People of Colour/Talent episode.
1) Twitter has destroyed journalism in this country and it is very close to destroying the very essence of truth. Journalists simply do not operate within editorial boundaries on Twitter. Channel 4 need severely reprimanding for their role in this affair as an example to all.
2) A great many people got exposed as being part of the hive-mind of Twitter. In one respect this episode is a salutary lesson for them but will it be heeded? Doubtful.
3) By accident, this episode reveals the dangers in the next few years of the deep fake videos. If you have the hive-mind of Twitter searching for a gotcha moment and you have someone else ready to supply it, then its clear we are about to enter a new era where truth is destroyed. I'm sure our enemies are rubbing their hands with glee.
The depressing thing is how quickly people have allowed Twitter to do all the things you mention after hundreds of years of most journalists endeavouring to be as truthful and accurate as possible.
Wait until the US elections this time next year - it’s going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news and altered videos
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Won’t affect my vote though.
If you were 50/50 to vote for him it might though. Of course it isnt going to change many votes, nothing does, but if it changes even 1% of the countries votes it will be one of the top 10 factors in the campaign.
A few things to take from this People of Colour/Talent episode.
1) Twitter has destroyed journalism in this country and it is very close to destroying the very essence of truth. Journalists simply do not operate within editorial boundaries on Twitter. Channel 4 need severely reprimanding for their role in this affair as an example to all.
2) A great many people got exposed as being part of the hive-mind of Twitter. In one respect this episode is a salutary lesson for them but will it be heeded? Doubtful.
3) By accident, this episode reveals the dangers in the next few years of the deep fake videos. If you have the hive-mind of Twitter searching for a gotcha moment and you have someone else ready to supply it, then its clear we are about to enter a new era where truth is destroyed. I'm sure our enemies are rubbing their hands with glee.
The depressing thing is how quickly people have allowed Twitter to do all the things you mention after hundreds of years of most journalists endeavouring to be as truthful and accurate as possible.
Wait until the US elections this time next year - it’s going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news and altered videos, with Google, Facebook and Twitter right in the middle of it.
I think that, no matter who wins, there will be cross-party support for taking these companies down a peg or two.
Won’t that run into problems with the First Amendment?
I'm a long-time 'Ding Dong' voter but this time I've switched allegiance to the Carol of the Bells. I think there will be a big swing for them this year.
All these Conservative soldiers for truth might profitably spend a couple of minutes dissecting the Prime Minister’s claim, made today, that there will be no customs declarations on goods being sent from Northern Ireland to GB.
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Won’t affect my vote though.
And it will not affect the vote of most people. But at the fringes, where votes are fluid, it can only be a negative, albeit with a small effect.
Note that Boris Johnson is by far the lowest ranked of all the higher of the pairs. There are huge numbers of voters hostile to both. How they resolve their distaste for both is going to decide this election.
Unfortunately, despite 'other alternatives are available', its likely they'd just hold their nose and vote for the other one.
And therefore, Johnson will get his majority.
You're assuming that Boris Johnson is the preferred choice of those who dislike both.
Yes. Yes I am Alastair. I wish it were not so, but I think that is where we will end up. With a leader who is disliked slightly less than Corbyn.
It's been a pretty terrible election. Roll on 2024.
On a point of information, couldn't the next election squeak into 2025, if we have another five week campaign?
It’s currently set to be the first Thursday in May, 2024, under the terms of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
(Assuming that Act isn’t replaced by the incoming Parliament, of course - which is a big assumption!)
I'm a long-time 'Ding Dong' voter but this time I've switched allegiance to the Carol of the Bells. I think there will be a big swing for them this year.
*in the Britain's favourite carol poll
All those who vote for the crap version of "In the Bleak Midwinter" should be taken out and shot.
Note that Boris Johnson is by far the lowest ranked of all the higher of the pairs. There are huge numbers of voters hostile to both. How they resolve their distaste for both is going to decide this election.
Unfortunately, despite 'other alternatives are available', its likely they'd just hold their nose and vote for the other one.
And therefore, Johnson will get his majority.
You're assuming that Boris Johnson is the preferred choice of those who dislike both.
Yes. Yes I am Alastair. I wish it were not so, but I think that is where we will end up. With a leader who is disliked slightly less than Corbyn.
It's been a pretty terrible election. Roll on 2024.
On a point of information, couldn't the next election squeak into 2025, if we have another five week campaign?
Only if the FTPA is repealed/replaced. Currently the election has to be on "the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell."
A few things to take from this People of Colour/Talent episode.
1) Twitter has destroyed journalism in this country and it is very close to destroying the very essence of truth. Journalists simply do not operate within editorial boundaries on Twitter. Channel 4 need severely reprimanding for their role in this affair as an example to all.
2) A great many people got exposed as being part of the hive-mind of Twitter. In one respect this episode is a salutary lesson for them but will it be heeded? Doubtful.
3) By accident, this episode reveals the dangers in the next few years of the deep fake videos. If you have the hive-mind of Twitter searching for a gotcha moment and you have someone else ready to supply it, then its clear we are about to enter a new era where truth is destroyed. I'm sure our enemies are rubbing their hands with glee.
Very fair, but in this case the thinking (and hearing) was conditioned by Boris' past record of far worse casual racism. I suspect there would have been much more investigation had he not had such a record.
ah, so it is actually Boris' fault.
burning hot take, pal. Burning.
I assume you can read - in which case you are deliberately misrepresenting and would get a ban on many sites. I did not say it was his fault. I said his past had conditioned the response of others. If you do not understand the difference you are even dimmer than Mark Francois.
According to your logic, if someone said 2+2=5 yesterday, we should disbelieve them when they say 2+2=4 today.
If someone says 2+2=5 then we should consider them untrustworthy. Untrustworthy people still tell the truth sometimes, but they have to do a lot of truth telling before we consider them to be trustworthy again.
I think Boris will do the Neil interview if his focus groups start saying it would be disastrous not to do it.
They won't. His focus groups will never have heard of Andrew Neill, and whatever issues emerge from tonight's debate will dominate the rest of the campaign.
PB Tories prepare for a change of underwear. OGH is right that the difference in positive ratings is a better predictor of the result than the difference in the net ratings. If you run a simple regression of vote share on both the positive and the negative ratings differential using data from 1979 (10 observations) then the coefficient on the positive rating differential is about 10x that on the negative one. For 2019 it predicts... A 6.8% Tory lead. 2.2pp standard deviation. DYOR.
They also predicted 2017 when few other signs did.
This and consumer confidence makes me slightly more confident in my prediction.
Can you show how you got to 6.8% Tory lead?
What do your calculations show for 2017?
Regression of actual vote share of govt Vs opposition on positive rating differential and negative rating differential. 10 elections since 1979. Predicted 1.8pp Vs 2.5pp actual in 2017.
How does it hold up for 2015?
5.9 Vs 6.4 actual. If you run it out of sample for 2015/7 (ie using only data through 2010) the results hardly change.
What's the r^2 correlation on net, positive and negative ?
I'm a long-time 'Ding Dong' voter but this time I've switched allegiance to the Carol of the Bells. I think there will be a big swing for them this year.
PB Tories prepare for a change of underwear. OGH is right that the difference in positive ratings is a better predictor of the result than the difference in the net ratings. If you run a simple regression of vote share on both the positive and the negative ratings differential using data from 1979 (10 observations) then the coefficient on the positive rating differential is about 10x that on the negative one. For 2019 it predicts... A 6.8% Tory lead. 2.2pp standard deviation. DYOR.
They also predicted 2017 when few other signs did.
This and consumer confidence makes me slightly more confident in my prediction.
Can you show how you got to 6.8% Tory lead?
What do your calculations show for 2017?
Regression of actual vote share of govt Vs opposition on positive rating differential and negative rating differential. 10 elections since 1979. Predicted 1.8pp Vs 2.5pp actual in 2017.
How does it hold up for 2015?
5.9 Vs 6.4 actual. If you run it out of sample for 2015/7 (ie using only data through 2010) the results hardly change.
What's the r^2 correlation on net, positive and negative ?
Net 92%, positive 94%, negative 86%, both included separately 94%. Negative is not statistically significant, once you include positive, it's the positive score that matters. If you run it out of sample the predictions for 2015 and 2017 underpredict the Tory lead by 0.7 and 0.9pp respectively. But in this case the prediction for 2019 is 6.5 not 7.0.
They could have done and in the past they almost certainly would have done. But in the age of Twitter - who cares about the truth? The key output metric is whether a Twitter-mob can be whipped up.
Is it Twitter though? Or is it people? Twitter is merely a platform.
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Won’t affect my vote though.
And it will not affect the vote of most people. But at the fringes, where votes are fluid, it can only be a negative, albeit with a small effect.
If he does the interview and it's a probable car crash, it will become mainstream and affect a far wider percentage of the voting fringe. There's a reason why the Labour party are so wound up about this. It's pretty obvious they want Boris to do a damaging interview on the eve of a general election.
I'm a long-time 'Ding Dong' voter but this time I've switched allegiance to the Carol of the Bells. I think there will be a big swing for them this year.
*in the Britain's favourite carol poll
I've checked Youtube and you are wrong. A churchgoing friend once observed that the once or twice a year Christmas, weddings and rememberance crowd want the carols and hymns they learned 40 years ago, whereas regulars prefer more modern hymns, and the choir would be happiest showing off mediaeval harmonies. I do not know what our resident church organist makes of it all.
Notice only Blair won while behind on net satisfaction ratings to the leader of the opposition in 2005 (albeit still losing 48 Labour seats). However Blair still led Howard as best PM which is not the case for Corbyn and Boris.
When do we need to start looking at whether it is appropriate to release such opinion polls a few days before an election?
The counterargument is that if you don't release scientific data the information vacuum just gets filled with all sorts of fake news, fake polls and gossip that ends up confusing people. In those circumstances, it's better to have scientific polls in the public domain. In theory you could try to have an information black-out, but in practice people would try to fill it, especially in the internet age.
I agree there are pros and cons but I think a proper discussion needs to be had.
The Civil Service is extremely careful during purdah yet we allow private companies free reign to release what they want within two days of an election?
That's putting aside the fact that the supply of the information is endogenous to the result they are trying to predict.
All these Conservative soldiers for truth might profitably spend a couple of minutes dissecting the Prime Minister’s claim, made today, that there will be no customs declarations on goods being sent from Northern Ireland to GB.
Indeed and Neil or rather his researchers did a superb job dissecting the pledges in the Conservative Manifesto.
The detailed lines of questioning Neil was going to rise weren't going to be easy for Boris to shrug off - clearly, IF he does the interview he will need to be very well coached on the answers and much more on top of subjects than he has appeared at times.
Of course Corbyn would be a catastrophe for the country but I have serious reservations about Johnson and his programme. The economic policy seems predicated on the view there would be an economic downturn on leaving the EU irrespective of the circumstances and the idea is to put as much stimulus into the economy but spending and tax cutting in an attempt to mitigate this.
Today's borrowing is tomorrow's tax rise or spending cut so for all the largesse on offer now there will be a reckoning sooner or later - perhaps Johnson is hoping that can be post-2024 - I doubt he's thought that far ahead.
All these Conservative soldiers for truth might profitably spend a couple of minutes dissecting the Prime Minister’s claim, made today, that there will be no customs declarations on goods being sent from Northern Ireland to GB.
Credit where credit is due. He is a liar of talent.
I'm a long-time 'Ding Dong' voter but this time I've switched allegiance to the Carol of the Bells. I think there will be a big swing for them this year.
*in the Britain's favourite carol poll
I've checked Youtube and you are wrong. A churchgoing friend once observed that the once or twice a year Christmas, weddings and rememberance crowd want the carols and hymns they learned 40 years ago, whereas regulars prefer more modern hymns, and the choir would be happiest showing off mediaeval harmonies. I do not know what our resident church organist makes of it all.
There are some journalists on Twitter who made absolutely no attempt to hide their personal political opinions. A lot of people probably admire them for it because at least they're "being honest". But I remember when I first started watching the news and it was presented by people like Michael Buerk, Moira Stuart, Trevor MacDonald, Martyn Lewis, etc, you had no idea which party they supported even though you'd been watching them present hundreds of programmes over many years.
A few things to take from this People of Colour/Talent episode.
1) Twitter has destroyed journalism in this country and it is very close to destroying the very essence of truth. Journalists simply do not operate within editorial boundaries on Twitter. Channel 4 need severely reprimanding for their role in this affair as an example to all.
2) A great many people got exposed as being part of the hive-mind of Twitter. In one respect this episode is a salutary lesson for them but will it be heeded? Doubtful.
3) By accident, this episode reveals the dangers in the next few years of the deep fake videos. If you have the hive-mind of Twitter searching for a gotcha moment and you have someone else ready to supply it, then its clear we are about to enter a new era where truth is destroyed. I'm sure our enemies are rubbing their hands with glee.
The depressing thing is how quickly people have allowed Twitter to do all the things you mention after hundreds of years of most journalists endeavouring to be as truthful and accurate as possible.
Wait until the US elections this time next year - it’s going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news and altered videos, with Google, Facebook and Twitter right in the middle of it.
I think that, no matter who wins, there will be cross-party support for taking these companies down a peg or two.
Won’t that run into problems with the First Amendment?
It would depend on exactly what was proposed, would probably have to be along the ‘more speech’ route such as forcing adverts to declare who paid for them, and allowing official politician accounts to flag posts as factually disputed.
Facebook and Google could also end up embroiled in antitrust investigation for years, over monopolistic behaviours and acquisition of nascent competitors.
There are some journalists on Twitter who made absolutely no attempt to hide their personal political opinions. A lot of people probably admire them for it because at least they're "being honest". But I remember when I first started watching the news and it was presented by people like Michael Buerk, Moira Stuart, Trevor MacDonald, Martyn Lewis, etc, you had no idea which party they supported even though you'd been watching them present hundreds of programmes over many years.
Well or even if you do have an idea, they don't half give it out to those of all political parties e.g. Andrew Neil. Also, Paxman, he came out as a Tory, but most Tory ministers / shadow ministers used to shit themselves having to go on Newsnight and face him in his prime.
The likes of Lewis Goddall does himself no favours basically running his twitter feed as a Labour PPB.
Note that Boris Johnson is by far the lowest ranked of all the higher of the pairs. There are huge numbers of voters hostile to both. How they resolve their distaste for both is going to decide this election.
Assuming the Conservatives win, I expect the next round of local elections will be torrid.
2019 will be the election the Conservatives wish they'd never won. There will be a recession in the next five years, and (rightly or wrongly) their handling of Brexit will get the blame.
We will also see house prices down meaningfully (15-20%) in nominal terms. The young won't thank the Conservatives, and the old will be livid.
Johnson will turn out to be just the man you don't want in charge for this. But having remodeled the Conservative Party in his own image, he'll prove difficult to shift.
If the Labour Party have chosen a moderate as their leader, this won't matter too much. But if they manage to pick Corbyn 2.0 (younger, fitter, less economically sane), then the country will lurch to the hard Left in 2024, and it will all be pretty horrible.
It's a good thing I don't own any overpriced London real estate... oh wait...
They won't, the Tories will win again outside London in 2024 if they win this time or at least be largest party, the country does not want the hard left. Indeed if Chuka wins Cities of London and Westminster and Swinson loses the LDs might be leading opinion polls by 2024 anyway if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place
There are some journalists on Twitter who made absolutely no attempt to hide their personal political opinions. A lot of people probably admire them for it because at least they're "being honest". But I remember when I first started watching the news and it was presented by people like Michael Buerk, Moira Stuart, Trevor MacDonald, Martyn Lewis, etc, you had no idea which party they supported even though you'd been watching them present hundreds of programmes over many years.
Yes, completely agree. It's especially bad when they allowed their opinions to leak into their questions and assumptions, as I always felt John Humphries and Jeremy Paxman tended to do. It's a side-effect of the general undesirability of making the interviewer the star of the story (and that means Andrew Neil too).
I'm a long-time 'Ding Dong' voter but this time I've switched allegiance to the Carol of the Bells. I think there will be a big swing for them this year.
*in the Britain's favourite carol poll
Do you have a link?
It's on the ClassicFM website.
It Came Upon a Midnight Clear for me; best congregational carol by miles.
There seems to be a bit of a battle going on in the government about the regulatory/tariff loss risks of the Irish Sea crossing, with the Treasury lobbying for more checks and other departments pushing different approaches.
They could have done and in the past they almost certainly would have done. But in the age of Twitter - who cares about the truth? The key output metric is whether a Twitter-mob can be whipped up.
Is it Twitter though? Or is it people? Twitter is merely a platform.
It's way beyond just being a platform. It changes the way people behave for the worse. It literally rewards: (1) attention seeking; (2) the first-mover; (3) herd-like thinking; (4) simplicity. It discourages: (1) patience; (2) due-diligence; (3) complexity; (4) alternative points of view.
Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp groups etc. each have their own peculiar negative social feedback loops. But Twitter is by far the worse IMO.
I don’t agree with this good election to lose/ bad election to win motif.
People have been saying that about the Conservatives at every election since 2010. In fact, aside from 1997, and possibly 2001 and maybe even 1987, I can’t think of any “rosy” elections to win in the last 50 years. And possibly not before either. You never know what’s over the horizon.
If you’re in politics you’re in politics to win. Governing is never easy, and your agenda is always at the mercy of events, but you can do nothing without power.
If he does the interview and it's a probable car crash, it will become mainstream and affect a far wider percentage of the voting fringe. There's a reason why the Labour party are so wound up about this. It's pretty obvious they want Boris to do a damaging interview on the eve of a general election.
He's not going to do it, wisely IMO.
He won't do it and he shouldn't do it. The Neil takedown has 5m views and is only going higher. It is as damaging as Corbyn's crap interview was. Perhaps more so. We're quits. It's a negative each. It would now be unfair on "Boris" if he had to go and do the actual interview as well - since this would give him a double disaster to Jeremy's one. This issue is closed for me.
Note that Boris Johnson is by far the lowest ranked of all the higher of the pairs. There are huge numbers of voters hostile to both. How they resolve their distaste for both is going to decide this election.
Assuming the Conservatives win, I expect the next round of local elections will be torrid.
2019 will be the election the Conservatives wish they'd never won. There will be a recession in the next five years, and (rightly or wrongly) their handling of Brexit will get the blame.
We will also see house prices down meaningfully (15-20%) in nominal terms. The young won't thank the Conservatives, and the old will be livid.
Johnson will turn out to be just the man you don't want in charge for this. But having remodeled the Conservative Party in his own image, he'll prove difficult to shift.
If the Labour Party have chosen a moderate as their leader, this won't matter too much. But if they manage to pick Corbyn 2.0 (younger, fitter, less economically sane), then the country will lurch to the hard Left in 2024, and it will all be pretty horrible.
It's a good thing I don't own any overpriced London real estate... oh wait...
They won't, the Tories will win again outside London in 2024 if they win this time or at least be largest party, the country does not want the hard left. Indeed if Chuka wins Cities of London and Westminster and Swinson loses the LDs might be leading opinion polls by 2024 anyway if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place
"if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place"
There are some journalists on Twitter who made absolutely no attempt to hide their personal political opinions. A lot of people probably admire them for it because at least they're "being honest". But I remember when I first started watching the news and it was presented by people like Michael Buerk, Moira Stuart, Trevor MacDonald, Martyn Lewis, etc, you had no idea which party they supported even though you'd been watching them present hundreds of programmes over many years.
Well or even if you do have an idea, they don't half give it out to those of all political parties e.g. Andrew Neil. Also, Paxman, he came out as a Tory, but most Tory ministers / shadow ministers used to shit themselves having to go on Newsnight and face him in his prime.
The likes of Lewis Goddall does himself no favours basically running his twitter feed as a Labour PPB.
Andrew Neil is completely unequipped to question Leavers about Brexit because his one-eyed take on it makes it impossible for him to give any meaningful scrutiny of them.
Note that Boris Johnson is by far the lowest ranked of all the higher of the pairs. There are huge numbers of voters hostile to both. How they resolve their distaste for both is going to decide this election.
Assuming the Conservatives win, I expect the next round of local elections will be torrid.
2019 will be the election the Conservatives wish they'd never won. There will be a recession in the next five years, and (rightly or wrongly) their handling of Brexit will get the blame.
We will also see house prices down meaningfully (15-20%) in nominal terms. The young won't thank the Conservatives, and the old will be livid.
Johnson will turn out to be just the man you don't want in charge for this. But having remodeled the Conservative Party in his own image, he'll prove difficult to shift.
If the Labour Party have chosen a moderate as their leader, this won't matter too much. But if they manage to pick Corbyn 2.0 (younger, fitter, less economically sane), then the country will lurch to the hard Left in 2024, and it will all be pretty horrible.
It's a good thing I don't own any overpriced London real estate... oh wait...
They won't, the Tories will win again outside London in 2024 if they win this time or at least be largest party, the country does not want the hard left. Indeed if Chuka wins Cities of London and Westminster and Swinson loses the LDs might be leading opinion polls by 2024 anyway if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place
"if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place"
I don’t agree with this good election to lose/ bad election to win motif.
People have been saying that about the Conservatives at every election since 2010. In fact, aside from 1997, and possibly 2001 and maybe even 1987, I can’t think of any “rosy” elections to win in the last 50 years. And possibly not before either. You never know what’s over the horizon.
If you’re in politics you’re in politics to win. Governing is never easy, and your agenda is always at the mercy of events, but you can do nothing without power.
Imagine if Labour won at this GE....it would be no Brexit, 16 year old and immigrant voting rights which would benefit Labour, and of course if you control the levers of power there you get to decide when the GE is, get to hold a budget to throw money at people etc.
Immediately the Tories would be at a huge disadvantage in 5 years time.
It is a huge home advantage to be in power. It is much harder to win being the away team.
I'm curious if anyone has heard of this "top envoy" before? Barely registers on Wikipedia.
How many trade envoys can most people name? Zero. I cant name our Chief Scientist or head of HMRC either, I would listen to what they say and value their opinions though. Some of us still value expert opinion from people who work in their field rather than just those who pontificate about it on the internet.
All these Conservative soldiers for truth might profitably spend a couple of minutes dissecting the Prime Minister’s claim, made today, that there will be no customs declarations on goods being sent from Northern Ireland to GB.
PB Tories prepare for a change of underwear. OGH is right that the difference in positive ratings is a better predictor of the result than the difference in the net ratings. If you run a simple regression of vote share on both the positive and the negative ratings differential using data from 1979 (10 observations) then the coefficient on the positive rating differential is about 10x that on the negative one. For 2019 it predicts... A 6.8% Tory lead. 2.2pp standard deviation. DYOR.
Any idea why the professional polling companies don't use that stuff?
They won't, the Tories will win again outside London in 2024 if they win this time or at least be largest party, the country does not want the hard left. Indeed if Chuka wins Cities of London and Westminster and Swinson loses the LDs might be leading opinion polls by 2024 anyway if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place
Just so I'm clear - you would consider a centrist LD party, led by Chuka Umunna, to be a serious threat to a Johnson Government seeking re-election in 2024?
Note that Boris Johnson is by far the lowest ranked of all the higher of the pairs. There are huge numbers of voters hostile to both. How they resolve their distaste for both is going to decide this election.
Assuming the Conservatives win, I expect the next round of local elections will be torrid.
2019 will be the election the Conservatives wish they'd never won. There will be a recession in the next five years, and (rightly or wrongly) their handling of Brexit will get the blame.
We will also see house prices down meaningfully (15-20%) in nominal terms. The young won't thank the Conservatives, and the old will be livid.
Johnson will turn out to be just the man you don't want in charge for this. But having remodeled the Conservative Party in his own image, he'll prove difficult to shift.
If the Labour Party have chosen a moderate as their leader, this won't matter too much. But if they manage to pick Corbyn 2.0 (younger, fitter, less economically sane), then the country will lurch to the hard Left in 2024, and it will all be pretty horrible.
It's a good thing I don't own any overpriced London real estate... oh wait...
They won't, the Tories will win again outside London in 2024 if they win this time or at least be largest party, the country does not want the hard left. Indeed if Chuka wins Cities of London and Westminster and Swinson loses the LDs might be leading opinion polls by 2024 anyway if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place
"if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place"
Are you taking the piss?
Labour certainly will be if they put Laura Pidcock up as their candidate for next PM.
I can’t think of a single Tory leader I wasn’t worried wouldn’t fuck up a basic debate/Q&A since William Hague. Possibly Michael Howard but he creeped everyone out.
Everyone else I’ve been very nervous about their debating skills or performance in front of a camera.
That really doesn’t bode well. It should be a basic skill for a politician.
I can’t think of a single Tory leader I wasn’t worried wouldn’t fuck up a basic debate/Q&A since William Hague. Possibly Michael Howard but he creeped everyone out.
Everyone else I’ve been very nervous about their debating skills or performance in front of a camera.
That really doesn’t bode well. It should be a basic skill for a politician.
It is incredible really...and on the flip side, that people are shocked that Jezza is ok at it. You would bloody hope somebody who has been in politics all their life could do an interview and debate somebody on their political beliefs.
That been said, it didn't do Hague a lot of good to be able to better Blair (who was no numpty).
I can’t think of a single Tory leader I wasn’t worried wouldn’t fuck up a basic debate/Q&A since William Hague. Possibly Michael Howard but he creeped everyone out.
Everyone else I’ve been very nervous about their debating skills or performance in front of a camera.
That really doesn’t bode well. It should be a basic skill for a politician.
And William Hague has the worst general election record of any Tory leader since the Duke of Wellington which goes to show how little impact debates and Question Time have on elections
If he does the interview and it's a probable car crash, it will become mainstream and affect a far wider percentage of the voting fringe. There's a reason why the Labour party are so wound up about this. It's pretty obvious they want Boris to do a damaging interview on the eve of a general election.
He's not going to do it, wisely IMO.
He won't do it and he shouldn't do it. The Neil takedown has 5m views and is only going higher. It is as damaging as Corbyn's crap interview was. Perhaps more so. We're quits. It's a negative each. It would now be unfair on "Boris" if he had to go and do the actual interview as well - since this would give him a double disaster to Jeremy's one. This issue is closed for me.
It's a self-inflicted wound by Boris. He could've just done the interview and it would have all been forgotten in a day or two.
It looks like Blair's popularity in 2005 was lower than Johnson's this year.
2005 was an odd election with hindsight.
Blair was very unpopular at the time over Iraq, but the main opposition party was unable to capitalise due to having supported him on that very matter. Whilst the election was a high water mark for the Lib Dems, they didn't really look like getting to a place where they seriously threatened the other parties' firewall - Kennedy, for all his charm, never really looked like a PM in waiting.
If you look back at polls from that period, they were striking in their stability. Labour were just below 40%, Tories just above 30%, and Lib Dems around 20% for a long old time. People seemed to decide very early that, while Blair had lost his appeal, there wasn't an alternative.
They won't, the Tories will win again outside London in 2024 if they win this time or at least be largest party, the country does not want the hard left. Indeed if Chuka wins Cities of London and Westminster and Swinson loses the LDs might be leading opinion polls by 2024 anyway if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place
Just so I'm clear - you would consider a centrist LD party, led by Chuka Umunna, to be a serious threat to a Johnson Government seeking re-election in 2024?
Far more than Pidcock or Long Bailey led Labour absolutely, they would never win Remain or soft Leave Tory seats in London or the South, Chuka might
There are some journalists on Twitter who made absolutely no attempt to hide their personal political opinions. A lot of people probably admire them for it because at least they're "being honest". But I remember when I first started watching the news and it was presented by people like Michael Buerk, Moira Stuart, Trevor MacDonald, Martyn Lewis, etc, you had no idea which party they supported even though you'd been watching them present hundreds of programmes over many years.
Would you trust them to objectively print something unflattering about the party they support in the same way they would for the “enemy”. If no, they’re not journalists, they’re supporters.
There are some journalists on Twitter who made absolutely no attempt to hide their personal political opinions. A lot of people probably admire them for it because at least they're "being honest". But I remember when I first started watching the news and it was presented by people like Michael Buerk, Moira Stuart, Trevor MacDonald, Martyn Lewis, etc, you had no idea which party they supported even though you'd been watching them present hundreds of programmes over many years.
Would you trust them to objectively print something unflattering about the party they support in the same way they would for the “enemy”. If no, they’re not journalists, they’re supporters.
Careful Owen Jones will throw a strop.....I am a journalist, I am, I am, I am...
There are some journalists on Twitter who made absolutely no attempt to hide their personal political opinions. A lot of people probably admire them for it because at least they're "being honest". But I remember when I first started watching the news and it was presented by people like Michael Buerk, Moira Stuart, Trevor MacDonald, Martyn Lewis, etc, you had no idea which party they supported even though you'd been watching them present hundreds of programmes over many years.
Well or even if you do have an idea, they don't half give it out to those of all political parties e.g. Andrew Neil. Also, Paxman, he came out as a Tory, but most Tory ministers / shadow ministers used to shit themselves having to go on Newsnight and face him in his prime.
The likes of Lewis Goddall does himself no favours basically running his twitter feed as a Labour PPB.
Andrew Neil is completely unequipped to question Leavers about Brexit because his one-eyed take on it makes it impossible for him to give any meaningful scrutiny of them.
But that means no other BBC or C4 journalists can interview remainers!
Note that Boris Johnson is by far the lowest ranked of all the higher of the pairs. There are huge numbers of voters hostile to both. How they resolve their distaste for both is going to decide this election.
Assuming the Conservatives win, I expect the next round of local elections will be torrid.
2019 will be the election the Conservatives wish they'd never won. There will be a recession in the next five years, and (rightly or wrongly) their handling of Brexit will get the blame.
We will also see house prices down meaningfully (15-20%) in nominal terms. The young won't thank the Conservatives, and the old will be livid.
Johnson will turn out to be just the man you don't want in charge for this. But having remodeled the Conservative Party in his own image, he'll prove difficult to shift.
If the Labour Party have chosen a moderate as their leader, this won't matter too much. But if they manage to pick Corbyn 2.0 (younger, fitter, less economically sane), then the country will lurch to the hard Left in 2024, and it will all be pretty horrible.
It's a good thing I don't own any overpriced London real estate... oh wait...
They won't, the Tories will win again outside London in 2024 if they win this time or at least be largest party, the country does not want the hard left. Indeed if Chuka wins Cities of London and Westminster and Swinson loses the LDs might be leading opinion polls by 2024 anyway if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place
"if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place"
Are you taking the piss?
Labour certainly will be if they put Laura Pidcock up as their candidate for next PM.
Oh - I misread your post. I thought you were saying that Pidcock or LB are potential PM material.
I don’t agree with this good election to lose/ bad election to win motif.
People have been saying that about the Conservatives at every election since 2010. In fact, aside from 1997, and possibly 2001 and maybe even 1987, I can’t think of any “rosy” elections to win in the last 50 years. And possibly not before either. You never know what’s over the horizon.
If you’re in politics you’re in politics to win. Governing is never easy, and your agenda is always at the mercy of events, but you can do nothing without power.
Imagine if Labour won at this GE....it would be no Brexit, 16 year old and immigrant voting rights which would benefit Labour, and of course if you control the levers of power there you get to decide when the GE is, get to hold a budget to throw money at people etc.
Immediately the Tories would be at a huge disadvantage in 5 years time.
It is a huge home advantage to be in power. It is much harder to win being the away team.
It's a must win for Boris. The UK will be screwed in so many ways if the Marxists take over, and Marxists never give up power.
The main output I have been looking at it Lab held seat where the Tories were second in 2017 and it is Brexity. I don't think any Scottish seats fit that criteria.
Obviously other outputs are trivial to create, but in my mind the above seats are the ones the Tories have to flip or be showing that their strategy is gaining them lots of votes. If we aren't seeing them picking up much traction in these types of seats, there is no way they are getting a majority.
I think Scotland is important because fairly small shifts could make a difference of around ten seats or so.
Yeah I was playing around with my model with the latest YouGov. My model has Cons on 9 seats but everyone of the 4 seats they lose is a by fractions of a percent so they could easily retain all 13. Drop the Cons from 28% to 26% and they are down to 6 seats. Down at 24 % they are down to 3 seats.
I don’t agree with this good election to lose/ bad election to win motif.
People have been saying that about the Conservatives at every election since 2010. In fact, aside from 1997, and possibly 2001 and maybe even 1987, I can’t think of any “rosy” elections to win in the last 50 years. And possibly not before either. You never know what’s over the horizon.
If you’re in politics you’re in politics to win. Governing is never easy, and your agenda is always at the mercy of events, but you can do nothing without power.
I’m certain that following 2010, Labour thought they would be back PDQ. Same for the Conservatives in 1997. Power is power and if you want to become an MP and forever complain and not do, join the Liberal Democrat’s?
I can’t think of a single Tory leader I wasn’t worried wouldn’t fuck up a basic debate/Q&A since William Hague. Possibly Michael Howard but he creeped everyone out.
Everyone else I’ve been very nervous about their debating skills or performance in front of a camera.
That really doesn’t bode well. It should be a basic skill for a politician.
It is a learned skill and these days it is too easy not to learn it. Duck interviews; duck debates; duck public meetings. Boris has been doing it for years. The more interesting case is Jeremy Corbyn who after 40 years of practice is great addressing a rally but he too has no experience of being interviewed (mainly because no-one ever cared what he thought as a backbencher) and it shows.
I don’t agree with this good election to lose/ bad election to win motif.
People have been saying that about the Conservatives at every election since 2010. In fact, aside from 1997, and possibly 2001 and maybe even 1987, I can’t think of any “rosy” elections to win in the last 50 years. And possibly not before either. You never know what’s over the horizon.
If you’re in politics you’re in politics to win. Governing is never easy, and your agenda is always at the mercy of events, but you can do nothing without power.
Great post.
And @HYUFD's predictions notwithstanding should the Cons win that they will win in 2024, that will be 14 years of power; I'm sure there will be other factors at play at that point wrt the electorate wanting them out (cf. 1997).
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
I can’t think of a single Tory leader I wasn’t worried wouldn’t fuck up a basic debate/Q&A since William Hague. Possibly Michael Howard but he creeped everyone out.
Everyone else I’ve been very nervous about their debating skills or performance in front of a camera.
That really doesn’t bode well. It should be a basic skill for a politician.
It is a learned skill and these days it is too easy not to learn it. Duck interviews; duck debates; duck public meetings. Boris has been doing it for years. The more interesting case is Jeremy Corbyn who after 40 years of practice is great addressing a rally but he too has no experience of being interviewed (mainly because no-one ever cared what he thought as a backbencher) and it shows.
Corbyn gets riled by questions he doesn't like remarkably easily.
I can’t think of a single Tory leader I wasn’t worried wouldn’t fuck up a basic debate/Q&A since William Hague. Possibly Michael Howard but he creeped everyone out.
Everyone else I’ve been very nervous about their debating skills or performance in front of a camera.
That really doesn’t bode well. It should be a basic skill for a politician.
It is a learned skill and these days it is too easy not to learn it. Duck interviews; duck debates; duck public meetings. Boris has been doing it for years. The more interesting case is Jeremy Corbyn who after 40 years of practice is great addressing a rally but he too has no experience of being interviewed (mainly because no-one ever cared what he thought as a backbencher) and it shows.
Pisses me off. If I ever went into politics (don’t worry, I won’t) I’d learn my arse off on this stuff.
And, I would consider it a mark of basic integrity to go on shows like Andrew Neil even if (especially if) I was terrified he’d tear me a new one.
You can’t lead unless you have the courage to go up against your greatest fears.
There are some journalists on Twitter who made absolutely no attempt to hide their personal political opinions. A lot of people probably admire them for it because at least they're "being honest". But I remember when I first started watching the news and it was presented by people like Michael Buerk, Moira Stuart, Trevor MacDonald, Martyn Lewis, etc, you had no idea which party they supported even though you'd been watching them present hundreds of programmes over many years.
Well or even if you do have an idea, they don't half give it out to those of all political parties e.g. Andrew Neil. Also, Paxman, he came out as a Tory, but most Tory ministers / shadow ministers used to shit themselves having to go on Newsnight and face him in his prime.
The likes of Lewis Goddall does himself no favours basically running his twitter feed as a Labour PPB.
Andrew Neil is completely unequipped to question Leavers about Brexit because his one-eyed take on it makes it impossible for him to give any meaningful scrutiny of them.
But that means no other BBC or C4 journalists can interview remainers!
If you’re looking for disagreement about the general quality of media interviewers, you won’t find it here.
I'm curious if anyone has heard of this "top envoy" before? Barely registers on Wikipedia.
How many trade envoys can most people name? Zero. I cant name our Chief Scientist or head of HMRC either, I would listen to what they say and value their opinions though. Some of us still value expert opinion from people who work in their field rather than just those who pontificate about it on the internet.
I would want my trade envoys to be capable of lying though and not being precious about it.
There seems to be a bit of a battle going on in the government about the regulatory/tariff loss risks of the Irish Sea crossing, with the Treasury lobbying for more checks and other departments pushing different approaches.
So nothing fixed or agreed at all. Corbyn's document could even be a deliberate leak to stir up.the pot.
PB Tories prepare for a change of underwear. OGH is right that the difference in positive ratings is a better predictor of the result than the difference in the net ratings. If you run a simple regression of vote share on both the positive and the negative ratings differential using data from 1979 (10 observations) then the coefficient on the positive rating differential is about 10x that on the negative one. For 2019 it predicts... A 6.8% Tory lead. 2.2pp standard deviation. DYOR.
They also predicted 2017 when few other signs did.
This and consumer confidence makes me slightly more confident in my prediction.
Can you show how you got to 6.8% Tory lead?
What do your calculations show for 2017?
Regression of actual vote share of govt Vs opposition on positive rating differential and negative rating differential. 10 elections since 1979. Predicted 1.8pp Vs 2.5pp actual in 2017.
How does it hold up for 2015?
5.9 Vs 6.4 actual. If you run it out of sample for 2015/7 (ie using only data through 2010) the results hardly change.
What's the r^2 correlation on net, positive and negative ?
Net 92%, positive 94%, negative 86%, both included separately 94%. Negative is not statistically significant, once you include positive, it's the positive score that matters. If you run it out of sample the predictions for 2015 and 2017 underpredict the Tory lead by 0.7 and 0.9pp respectively. But in this case the prediction for 2019 is 6.5 not 7.0.
Model choice based on maximising r^2 is extremely unwise, and almost always leads to overfitting.
PB Tories prepare for a change of underwear. OGH is right that the difference in positive ratings is a better predictor of the result than the difference in the net ratings. If you run a simple regression of vote share on both the positive and the negative ratings differential using data from 1979 (10 observations) then the coefficient on the positive rating differential is about 10x that on the negative one. For 2019 it predicts... A 6.8% Tory lead. 2.2pp standard deviation. DYOR.
They also predicted 2017 when few other signs did.
This and consumer confidence makes me slightly more confident in my prediction.
Can you show how you got to 6.8% Tory lead?
What do your calculations show for 2017?
Regression of actual vote share of govt Vs opposition on positive rating differential and negative rating differential. 10 elections since 1979. Predicted 1.8pp Vs 2.5pp actual in 2017.
How does it hold up for 2015?
5.9 Vs 6.4 actual. If you run it out of sample for 2015/7 (ie using only data through 2010) the results hardly change.
What's the r^2 correlation on net, positive and negative ?
Net 92%, positive 94%, negative 86%, both included separately 94%. Negative is not statistically significant, once you include positive, it's the positive score that matters. If you run it out of sample the predictions for 2015 and 2017 underpredict the Tory lead by 0.7 and 0.9pp respectively. But in this case the prediction for 2019 is 6.5 not 7.0.
Model choice based on maximising r^2 is extremely unwise, and almost always leads to overfitting.
The Tory response to the Brexit leak sounds seriously rattled:
"This leaked document is just an immediate assessment, not a detailed analysis of the deal and misses key points
This document was produced immediately after the deal was struck and represents a ‘flash analysis’ of what the obligations of the protocol might be. It appears to have been based on a partial reading of the final deal.
This document was not written for, and was not used for, decision making purposes. This document has not been seen by the chancellor, the prime minister or any of the senior officials involved in the negotiations
The document contains a number of question marks which shows that it is an incomplete analysis.
The paper does not highlight the power of the joint committee to address the issues that the paper identifies, or the power of key clauses to also address these issues."
I think elections are won on how weird v less weird the leaders of the two main parties are.
Mrs T was weird, but less weird than Kinnoch and considerably less weird than Foot. Blair was less weird than Hague and Howard. Cameron less weird than Brown and Miliband. TMay was slightly less weird than Corbyn, as is Johnson. Where my theory doesn't quite work is Major v Blair?
I think elections are won on how weird v less weird the leaders of the two main parties are.
Mrs T was weird, but less weird than Kinnoch and considerably less weird than Foot. Blair was less weird than Hague and Howard. Cameron less weird than Brown and Miliband. TMay was slightly less weird than Corbyn, as is Johnson. Where my theory doesn't quite work is Major v Blair?
It looks like Blair's popularity in 2005 was lower than Johnson's this year.
2005 was an odd election with hindsight.
Blair was very unpopular at the time over Iraq, but the main opposition party was unable to capitalise due to having supported him on that very matter. Whilst the election was a high water mark for the Lib Dems, they didn't really look like getting to a place where they seriously threatened the other parties' firewall - Kennedy, for all his charm, never really looked like a PM in waiting.
If you look back at polls from that period, they were striking in their stability. Labour were just below 40%, Tories just above 30%, and Lib Dems around 20% for a long old time. People seemed to decide very early that, while Blair had lost his appeal, there wasn't an alternative.
Worse than that, the Conservatives conspired in their own defeat. Blair was unpopular over Iraq but rather than go for the jugular, their slogan was: Vote Blair: Get Brown! That is like telling a child, vote spinach, get ice cream.
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Won’t affect my vote though.
You definitely want him to eat his tie?
It would take people’s minds off him not doing the interview...
They won't, the Tories will win again outside London in 2024 if they win this time or at least be largest party, the country does not want the hard left. Indeed if Chuka wins Cities of London and Westminster and Swinson loses the LDs might be leading opinion polls by 2024 anyway if Labour pick a hard left Corbyn loyalist rather than a potential PM like Pidcock or Long-Bailey with Labour falling to third place
Just so I'm clear - you would consider a centrist LD party, led by Chuka Umunna, to be a serious threat to a Johnson Government seeking re-election in 2024?
Far more than Pidcock or Long Bailey led Labour absolutely, they would never win Remain or soft Leave Tory seats in London or the South, Chuka might
You think Remain/Leave will still be a thing in 2024?
If he does the interview and it's a probable car crash, it will become mainstream and affect a far wider percentage of the voting fringe. There's a reason why the Labour party are so wound up about this. It's pretty obvious they want Boris to do a damaging interview on the eve of a general election.
He's not going to do it, wisely IMO.
He won't do it and he shouldn't do it. The Neil takedown has 5m views and is only going higher. It is as damaging as Corbyn's crap interview was. Perhaps more so. We're quits. It's a negative each. It would now be unfair on "Boris" if he had to go and do the actual interview as well - since this would give him a double disaster to Jeremy's one. This issue is closed for me.
The 5M views is a red herring. There are 500,000 Labour party members, it wouldn't take very long for each of them to run a short video ten times each. Now if it was 5M individual views that's different, but even that doesn't follow that it's damaging. We can't know that until we see the results of the election, and even then we won't know for certain unless polling companies carry out specific surveys about TV debate no-shows.
I'm a long-time 'Ding Dong' voter but this time I've switched allegiance to the Carol of the Bells. I think there will be a big swing for them this year.
*in the Britain's favourite carol poll
I've checked Youtube and you are wrong. A churchgoing friend once observed that the once or twice a year Christmas, weddings and rememberance crowd want the carols and hymns they learned 40 years ago, whereas regulars prefer more modern hymns, and the choir would be happiest showing off mediaeval harmonies. I do not know what our resident church organist makes of it all.
It's way beyond just being a platform. It changes the way people behave for the worse. It literally rewards: (1) attention seeking; (2) the first-mover; (3) herd-like thinking; (4) simplicity. It discourages: (1) patience; (2) due-diligence; (3) complexity; (4) alternative points of view.
Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp groups etc. each have their own peculiar negative social feedback loops. But Twitter is by far the worse IMO.
Yes, I agree with that. Great tool for demagogues too. Nevertheless it is just a platform that can be used for good or ill - and there is much good too.
Wrong question. I think he should do it. I’m sure everyone on here does. I also think he should eat his tie properly, invest in suits that fit, and wear proper shoes.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23J3yB5Mmjg
(Assuming that Act isn’t replaced by the incoming Parliament, of course - which is a big assumption!)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/section/1/enacted
Yes! Yes, I can.
No, that is not the logic. The logic is as follows -
Person has a rep for being numerically challenged.
CH4 News share a clip which is erroneously subtitled to show the above person saying that 2 + 2 = 5.
Because of the person's rep for making just such an error people are more prone to believe the (incorrect) story than would otherwise be the case.
QED.
(C'mon Topping!)
So 2nd May 2024.
If you run it out of sample the predictions for 2015 and 2017 underpredict the Tory lead by 0.7 and 0.9pp respectively. But in this case the prediction for 2019 is 6.5 not 7.0.
He's not going to do it, wisely IMO.
The Civil Service is extremely careful during purdah yet we allow private companies free reign to release what they want within two days of an election?
That's putting aside the fact that the supply of the information is endogenous to the result they are trying to predict.
The detailed lines of questioning Neil was going to rise weren't going to be easy for Boris to shrug off - clearly, IF he does the interview he will need to be very well coached on the answers and much more on top of subjects than he has appeared at times.
Of course Corbyn would be a catastrophe for the country but I have serious reservations about Johnson and his programme. The economic policy seems predicated on the view there would be an economic downturn on leaving the EU irrespective of the circumstances and the idea is to put as much stimulus into the economy but spending and tax cutting in an attempt to mitigate this.
Today's borrowing is tomorrow's tax rise or spending cut so for all the largesse on offer now there will be a reckoning sooner or later - perhaps Johnson is hoping that can be post-2024 - I doubt he's thought that far ahead.
https://twitter.com/matthewwells/status/1202973691933593604?s=21
Facebook and Google could also end up embroiled in antitrust investigation for years, over monopolistic behaviours and acquisition of nascent competitors.
The likes of Lewis Goddall does himself no favours basically running his twitter feed as a Labour PPB.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1202954135034875908
There seems to be a bit of a battle going on in the government about the regulatory/tariff loss risks of the Irish Sea crossing, with the Treasury lobbying for more checks and other departments pushing different approaches.
Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp groups etc. each have their own peculiar negative social feedback loops. But Twitter is by far the worse IMO.
People have been saying that about the Conservatives at every election since 2010. In fact, aside from 1997, and possibly 2001 and maybe even 1987, I can’t think of any “rosy” elections to win in the last 50 years. And possibly not before either. You never know what’s over the horizon.
If you’re in politics you’re in politics to win. Governing is never easy, and your agenda is always at the mercy of events, but you can do nothing without power.
Are you taking the piss?
Immediately the Tories would be at a huge disadvantage in 5 years time.
It is a huge home advantage to be in power. It is much harder to win being the away team.
Everyone else I’ve been very nervous about their debating skills or performance in front of a camera.
That really doesn’t bode well. It should be a basic skill for a politician.
That been said, it didn't do Hague a lot of good to be able to better Blair (who was no numpty).
Blair was very unpopular at the time over Iraq, but the main opposition party was unable to capitalise due to having supported him on that very matter. Whilst the election was a high water mark for the Lib Dems, they didn't really look like getting to a place where they seriously threatened the other parties' firewall - Kennedy, for all his charm, never really looked like a PM in waiting.
If you look back at polls from that period, they were striking in their stability. Labour were just below 40%, Tories just above 30%, and Lib Dems around 20% for a long old time. People seemed to decide very early that, while Blair had lost his appeal, there wasn't an alternative.
I like clutching at straws
I had a remarkably polite disagreement with a total stranger over historical immigration to the UK (specifically, the Saxons, Angles, and Jutes).
The format of Twitter may encourage infantile attention seeking and tribal dickishness, but people are entirely free not to participate in that.
My model has Cons on 9 seats but everyone of the 4 seats they lose is a by fractions of a percent so they could easily retain all 13.
Drop the Cons from 28% to 26% and they are down to 6 seats.
Down at 24 % they are down to 3 seats.
And @HYUFD's predictions notwithstanding should the Cons win that they will win in 2024, that will be 14 years of power; I'm sure there will be other factors at play at that point wrt the electorate wanting them out (cf. 1997).
2017: Polls (on average) understated Labour
2019: ?
Unusual request but fair enough.
And, I would consider it a mark of basic integrity to go on shows like Andrew Neil even if (especially if) I was terrified he’d tear me a new one.
You can’t lead unless you have the courage to go up against your greatest fears.
"This leaked document is just an immediate assessment, not a detailed analysis of the deal and misses key points
This document was produced immediately after the deal was struck and represents a ‘flash analysis’ of what the obligations of the protocol might be. It appears to have been based on a partial reading of the final deal.
This document was not written for, and was not used for, decision making purposes. This document has not been seen by the chancellor, the prime minister or any of the senior officials involved in the negotiations
The document contains a number of question marks which shows that it is an incomplete analysis.
The paper does not highlight the power of the joint committee to address the issues that the paper identifies, or the power of key clauses to also address these issues."
They'd have been better off not commenting IMO.
Mrs T was weird, but less weird than Kinnoch and considerably less weird than Foot. Blair was less weird than Hague and Howard. Cameron less weird than Brown and Miliband. TMay was slightly less weird than Corbyn, as is Johnson. Where my theory doesn't quite work is Major v Blair?
By then I think we will be back to Left/Right.
Con 44
Lab 32
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/latest-opinion-polls-conservative-party-lead-narrows-as-labour-and-corbyn-make-gains-a4306426.html#comments