Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the debates, a plethora of polls and Andrew Neil – a CON

1234568

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627
    Andy_JS said:
    Not a lot of cash at that price either.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,124
    edited December 2019

    Floater said:

    Totally O/T - Caught up with the Irishman last night. A little long (I know where it should have ended, but can't say as would be a spoiler), but I thought was a cracker.

    Did you think De Niro just looked odd?
    He did.

    I haven't watched it all yet - but it's certainly engrossing
    Expect your enthusiasm to wane in the final three quarters of an hour.
    The last 30 mins wasn't required....should have just been a walk off mic drop moment.
  • Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    England used to boast quite a few of these near perfect cathedral city cores - but way too many were bombed (often deliberately) by the Nazis, from Exeter to Coventry.

    And where the Nazis didn't finish the job the vandals of 1960s local councils often did - Gloucester, for example.
    Indeed. I can still be reduced to quivering rage by images of what British councils did to British towns and cityscapes 1955-1985. It happened where I grew up, I saw amazing galleried Tudor coaching inns pulled down, in my childhood, for multi storey car parks and dreary shopping malls (which are now being pulled down).

    So awful. I am sure it is one reason I tend towards the conservative. To CONSERVE what is obviously better, even if it is older.
    Ok boomer
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    HYUFD said:

    JamesP said:

    moonshine said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:


    I wonder if Londoners are less likely to have visited other parts of the UK than vice versa, ie. non-Londoners visiting London?

    I am not sure I would say that, however I would say I doubt better off Londoners are visiting the left behind places like Stoke en masse for a cheeky dirty weekend away...
    I read an article once that claimed yuppie Londoners were more likely to have visited that famous place in Peru than Lincoln cathedral. It was just an anecdote but it sounded like it might be true.
    Why is that surprising? I bet <1% of Britain's population have been to Lincoln Cathedral. Macchu Picchu is meant to be one of the most incredible places in the world, is it surprising a lot of people from a city with high disposable incomes and good air links have visited it? I'm sure Lincoln Cathedral is nice, but it's not like it's the only Cathedral in Britain. I've been to enough Cathedrals to know that I have no real interest in seeing the one in Lincoln. Does this mean that Brexit is my fault or something?</p>
    Cuzco is actually a pain to get to from the Uk, unless you are prepared to go slow and overland from Lima.

    I’ve never been to Lincoln or Stoke. Perhaps I will.
    I think it's described by Peter Hitchens as people more likely to have visited Boston, Massachusetts than Boston, Lincolnshire
    Hardly surprising. I suspect Londoners are more likely to visited New York, NY than New York, Tyne & Wear. Very few people have much interest in visiting these places.
    Similarly I suspect many New Yorkers are more likely to have visited London than West Virginia or Iowa.
    And a lot more besides - I assume there are many flyover states.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329

    Byronic said:

    viewcode said:

    Byronic said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:


    I wonder if Londoners are less likely to have visited other parts of the UK than vice versa, ie. non-Londoners visiting London?

    I am not sure I would say that, however I would say I doubt better off Londoners are visiting the left behind places like Stoke en masse for a cheeky dirty weekend away...
    I read an article once that claimed yuppy Londoners were more likely to have visited that famous place in Peru than Lincoln cathedral. It was just an anecdote but it sounded like it might be true.
    That's almost certainly true.

    Of all my social circle in London, I'd bet I am the only one that's been to Lincoln Cathedral. Several of us have been to Macchu Picchu.

    I cannot testify to the social circle of international crossdressing male models transitioning to be a woman who have visited Antarctica, so maybe you are correct. However Lincoln is difficult to get to from (thinks for a minute) everywhere. However York Minster is reasonably easily accessible, in the better part of Yorkshire, and is close to many pleasant tea shops.

    But if we are going to nominate Best Big Church In Britain, I stick my paw up for St Paul's. Westminster Abbey gets overshadowed by Parliament. However I do have a soft spot for Paddy's Wigwam or the little-known Westminster Cathedral
    For me, in order, the top five from 1 to 5

    Lincoln
    Durham
    Ely
    Wells
    and St Paul's London, just for the view of it from the Wobbly Bridge, inside it is boring
    That bouncy remote whispering thing in the Dome is quite good.
    I hear Salisbury Cathedral is popular in some parts of the world ;-)
    Personally I like the three spires of Lichfield, and the iconic Roman Catholic cathedral in Liverpool
  • vikvik Posts: 159
    I think there is a lot of "irrational exuberance" about a large Conservative majority.

    In simple terms, there are two Leave Parties (Con & Brexit) & five Remain Parties (Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid & Green).

    At this stage in 2017, the total Leave Parties vote in the polls was around 47% (43% Con & 4% UKIP). In 2019, this is 46% (43% Con & 3% Brexit).

    The only reason the Cons have an apparent "10% polling lead" is because Lib Dems have increased from 8% to 13%, compared to 2017, mostly at the expense of Lab. And this is largely because Lab are perceived to be insufficiently Remainy by the more committed pro-Europeans.

    Now, if the 5% increase in Lib Dem vote is distributed uniformly then, yes, Con will get a large majority.

    But, it is *never* distributed uniformly, and it is quite possible that the Lib Dem vote might go up where they are in realistic second places & go down where Lab are clearly in second.

    So, at the end of the day, there might be rerun of 2017 & a hung parliament again The Tory seat count might go backwards because of a slightly lower total Leave Parties vote share. It might even go substantially backwards if they are unlucky.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486

    JamesP said:

    moonshine said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:


    I wonder if Londoners are less likely to have visited other parts of the UK than vice versa, ie. non-Londoners visiting London?

    I am not sure I would say that, however I would say I doubt better off Londoners are visiting the left behind places like Stoke en masse for a cheeky dirty weekend away...
    I read an article once that claimed yuppie Londoners were more likely to have visited that famous place in Peru than Lincoln cathedral. It was just an anecdote but it sounded like it might be true.
    Why is that surprising? I bet <1% of Britain's population have been to Lincoln Cathedral. Macchu Picchu is meant to be one of the most incredible places in the world, is it surprising a lot of people from a city with high disposable incomes and good air links have visited it? I'm sure Lincoln Cathedral is nice, but it's not like it's the only Cathedral in Britain. I've been to enough Cathedrals to know that I have no real interest in seeing the one in Lincoln. Does this mean that Brexit is my fault or something?</p>
    Cuzco is actually a pain to get to from the Uk, unless you are prepared to go slow and overland from Lima.

    I’ve never been to Lincoln or Stoke. Perhaps I will.
    I think it's described by Peter Hitchens as people more likely to have visited Boston, Massachusetts than Boston, Lincolnshire
    Hardly surprising. I suspect Londoners are more likely to visited New York, NY than New York, Tyne & Wear. Very few people have much interest in visiting these places.
    New York in North Tyneside is literally just a housing estate with a fish and chip shop called ‘the Bronx’
    Metropolitan elitist.
  • argyllrs said:

    TudorRose said:

    Barnesian said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Here is Anthony Wells' summary from his UK Polling Report of the four polls which have reported this evening ... very much a case of steady as you go:

    "Looking at the four companies who’ve released GB opinion polls for the Sunday papers, we’ve got ComRes and Deltapoll showing things narrowing by a little, YouGov showing the lead growing by a point, Opinium showing no movement. The clear trend towards Labour we were seeing earlier in the campaign appears to have petered out. The average across the four is a Conservative lead of 11 points, though of course, these are tilted towards those pollsters who show bigger Conservative leads. Taking an average of the most recent poll from all ten pollsters producing regular figures gives an average of 10 points."

    The Tories would be unlucky not to hit 326 seats with a 10 point lead.
    Adding in all tonight's polls gives the Tories a 10.3% lead and 324 seats.


    I would be worried by a model that says 20 + 1 + 5 = 25 for the Lib Dems.
    Yup, Wales doesn't add up.
    Last GE Tories just shy of a majority with a 2-3 point lead. Now with a ten point lead your projection shows a very similar result. Extreme voting efficiency by the opposition parties?
    Extremely compounded tactical voting.
  • camel said:

    Steven Nolan eviscerating Tony Lloyd on 5 live right now. I literally have no idea who Tony Lloyd is though.

    He's my mum's MP! (Rochdale)

    He isn't the brightest button.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153

    Andy_JS said:

    Barnesian said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Here is Anthony Wells' summary from his UK Polling Report of the four polls which have reported this evening ... very much a case of steady as you go:

    "Looking at the four companies who’ve released GB opinion polls for the Sunday papers, we’ve got ComRes and Deltapoll showing things narrowing by a little, YouGov showing the lead growing by a point, Opinium showing no movement. The clear trend towards Labour we were seeing earlier in the campaign appears to have petered out. The average across the four is a Conservative lead of 11 points, though of course, these are tilted towards those pollsters who show bigger Conservative leads. Taking an average of the most recent poll from all ten pollsters producing regular figures gives an average of 10 points."

    The Tories would be unlucky not to hit 326 seats with a 10 point lead.
    Adding in all tonight's polls gives the Tories a 10.3% lead and 324 seats.


    Interesting to compare this with 2001 when a 9.3% lead for Tony Blair delivered an enormous majority of 167 seats.
    10.3% lead and no majority should set massive alarm bells ringing.

    Or 1987 when an 11.4% lead for Thatcher delivered an enormous majority of 102.
    Or 1992 when a 7.4% lead led to a small majority of 22
    Or 2015 when a 6.5% lead led to a small majority of 12

    There's no precedence I can see for a double-digit lead not leading to a majority.
    They'd have to be damn unlucky, and their opponents damn coordinated, and the public remarkably efficient.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,605
    edited December 2019
    Andy_JS said:

    I'd like to see the latest version of Barnesian's model.

    Edit: just seen it below after refreshing the page.

    Here is the detail with assumptions etc at the bottom of the spreadsheet
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing
    Not much change
  • Does anyone know if Labour will still allow people to pay to vote in their forthcoming leadership election? Does that still need to be decided?

    I would pay to vote for Jess Phillips.

    I hope so,was fun last time.
    Hopefully there will be another Marxist nutter I can vote for.
    I got found out when the list of registered supporters was vetted by the local MP. Spoilsports. And they kept my three quid. Typical Trotskyist tax-grabbers!

    Marxists hate Trotskyists!

    During the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish Communists (the PCE) cracked down heavily on their supposed POUM allies because they perceived the POUM as "Trotskyite-Fascists".
    Splitters!

  • Hmmm...

    Mum actually approves of Carrie's sari on the front of the Sunday Telegraph :lol:
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html


    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    You'd think, looking back through history, there'd be at least one person more egregiously anti-semitic than Corbyn. But no.
    What a nonsensical point. Why does it apply to a claim about the present, current, non historical state of affairs?
    I hadn't noticed that

    "No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party."

    explicitly referred to the present day. My apologies for not seeing the non-historical context that you saw.
    Quite so: it doesn't *explicitly* refer to the present day, and you couldn't be arsed to establish the context, in which it clearly means No one of the candidates for inclusion in a list of anti Semites of 2019. Dig on.
  • vik said:

    I think there is a lot of "irrational exuberance" about a large Conservative majority.

    In simple terms, there are two Leave Parties (Con & Brexit) & five Remain Parties (Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid & Green).

    At this stage in 2017, the total Leave Parties vote in the polls was around 47% (43% Con & 4% UKIP). In 2019, this is 46% (43% Con & 3% Brexit).

    The only reason the Cons have an apparent "10% polling lead" is because Lib Dems have increased from 8% to 13%, compared to 2017, mostly at the expense of Lab. And this is largely because Lab are perceived to be insufficiently Remainy by the more committed pro-Europeans.

    Now, if the 5% increase in Lib Dem vote is distributed uniformly then, yes, Con will get a large majority.

    But, it is *never* distributed uniformly, and it is quite possible that the Lib Dem vote might go up where they are in realistic second places & go down where Lab are clearly in second.

    So, at the end of the day, there might be rerun of 2017 & a hung parliament again The Tory seat count might go backwards because of a slightly lower total Leave Parties vote share. It might even go substantially backwards if they are unlucky.

    Anyone expecting the Lib Dems to go down is on a hiding to nothing except extremely rare exceptions. The thing is tactical voters in 2017 already abandoned the Lib Dems. This is the flaw in tactical models like Barnesians, you compound the supposed tactical element, its already largely baked in.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    GN all
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html

    Anti-Nazi hunting organisation says Corbyn is the worst antisemite on the planet

    Jeremy Corbyn is the biggest global threat to Jews, warns Simon Wiesenthal Centre

    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    That group literally supports Trump.
    So did a majority of US electors
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,602
    vik said:

    I think there is a lot of "irrational exuberance" about a large Conservative majority.

    In simple terms, there are two Leave Parties (Con & Brexit) & five Remain Parties (Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid & Green).

    At this stage in 2017, the total Leave Parties vote in the polls was around 47% (43% Con & 4% UKIP). In 2019, this is 46% (43% Con & 3% Brexit).

    The only reason the Cons have an apparent "10% polling lead" is because Lib Dems have increased from 8% to 13%, compared to 2017, mostly at the expense of Lab. And this is largely because Lab are perceived to be insufficiently Remainy by the more committed pro-Europeans.

    Now, if the 5% increase in Lib Dem vote is distributed uniformly then, yes, Con will get a large majority.

    But, it is *never* distributed uniformly, and it is quite possible that the Lib Dem vote might go up where they are in realistic second places & go down where Lab are clearly in second.

    So, at the end of the day, there might be rerun of 2017 & a hung parliament again The Tory seat count might go backwards because of a slightly lower total Leave Parties vote share. It might even go substantially backwards if they are unlucky.

    Hardly anyone is predicting a big Tory majority now, after the MRP studies showed it probably wouldn't happen.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,127

    viewcode said:


    I think

    Survation is out at midnight tomorrow so a bit of a wait for that one. Monday will see icm and the Welsh barometer update

    Quick question: what day do you think 00:00am 2019-12-08 is?
    Sunday
    Ah I see, thank you.
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html


    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    You'd think, looking back through history, there'd be at least one person more egregiously anti-semitic than Corbyn. But no.
    What a nonsensical point. Why does it apply to a claim about the present, current, non historical state of affairs?
    I hadn't noticed that

    "No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party."

    explicitly referred to the present day. My apologies for not seeing the non-historical context that you saw.
    Quite so: it doesn't *explicitly* refer to the present day, and you couldn't be arsed to establish the context, in which it clearly means No one of the candidates for inclusion in a list of anti Semites of 2019. Dig on.
    My original post wasn't 100% serious.

    What are you trying to demonstrate?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627



    Sandpit said:

    Does anyone know if Labour will still allow people to pay to vote in their forthcoming leadership election? Does that still need to be decided?

    I would pay to vote for Jess Phillips.

    I hope so,was fun last time.
    Hopefully there will be another Marxist nutter I can vote for.
    I got found out when the list of registered supporters was vetted by the local MP. Spoilsports. And they kept my three quid. Typical Trotskyist tax-grabbers!

    Were you a (not-Labour) councillor at the time? I recall a few of them being booted from the lists by a vetting process.
    I was somewhat undone by the fact I was the former Tory agent in the seat, county council candidate and my son was in the same school class as the Labour MP’s son. Even he couldn’t fail to recognise my name!

    Ha, nice try. Will you sign up to vote for Laura Pidcock or Richard Burgon if they stand next time?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    edited December 2019
    speedy2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Does anyone know if Labour will still allow people to pay to vote in their forthcoming leadership election? Does that still need to be decided?

    I would pay to vote for Jess Phillips.

    I hope so,was fun last time.
    Hopefully there will be another Marxist nutter I can vote for.
    I got found out when the list of registered supporters was vetted by the local MP. Spoilsports. And they kept my three quid. Typical Trotskyist tax-grabbers!

    Marxists hate Trotskyists!

    During the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish Communists (the PCE) cracked down heavily on their supposed POUM allies because they perceived the POUM as "Trotskyite-Fascists".
    The squabbles of online marxists can be genuinely hilarious. The convolutedness of factional ideologues and their hatred for some other group of marxist dunces is a sight to behold.
    You shouldn't really laugh that much because it may happen for other ideologies too.

    For example the rivarly between the LD and the SDP after the merger in 1988, and the situation between the LD and Change UK is also in the same category.
    Level of rivalry I am sure, but the extra level of hilarity comes from the impenetrable, minuscule, yet apparently crucial pieces of dogma that separates them.

    They probably would have been great at the Council of Nicaea. Homoousion vs Homoiousian would be a simple argument to them (is that the right Council?).
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,127
    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:


    I think

    Survation is out at midnight tomorrow so a bit of a wait for that one. Monday will see icm and the Welsh barometer update

    Quick question: what day do you think 00:00am 2019-12-08 is?
    An hour and 18 minutes ago?
    I apologise for my lack of the "GMT" qualifier. That was a very pedantic point.

    Pause.

    I thoroughly approve. Well done that man.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    dr_spyn said:
    God Almighty! Can’t Carrie tell Boris to find a jacket that actually fits him? He’s not short of a bob or two, after all.

    He looks as if he’s just been let out of class detention.
    It must be a deliberate style, but I'm not sure for what reason. It's not the silly looking not fitting like Rees-Mogg, just scruffy looking, is that man of the people like?
    My main takeaway from the debate was that Jezza was wearing a very lovely suit and skinny tie combo. Cameron’s Mum is responsible for his unexpected longevity as leader.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited December 2019
    vik said:

    I think there is a lot of "irrational exuberance" about a large Conservative majority.

    In simple terms, there are two Leave Parties (Con & Brexit) & five Remain Parties (Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid & Green).

    At this stage in 2017, the total Leave Parties vote in the polls was around 47% (43% Con & 4% UKIP). In 2019, this is 46% (43% Con & 3% Brexit).

    The only reason the Cons have an apparent "10% polling lead" is because Lib Dems have increased from 8% to 13%, compared to 2017, mostly at the expense of Lab. And this is largely because Lab are perceived to be insufficiently Remainy by the more committed pro-Europeans.

    Now, if the 5% increase in Lib Dem vote is distributed uniformly then, yes, Con will get a large majority.

    But, it is *never* distributed uniformly, and it is quite possible that the Lib Dem vote might go up where they are in realistic second places & go down where Lab are clearly in second.

    So, at the end of the day, there might be rerun of 2017 & a hung parliament again The Tory seat count might go backwards because of a slightly lower total Leave Parties vote share. It might even go substantially backwards if they are unlucky.

    Except this is not what the underlying trends in the national polling or the constituency polls are telling us. Labour appears to be doing OK with middle-class Remainers, our own Labour canvassers have said as much. The reason the Lib Dems are where they are is Tory Remainers, who are spread out over large swathes of Southern England.
  • The last cathedral I visited was the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.

    In Blighty, been to St Paul's, Southwark, Ely, Salisbury, Liverpool Anglican, Liverpool RC (outside only), Canterbury (outside only), and St Andrews (ruin).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited December 2019
    Barnesian said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'd like to see the latest version of Barnesian's model.

    Edit: just seen it below after refreshing the page.

    Here is the detail with assumptions etc at the bottom of the spreadsheet
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing
    Not much change
    While it OGH's letter going to Warrington South was senseless , your Warrington figures make absolutely no sense to me. Why would the Lib Dems be down on last time? They've already been squeezed and now they're up nationally but you expect them to be squeezed further. Why?

    Your assumption that the Lib Dems haven't ran a campaign isn't true, they barely did last time yet still got the score they did last time. This time they've sent out OGH's letter, why would they be squeezed further?

    Labour won't be getting tactical votes this time. They're already in from last time.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    camel said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Jason said:

    Byronic said:

    Just had drinks with a Corbynite friend - smart, sensitive, an artist, very well educated

    We got into a lively argument about economics and Corbyn's manifesto, and his spending plans, and I challenged her to guess the size of the British economy. Our total GDP. As without that fact to hand, it would be impossible to say whether Corbynomics works or not.

    She didn't have a clue. Not the beginnings of a clue. It could have been $10bn, $500bn, $7 trillion. She would't even hazard a guess.

    But here's a thing - my guess was out by several hundred billion, too. Tho at least I was in the right ballpark - its actually just under $3trn,

    How many PB-ers would guess this figure right, without Googling?

    My guess would have been 2.7tn. But your wider point - Corbyn and the far left don't care about trifles like economics. They truly don't. Their job is to spread poverty, not wealth.
    My friend also reckons that Corbyn is going to win, or at least gain seats and rule a Hung Parliament, because there will be a "youthquake".

    Maybe relatedly, I am literally her only right-voting friend - as she has often told me. The entirety of her social circle, apart from me (and she is very sociable) is Remain-voting lefties

    I am astonished how you can go through life with such a narrow social set. But hey ho.
    Assuming she lives in London that’s entirely believable.
    I find it sad and bewildering. And I told her so. It's why she keeps being bitterly disappointed by unexpected political events.
    Give her a map of England, point out where London is and then ask here to show where Workington, Grimsby and Stoke are.

    Keep naming such places until she places one correctly.
    Indeed. I doubt she could place any of those three.

    To be fair, I'd struggle with Workington.

    In fact I'm going to have a guess without Googling. Is it near Manchester? Maybe north Cheshire?

    Ah, bollocks. Cumbria!
    Ushaia claims to be "Fin el Mundo".

    Workington should sue.
    The bulkof Workington constituency is beautiful.

    I believe the Honister Pass is in the Workington constituency. Arguably the most impressive landscape in England.

    Also, for film fans, the location for the Khyber Pass in Carry on up the Khyber.
    The Honister Pass is stunning. All that area is, including the coastline.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    Would be hilarious - gets his majority, but later in the morning, after several recounts, loses his seat.

    Naturally a senior alternative would need to be chosen by the cabinet. Step forward PM Francois.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627
    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:


    I think

    Survation is out at midnight tomorrow so a bit of a wait for that one. Monday will see icm and the Welsh barometer update

    Quick question: what day do you think 00:00am 2019-12-08 is?
    An hour and 18 minutes ago?
    I apologise for my lack of the "GMT" qualifier. That was a very pedantic point.

    Pause.

    I thoroughly approve. Well done that man.
    :)
    Right, time to close eyes at 01:45.
    By tomorrow night, I’ll be two more hours further away from the UK!
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,167
    edited December 2019
    camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html


    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    You'd think, looking back through history, there'd be at least one person more egregiously anti-semitic than Corbyn. But no.
    What a nonsensical point. Why does it apply to a claim about the present, current, non historical state of affairs?
    I hadn't noticed that

    "No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party."

    explicitly referred to the present day. My apologies for not seeing the non-historical context that you saw.
    Quite so: it doesn't *explicitly* refer to the present day, and you couldn't be arsed to establish the context, in which it clearly means No one of the candidates for inclusion in a list of anti Semites of 2019. Dig on.
    My original post wasn't 100% serious.

    What are you trying to demonstrate?
    It's an utterly bizarre and ahistorical quote to begin with, as you would expect from a Trump ally. In the present day, the greatest contributor of anti-semitism into a democracy is Viktor Orban, the Tories' current new friend and essentially sole ally in Europe, and in the past it was Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Henry Ford, all unimaginably different figures from Corbyn.

    The introduction of pure fake news into the antisemitism debate is extremely dangerous to the fight against real antisemitism.
  • Looking at that and the related articles, you would have no sense the Tories are very likely to gain a majority. Pure fantasy stuff
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    Cyclefree said:

    camel said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Jason said:

    Byronic said:

    Just had drinks with a Corbynite friend - smart, sensitive, an artist, very well educated

    We got into a lively argument about economics and Corbyn's manifesto, and his spending plans, and I challenged her to guess the size of the British economy. Our total GDP. As without that fact to hand, it would be impossible to say whether Corbynomics works or not.

    She didn't have a clue. Not the beginnings of a clue. It could have been $10bn, $500bn, $7 trillion. She would't even hazard a guess.

    But here's a thing - my guess was out by several hundred billion, too. Tho at least I was in the right ballpark - its actually just under $3trn,

    How many PB-ers would guess this figure right, without Googling?

    My guess would have been 2.7tn. But your wider point - Corbyn and the far left don't care about trifles like economics. They truly don't. Their job is to spread poverty, not wealth.
    My friend also reckons that Corbyn is going to win, or at least gain seats and rule a Hung Parliament, because there will be a "youthquake".

    Maybe relatedly, I am literally her only right-voting friend - as she has often told me. The entirety of her social circle, apart from me (and she is very sociable) is Remain-voting lefties

    I am astonished how you can go through life with such a narrow social set. But hey ho.
    Assuming she lives in London that’s entirely believable.
    I find it sad and bewildering. And I told her so. It's why she keeps being bitterly disappointed by unexpected political events.
    Give her a map of England, point out where London is and then ask here to show where Workington, Grimsby and Stoke are.

    Keep naming such places until she places one correctly.
    Indeed. I doubt she could place any of those three.

    To be fair, I'd struggle with Workington.

    In fact I'm going to have a guess without Googling. Is it near Manchester? Maybe north Cheshire?

    Ah, bollocks. Cumbria!
    Ushaia claims to be "Fin el Mundo".

    Workington should sue.
    The bulkof Workington constituency is beautiful.

    I believe the Honister Pass is in the Workington constituency. Arguably the most impressive landscape in England.

    Also, for film fans, the location for the Khyber Pass in Carry on up the Khyber.
    The Honister Pass is stunning. All that area is, including the coastline.
    I've opined before that the constituency would be more accurately named North Lakeland and Solway.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    edited December 2019
    I know it's only £500 for a deposit to stand for parliament, but do the Greens really have so much money they can repeatedly lose hundreds of thousands of pounds standing? They're standing in 472 seats and got 1.6% of the vote last time, and a twentieth of that vote was in Brighton Pavillion, so that's a but load of lost deposits in the other 456 seats they stood in in 2017.

    I guess a few big donations covers that kind of cost, but given their strategy is to target key seats rather than the old UKIP approach of mass support reaching a critical mass, it seems such a waste.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    Byronic said:

    viewcode said:

    Byronic said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:


    I wonder if Londoners are less likely to have visited other parts of the UK than vice versa, ie. non-Londoners visiting London?

    I am not sure I would say that, however I would say I doubt better off Londoners are visiting the left behind places like Stoke en masse for a cheeky dirty weekend away...
    I read an article once that claimed yuppy Londoners were more likely to have visited that famous place in Peru than Lincoln cathedral. It was just an anecdote but it sounded like it might be true.
    That's almost certainly true.

    Of all my social circle in London, I'd bet I am the only one that's been to Lincoln Cathedral. Several of us have been to Macchu Picchu.

    I cannot testify to the social circle of international crossdressing male models transitioning to be a woman who have visited Antarctica, so maybe you are correct. However Lincoln is difficult to get to from (thinks for a minute) everywhere. However York Minster is reasonably easily accessible, in the better part of Yorkshire, and is close to many pleasant tea shops.

    But if we are going to nominate Best Big Church In Britain, I stick my paw up for St Paul's. Westminster Abbey gets overshadowed by Parliament. However I do have a soft spot for Paddy's Wigwam or the little-known Westminster Cathedral
    For me, in order, the top five from 1 to 5

    Lincoln
    Durham
    Ely
    Wells
    and St Paul's London, just for the view of it from the Wobbly Bridge, inside it is boring
    Just for you - https://twitter.com/cyclefree2/status/1203258625701154816?s=21
  • camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html


    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    You'd think, looking back through history, there'd be at least one person more egregiously anti-semitic than Corbyn. But no.
    What a nonsensical point. Why does it apply to a claim about the present, current, non historical state of affairs?
    I hadn't noticed that

    "No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party."

    explicitly referred to the present day. My apologies for not seeing the non-historical context that you saw.
    Quite so: it doesn't *explicitly* refer to the present day, and you couldn't be arsed to establish the context, in which it clearly means No one of the candidates for inclusion in a list of anti Semites of 2019. Dig on.
    My original post wasn't 100% serious.

    What are you trying to demonstrate?
    It's an utterly bizarre and ahistorical quote to begin with, as you would expect from a Trump ally. In the present day, the greatest contributor of anti-semitism into a democracy is Viktor Orban, the Tories' new ally, and in the past it was Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Henry Ford, all unimaginably different figures from Corbyn.

    The introduction of pure fake news into the antisemitism debate is extremely dangerous to the fight against real antisemitism.
    Maybe the UK is judged to be more significant than Hungary thus Corbyn is a bigger risk?
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,683
    argyllrs said:

    TudorRose said:

    Barnesian said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Here is Anthony Wells' summary from his UK Polling Report of the four polls which have reported this evening ... very much a case of steady as you go:

    "Looking at the four companies who’ve released GB opinion polls for the Sunday papers, we’ve got ComRes and Deltapoll showing things narrowing by a little, YouGov showing the lead growing by a point, Opinium showing no movement. The clear trend towards Labour we were seeing earlier in the campaign appears to have petered out. The average across the four is a Conservative lead of 11 points, though of course, these are tilted towards those pollsters who show bigger Conservative leads. Taking an average of the most recent poll from all ten pollsters producing regular figures gives an average of 10 points."

    The Tories would be unlucky not to hit 326 seats with a 10 point lead.
    Adding in all tonight's polls gives the Tories a 10.3% lead and 324 seats.


    I would be worried by a model that says 20 + 1 + 5 = 25 for the Lib Dems.
    Yup, Wales doesn't add up.
    Last GE Tories just shy of a majority with a 2-3 point lead. Now with a ten point lead your projection shows a very similar result. Extreme voting efficiency by the opposition parties?
    It's not my projection; that's Barnesian's work. My model, for what its worth has a Tory majority of 50 on an 8% lead.
  • kle4 said:

    I know it's only £500 for a deposit to stand for parliament, but where do the Greens really have so much money they can repeatedly lose hundreds of thousands of pounds standing? They're standing in 472 seats and got 1.6% of the vote last time, and a twentieth of that vote was in Brighton Pavillion, so that's a but load of lost deposits in the other 456 seats they stood in.

    I guess a few big donations covers that kind of cost, but given their strategy is to target key seats rather than the old UKIP approach of mass support reaching a critical mass, it seems such a waste.

    "Short" money. They get Short Money annually based on the votes they get. More than covers the £500 deposit probably, albeit having an election every 2 years probably doesn't help.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,602
    kle4 said:

    I know it's only £500 for a deposit to stand for parliament, but where do the Greens really have so much money they can repeatedly lose hundreds of thousands of pounds standing? They're standing in 472 seats and got 1.6% of the vote last time, and a twentieth of that vote was in Brighton Pavillion, so that's a but load of lost deposits in the other 456 seats they stood in.

    I guess a few big donations covers that kind of cost, but given their strategy is to target key seats rather than the old UKIP approach of mass support reaching a critical mass, it seems such a waste.

    Last time they had online crowdfunding campaigns for most of the seats. I don't know about this time.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    Andy_JS said:

    vik said:

    I think there is a lot of "irrational exuberance" about a large Conservative majority.

    In simple terms, there are two Leave Parties (Con & Brexit) & five Remain Parties (Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid & Green).

    At this stage in 2017, the total Leave Parties vote in the polls was around 47% (43% Con & 4% UKIP). In 2019, this is 46% (43% Con & 3% Brexit).

    The only reason the Cons have an apparent "10% polling lead" is because Lib Dems have increased from 8% to 13%, compared to 2017, mostly at the expense of Lab. And this is largely because Lab are perceived to be insufficiently Remainy by the more committed pro-Europeans.

    Now, if the 5% increase in Lib Dem vote is distributed uniformly then, yes, Con will get a large majority.

    But, it is *never* distributed uniformly, and it is quite possible that the Lib Dem vote might go up where they are in realistic second places & go down where Lab are clearly in second.

    So, at the end of the day, there might be rerun of 2017 & a hung parliament again The Tory seat count might go backwards because of a slightly lower total Leave Parties vote share. It might even go substantially backwards if they are unlucky.

    Hardly anyone is predicting a big Tory majority now, after the MRP studies showed it probably wouldn't happen.
    And yet....we keep hearing of crazy safe Labour seats supposedly in trouble.....
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,167
    edited December 2019

    camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html


    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    You'd think, looking back through history, there'd be at least one person more egregiously anti-semitic than Corbyn. But no.
    What a nonsensical point. Why does it apply to a claim about the present, current, non historical state of affairs?
    I hadn't noticed that

    "No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party."

    explicitly referred to the present day. My apologies for not seeing the non-historical context that you saw.
    Quite so: it doesn't *explicitly* refer to the present day, and you couldn't be arsed to establish the context, in which it clearly means No one of the candidates for inclusion in a list of anti Semites of 2019. Dig on.
    My original post wasn't 100% serious.

    What are you trying to demonstrate?
    It's an utterly bizarre and ahistorical quote to begin with, as you would expect from a Trump ally. In the present day, the greatest contributor of anti-semitism into a democracy is Viktor Orban, the Tories' new ally, and in the past it was Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Henry Ford, all unimaginably different figures from Corbyn.

    The introduction of pure fake news into the antisemitism debate is extremely dangerous to the fight against real antisemitism.
    Maybe the UK is judged to be more significant than Hungary thus Corbyn is a bigger risk?
    It's just thoroughgoing absurdity, I'm afraid.
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,683
    Charles said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html

    Anti-Nazi hunting organisation says Corbyn is the worst antisemite on the planet

    Jeremy Corbyn is the biggest global threat to Jews, warns Simon Wiesenthal Centre

    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    That group literally supports Trump.
    So did a majority of US electors
    No, a majority of the electoral college did. A majority of the electors backed Clinton.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    And now for something amusing:
    https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1203438402336706561

    Never make Art out of food unless it's in a restaurant.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    Andy_JS said:

    kle4 said:

    I know it's only £500 for a deposit to stand for parliament, but where do the Greens really have so much money they can repeatedly lose hundreds of thousands of pounds standing? They're standing in 472 seats and got 1.6% of the vote last time, and a twentieth of that vote was in Brighton Pavillion, so that's a but load of lost deposits in the other 456 seats they stood in.

    I guess a few big donations covers that kind of cost, but given their strategy is to target key seats rather than the old UKIP approach of mass support reaching a critical mass, it seems such a waste.

    Last time they had online crowdfunding campaigns for most of the seats. I don't know about this time.
    Seems like a few at least. In trying to find that out with a quick google, I discover via their website that they appear to have only one deputy leader despite their co-leader system. Seems like you'd want two deputies.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507

    Cookie said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:


    I wonder if Londoners are less likely to have visited other parts of the UK than vice versa, ie. non-Londoners visiting London?

    I am not sure I would say that, however I would say I doubt better off Londoners are visiting the left behind places like Stoke en masse for a cheeky dirty weekend away...
    I read an article once that claimed yuppie Londoners were more likely to have visited that famous place in Peru than Lincoln cathedral. It was just an anecdote but it sounded like it might be true.
    Why is that surprising? I bet <1% of Britain's population have been to Lincoln Cathedral. Macchu Picchu is meant to be one of the most incredible places in the world, is it surprising a lot of people from a city with high disposable incomes and good air links have visited it? I'm sure Lincoln Cathedral is nice, but it's not like it's the only Cathedral in Britain. I've been to enough Cathedrals to know that I have no real interest in seeing the one in Lincoln. Does this mean that Brexit is my fault or something?</p>
    I went to Chester Cathedral last year. It was astonishing. Utterly beautiful. If it was in Florence or somewhere tourists would flock there. Yet I had lived within an hour of it for the majority of my life and never been.

    I do have a bit of an antipathy to religion, and because it's the lical one, to the CofE in particular. So maybe that's why. Maybe it's easier to take a detached view of the beauty of someone else's church. But it's easy to marvel at these places without the religious context. Even from the outside. I'd urge everyone to take the chance to visit Lincoln cathedral, and Chester, and Liverpool, and York, and probably two dozen more.
    I actually don't mind walking around a nice Cathedral for half an hour. I've visited York, Durham, Wells, Canterbury, St Paul's, Southwark, Ely, St Andrews (ruins). But I can't say I would go somewhere just to look at it.
    I have been to some amazing places outside of the UK, I love travelling and exploring other countries and cultures. I don't think that's something to feel bad about.
    People outside of London tend to forget too how big London is. How many non Londoners have visited my London borough of Lewisham? Probably not many. But we have a population of almost 300,000 - bigger than Newcastle. Why don't all the metropolitan elitists of Stoke come to Lewisham instead of going to Spain on holiday?
    Guilty. Visiting london right now but not gone south of the river. But think I would prefer lewisham to Spain. Especially as I don't have a passport.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153

    Andy_JS said:

    vik said:

    I think there is a lot of "irrational exuberance" about a large Conservative majority.

    In simple terms, there are two Leave Parties (Con & Brexit) & five Remain Parties (Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid & Green).

    At this stage in 2017, the total Leave Parties vote in the polls was around 47% (43% Con & 4% UKIP). In 2019, this is 46% (43% Con & 3% Brexit).

    The only reason the Cons have an apparent "10% polling lead" is because Lib Dems have increased from 8% to 13%, compared to 2017, mostly at the expense of Lab. And this is largely because Lab are perceived to be insufficiently Remainy by the more committed pro-Europeans.

    Now, if the 5% increase in Lib Dem vote is distributed uniformly then, yes, Con will get a large majority.

    But, it is *never* distributed uniformly, and it is quite possible that the Lib Dem vote might go up where they are in realistic second places & go down where Lab are clearly in second.

    So, at the end of the day, there might be rerun of 2017 & a hung parliament again The Tory seat count might go backwards because of a slightly lower total Leave Parties vote share. It might even go substantially backwards if they are unlucky.

    Hardly anyone is predicting a big Tory majority now, after the MRP studies showed it probably wouldn't happen.
    And yet....we keep hearing of crazy safe Labour seats supposedly in trouble.....
    I've speculated for the crazy safe seats such talk is more just that they are facing a bit of challenge or hostility on the doorstep for the first time ever, and being unused to that panic into thinking the seat might be in genuine danger of flipping.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    Andy_JS said:

    Summary of Datapraxis predictions:

    Lanark & Hamilton East: SNP maj 1,680
    Don Valley: Con maj 3,245
    Wrexham: Con maj 1,679
    Vale of Clwyd: Con maj 310
    Workington: Lab maj 883
    Hartlepool: Lab maj 5,046
    Putney: Con maj 1,479
    Winchester: LD maj 344
    East Dunbartonshire: LD maj 2,211
    Esher & Walton: Con maj 3,429
    Chingford & Woodford Green: Con maj 730
    Beaconsfield: Con maj 8,618

    https://www.dataprax.is/tory-landslide-or-hung-parliament

    4 seats changing hands: Don Valley, Wrexham, Vale of Clwyd, Winchester.

    vik said:

    I think there is a lot of "irrational exuberance" about a large Conservative majority.

    In simple terms, there are two Leave Parties (Con & Brexit) & five Remain Parties (Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid & Green).

    At this stage in 2017, the total Leave Parties vote in the polls was around 47% (43% Con & 4% UKIP). In 2019, this is 46% (43% Con & 3% Brexit).

    The only reason the Cons have an apparent "10% polling lead" is because Lib Dems have increased from 8% to 13%, compared to 2017, mostly at the expense of Lab. And this is largely because Lab are perceived to be insufficiently Remainy by the more committed pro-Europeans.

    Now, if the 5% increase in Lib Dem vote is distributed uniformly then, yes, Con will get a large majority.

    But, it is *never* distributed uniformly, and it is quite possible that the Lib Dem vote might go up where they are in realistic second places & go down where Lab are clearly in second.

    So, at the end of the day, there might be rerun of 2017 & a hung parliament again The Tory seat count might go backwards because of a slightly lower total Leave Parties vote share. It might even go substantially backwards if they are unlucky.

    This is simply wrong. The reason the Tories have a 10 point lead is because they have taken a chunk of the labour leave vote from 2017, which labour were able to hold onto in 2017 as they pretended to be both remain and leave.

    That trick isn't working this time.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,602
    edited December 2019
    I agree with those who say the most likely result is a majority of between 20 and 60. Because the LD campaign has been poor Labour is doing better than expected which means the Tories aren't going to win a bigger majority of close to 100.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    Andy_JS said:

    vik said:

    I think there is a lot of "irrational exuberance" about a large Conservative majority.

    In simple terms, there are two Leave Parties (Con & Brexit) & five Remain Parties (Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid & Green).

    At this stage in 2017, the total Leave Parties vote in the polls was around 47% (43% Con & 4% UKIP). In 2019, this is 46% (43% Con & 3% Brexit).

    The only reason the Cons have an apparent "10% polling lead" is because Lib Dems have increased from 8% to 13%, compared to 2017, mostly at the expense of Lab. And this is largely because Lab are perceived to be insufficiently Remainy by the more committed pro-Europeans.

    Now, if the 5% increase in Lib Dem vote is distributed uniformly then, yes, Con will get a large majority.

    But, it is *never* distributed uniformly, and it is quite possible that the Lib Dem vote might go up where they are in realistic second places & go down where Lab are clearly in second.

    So, at the end of the day, there might be rerun of 2017 & a hung parliament again The Tory seat count might go backwards because of a slightly lower total Leave Parties vote share. It might even go substantially backwards if they are unlucky.

    Hardly anyone is predicting a big Tory majority now, after the MRP studies showed it probably wouldn't happen.
    And yet....we keep hearing of crazy safe Labour seats supposedly in trouble.....
    Every single Labour leave seat that is 60% Leave or more is vulnerable
  • camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html


    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    You'd think, looking back through history, there'd be at least one person more egregiously anti-semitic than Corbyn. But no.
    What a nonsensical point. Why does it apply to a claim about the present, current, non historical state of affairs?
    I hadn't noticed that

    "No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party."

    explicitly referred to the present day. My apologies for not seeing the non-historical context that you saw.
    Quite so: it doesn't *explicitly* refer to the present day, and you couldn't be arsed to establish the context, in which it clearly means No one of the candidates for inclusion in a list of anti Semites of 2019. Dig on.
    My original post wasn't 100% serious.

    What are you trying to demonstrate?
    It's an utterly bizarre and ahistorical quote to begin with, as you would expect from a Trump ally. In the present day, the greatest contributor of anti-semitism into a democracy is Viktor Orban, the Tories' new ally, and in the past it was Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Henry Ford, all unimaginably different figures from Corbyn.

    The introduction of pure fake news into the antisemitism debate is extremely dangerous to the fight against real antisemitism.
    Maybe the UK is judged to be more significant than Hungary thus Corbyn is a bigger risk?
    It's just thoroughgoing absurdity, I'm afraid.
    That someone as vile and antisemitic as Corbyn is even a candidate to become Prime Minister?

    I completely agree it is an absurdity and I hope the country passes judgement on that next week. We don't need our own Orban who leads the Labour Party in office.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited December 2019
    TudorRose said:

    Charles said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html

    Anti-Nazi hunting organisation says Corbyn is the worst antisemite on the planet

    Jeremy Corbyn is the biggest global threat to Jews, warns Simon Wiesenthal Centre

    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    That group literally supports Trump.
    So did a majority of US electors
    No, a majority of the electoral college did. A majority of the electors backed Clinton.
    I thought "electors" referred to the members of the Electoral College?

    I thought "voters" is what Clinton won a majority of?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,127
    camel said:

    Byronic said:

    viewcode said:

    Byronic said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:


    I wonder if Londoners are less likely to have visited other parts of the UK than vice versa, ie. non-Londoners visiting London?

    I am not sure I would say that, however I would say I doubt better off Londoners are visiting the left behind places like Stoke en masse for a cheeky dirty weekend away...
    I read an article once that claimed yuppy Londoners were more likely to have visited that famous place in Peru than Lincoln cathedral. It was just an anecdote but it sounded like it might be true.
    That's almost certainly true.

    Of all my social circle in London, I'd bet I am the only one that's been to Lincoln Cathedral. Several of us have been to Macchu Picchu.

    I cannot testify to the social circle of international crossdressing male models transitioning to be a woman who have visited Antarctica, so maybe you are correct. However Lincoln is difficult to get to from (thinks for a minute) everywhere. However York Minster is reasonably easily accessible, in the better part of Yorkshire, and is close to many pleasant tea shops.

    But if we are going to nominate Best Big Church In Britain, I stick my paw up for St Paul's. Westminster Abbey gets overshadowed by Parliament. However I do have a soft spot for Paddy's Wigwam or the little-known Westminster Cathedral
    For me, in order, the top five from 1 to 5

    Lincoln
    Durham
    Ely
    Wells
    and St Paul's London, just for the view of it from the Wobbly Bridge, inside it is boring
    Not done Wells but the first three are belters.
    I keep forgetting Ely. Like Lincoln (as @Byronic points out) it's a bit out of the way. But it does suit its setting well and I'd like to go there.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    TudorRose said:

    Charles said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html

    Anti-Nazi hunting organisation says Corbyn is the worst antisemite on the planet

    Jeremy Corbyn is the biggest global threat to Jews, warns Simon Wiesenthal Centre

    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    That group literally supports Trump.
    So did a majority of US electors
    No, a majority of the electoral college did. A majority of the electors backed Clinton.
    In terminology used here, a majority of electors (i.e. those in the Electoral College) 'voted' for Trump. A majority of voters supported Hillary.
  • kle4 said:

    Does anyone know if Labour will still allow people to pay to vote in their forthcoming leadership election? Does that still need to be decided?

    I would pay to vote for Jess Phillips.

    I hope so,was fun last time.
    Hopefully there will be another Marxist nutter I can vote for.
    I got found out when the list of registered supporters was vetted by the local MP. Spoilsports. And they kept my three quid. Typical Trotskyist tax-grabbers!

    Marxists hate Trotskyists!

    During the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish Communists (the PCE) cracked down heavily on their supposed POUM allies because they perceived the POUM as "Trotskyite-Fascists".
    The squabbles of online marxists can be genuinely hilarious. The convolutedness of factional ideologues and their hatred for some other group of marxist dunces is a sight to behold.
    Made me chuckle in the Canadian GE that there are 2 Communist parties of Canada, because they don't get one with one another. Talk about splitting the vote.
    In India, there are also 2 Communist Parties. The Communist Party of India (CPI) and the Communist Party of India - Marxist (CPI(M)). And then you have the outlawed Communist Party of India - Maoist, responsible for various acts of terrorism in rural India over the years.
  • camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    camel said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html


    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    You'd think, looking back through history, there'd be at least one person more egregiously anti-semitic than Corbyn. But no.
    What a nonsensical point. Why does it apply to a claim about the present, current, non historical state of affairs?
    I hadn't noticed that

    "No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party."

    explicitly referred to the present day. My apologies for not seeing the non-historical context that you saw.
    Quite so: it doesn't *explicitly* refer to the present day, and you couldn't be arsed to establish the context, in which it clearly means No one of the candidates for inclusion in a list of anti Semites of 2019. Dig on.
    My original post wasn't 100% serious.

    What are you trying to demonstrate?
    It's an utterly bizarre and ahistorical quote to begin with, as you would expect from a Trump ally. In the present day, the greatest contributor of anti-semitism into a democracy is Viktor Orban, the Tories' new ally, and in the past it was Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Henry Ford, all unimaginably different figures from Corbyn.

    The introduction of pure fake news into the antisemitism debate is extremely dangerous to the fight against real antisemitism.
    Maybe the UK is judged to be more significant than Hungary thus Corbyn is a bigger risk?
    It's just thoroughgoing absurdity, I'm afraid.
    That someone as vile and antisemitic as Corbyn is even a candidate to become Prime Minister?

    I completely agree it is an absurdity and I hope the country passes judgement on that next week. We don't need our own Orban who leads the Labour Party in office.
    All you are doing here is passing on clearly partisan nonsense spread by a Trump supporter. The end result will be to legitimise antisemitism through debasement and politicisation.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    edited December 2019

    vik said:

    I think there is a lot of "irrational exuberance" about a large Conservative majority.

    In simple terms, there are two Leave Parties (Con & Brexit) & five Remain Parties (Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid & Green).

    At this stage in 2017, the total Leave Parties vote in the polls was around 47% (43% Con & 4% UKIP). In 2019, this is 46% (43% Con & 3% Brexit).

    The only reason the Cons have an apparent "10% polling lead" is because Lib Dems have increased from 8% to 13%, compared to 2017, mostly at the expense of Lab. And this is largely because Lab are perceived to be insufficiently Remainy by the more committed pro-Europeans.

    Now, if the 5% increase in Lib Dem vote is distributed uniformly then, yes, Con will get a large majority.

    But, it is *never* distributed uniformly, and it is quite possible that the Lib Dem vote might go up where they are in realistic second places & go down where Lab are clearly in second.

    So, at the end of the day, there might be rerun of 2017 & a hung parliament again The Tory seat count might go backwards because of a slightly lower total Leave Parties vote share. It might even go substantially backwards if they are unlucky.

    Except this is not what the underlying trends in the national polling or the constituency polls are telling us. Labour appears to be doing OK with middle-class Remainers, our own Labour canvassers have said as much. The reason the Lib Dems are where they are is Tory Remainers, who are spread out over large swathes of Southern England.
    Exactly. And most of those seats are so safe that even a large swing to the libdems would see the Tories hold on. Except in the more urbany type seats such as St Albans, Guildford and Winchester.
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    viewcode said:

    camel said:

    Byronic said:

    viewcode said:

    Byronic said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:


    I wonder if Londoners are less likely to have visited other parts of the UK than vice versa, ie. non-Londoners visiting London?

    I am not sure I would say that, however I would say I doubt better off Londoners are visiting the left behind places like Stoke en masse for a cheeky dirty weekend away...
    I read an article once that claimed yuppy Londoners were more likely to have visited that famous place in Peru than Lincoln cathedral. It was just an anecdote but it sounded like it might be true.
    That's almost certainly true.

    Of all my social circle in London, I'd bet I am the only one that's been to Lincoln Cathedral. Several of us have been to Macchu Picchu.

    I cannot testify to the social circle of international crossdressing male models transitioning to be a woman who have visited Antarctica, so maybe you are correct. However Lincoln is difficult to get to from (thinks for a minute) everywhere. However York Minster is reasonably easily accessible, in the better part of Yorkshire, and is close to many pleasant tea shops.

    But if we are going to nominate Best Big Church In Britain, I stick my paw up for St Paul's. Westminster Abbey gets overshadowed by Parliament. However I do have a soft spot for Paddy's Wigwam or the little-known Westminster Cathedral
    For me, in order, the top five from 1 to 5

    Lincoln
    Durham
    Ely
    Wells
    and St Paul's London, just for the view of it from the Wobbly Bridge, inside it is boring
    Not done Wells but the first three are belters.
    I keep forgetting Ely. Like Lincoln (as @Byronic points out) it's a bit out of the way. But it does suit its setting well and I'd like to go there.
    Ely dominates the town (city, i suppose) but Lincoln really does dominate the landscape, given the surrounding flatlands. Durham is atop a hill too, of course, but Lincoln and York (Minster) are two that you can see from miles away. Goodness knows what the 12th Century peasants made of them.
    Ripon is pretty good too.
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,683

    TudorRose said:

    Charles said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html

    Anti-Nazi hunting organisation says Corbyn is the worst antisemite on the planet

    Jeremy Corbyn is the biggest global threat to Jews, warns Simon Wiesenthal Centre

    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    That group literally supports Trump.
    So did a majority of US electors
    No, a majority of the electoral college did. A majority of the electors backed Clinton.
    I thought "electors" referred to the members of the Electoral College?

    I thought "voters" is what Clinton won a majority of?
    Wouldn't that be Electors?!
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,683
    Tim_B said:

    TudorRose said:

    Charles said:

    Floater said:

    I think this is a bit overblown but jeeezus

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767789/Jeremy-Corbyn-biggest-global-threat-Jews-warns-worlds-leading-Nazi-hunting-organisation.html

    Anti-Nazi hunting organisation says Corbyn is the worst antisemite on the planet

    Jeremy Corbyn is the biggest global threat to Jews, warns Simon Wiesenthal Centre

    No one has done more to mainstream antisemitism into the political and social life of a democracy than the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.

    That group literally supports Trump.
    So did a majority of US electors
    No, a majority of the electoral college did. A majority of the electors backed Clinton.
    In terminology used here, a majority of electors (i.e. those in the Electoral College) 'voted' for Trump. A majority of voters supported Hillary.
    Fair enough!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    HYUFD said:
    "And I'll be responsible for half of it!"
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    speedy2 said:

    And now for something amusing:
    https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1203438402336706561

    Never make Art out of food unless it's in a restaurant.

    When he passes the banana as a turd, will it have a $60,000 price tag?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    Notwithstanding SLAB being in for a bad night, that is about as good a result for the other unionist parties as they could hope for I suppose.
  • Echoing the results of a YouGov poll conducted for The Times yesterday, our latest poll finds backing for Scottish independence has slipped, with a six-point gap between backers and opponents.

    It puts support for independence down two points since last month to 47% and support for the Union at 53 (+2).

    When asked for their views if Britain stays in the EU, support for independence slumps to 42% and support for the Union rises to 58% — ahead of the 2014 independence referendum level of 45%-55%. But if Britain does leave the EU, 51% told Panelbase they would back Scottish independence while 49% would oppose it.

    “Getting Brexit done may end one constitutional argument — only to reopen another,” warns Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University.
  • It's an utterly bizarre and ahistorical quote to begin with, as you would expect from a Trump ally. In the present day, the greatest contributor of anti-semitism into a democracy is Viktor Orban, the Tories' new ally, and in the past it was Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Henry Ford, all unimaginably different figures from Corbyn.

    The introduction of pure fake news into the antisemitism debate is extremely dangerous to the fight against real antisemitism.

    Maybe the UK is judged to be more significant than Hungary thus Corbyn is a bigger risk?
    It's just thoroughgoing absurdity, I'm afraid.
    That someone as vile and antisemitic as Corbyn is even a candidate to become Prime Minister?

    I completely agree it is an absurdity and I hope the country passes judgement on that next week. We don't need our own Orban who leads the Labour Party in office.
    All you are doing here is passing on clearly partisan nonsense spread by a Trump supporter. The end result will be to legitimise antisemitism through debasement and politicisation.
    I despise Trump and everything he stands for. I hope he loses next term.

    There is no legitimisation of antisemitism, unless you think antisemitism is OK and thus vote Labour. I will not.

    What debases politics is antisemites like Jeremy "English Jews don't get irony" Corbyn being party leader. I fully respect all the many MPs and voters from his party and even celebrities like Tony Robinson who have said they couldn't support that and quit the party - even if I disagree with their politics.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    edited December 2019
    RobD said:
    A surge still needs to see an increase of at least one seat, Rob!
  • On these numbers the tories might actually end up with a net gain in Scotland depending on how the SNP's vote is distributed compared to last time.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:
    A surge still needs to see an increase of at least one seat, Rob!
    :(

    OK, I'll put down the Klaxon.
  • Burnley FC = Labour on friday morning.

    Spurs = Gauke in SW Herts.

    hopefully.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Nobidexx said:

    On these numbers the tories might actually end up with a net gain in Scotland depending on how the SNP's vote is distributed compared to last time.
    Now I'm never going to get to bed :o:o
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,124
    edited December 2019
    HYUFD said:
    Is that a personal promise?

    Again, is this Boris being cheeky, it is calculated? I don't know, but it feels like the making cupboard buses.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    That is an excellent poll for the Tories in Scotland. Forget about talk about a hung Parliament.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,167
    edited December 2019

    It's an utterly bizarre and ahistorical quote to begin with, as you would expect from a Trump ally. In the present day, the greatest contributor of anti-semitism into a democracy is Viktor Orban, the Tories' new ally, and in the past it was Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Henry Ford, all unimaginably different figures from Corbyn.

    The introduction of pure fake news into the antisemitism debate is extremely dangerous to the fight against real antisemitism.

    Maybe the UK is judged to be more significant than Hungary thus Corbyn is a bigger risk?
    It's just thoroughgoing absurdity, I'm afraid.
    That someone as vile and antisemitic as Corbyn is even a candidate to become Prime Minister?

    I completely agree it is an absurdity and I hope the country passes judgement on that next week. We don't need our own Orban who leads the Labour Party in office.
    All you are doing here is passing on clearly partisan nonsense spread by a Trump supporter. The end result will be to legitimise antisemitism through debasement and politicisation.
    I despise Trump and everything he stands for. I hope he loses next term.

    There is no legitimisation of antisemitism, unless you think antisemitism is OK and thus vote Labour. I will not.

    What debases politics is antisemites like Jeremy "English Jews don't get irony" Corbyn being party leader. I fully respect all the many MPs and voters from his party and even celebrities like Tony Robinson who have said they couldn't support that and quit the party - even if I disagree with their politics.
    If people posing as natural arbiters, but who are in fact combatants in a political culture war, start making claims about Corbyn that are so fantastical as to stretch credulity in the entire millennia-old blight of anti-semitism itself, the only people who will lose out are Jewish people, long after the tory party has gained a short-term advantage in an election campaign.
  • kle4 said:

    I know it's only £500 for a deposit to stand for parliament, but do the Greens really have so much money they can repeatedly lose hundreds of thousands of pounds standing? They're standing in 472 seats and got 1.6% of the vote last time, and a twentieth of that vote was in Brighton Pavillion, so that's a but load of lost deposits in the other 456 seats they stood in in 2017.

    I guess a few big donations covers that kind of cost, but given their strategy is to target key seats rather than the old UKIP approach of mass support reaching a critical mass, it seems such a waste.

    The Greens do only concentrate on a few key seats in the GE, but standing in the others is important in terms of developing a local profile to help win election of councillors, and to qualify for the PEB. They do have quite a substantial membership now.
  • argyllrsargyllrs Posts: 155
    RobD said:

    Nobidexx said:

    On these numbers the tories might actually end up with a net gain in Scotland depending on how the SNP's vote is distributed compared to last time.
    Now I'm never going to get to bed :o:o
    Labour have 2 seats nailed on
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153

    HYUFD said:
    Is that a personal promise?

    Again, is this Boris being cheeky, it is calculated? I don't know, but it feels like the making cupboard buses.
    He wants to see a different result for "Boris" and "Bonking" in search engines? I can believe it.
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    Nobidexx said:

    On these numbers the tories might actually end up with a net gain in Scotland depending on how the SNP's vote is distributed compared to last time.
    This chart is a colourful picture neatly illustrating the absurdity of FPTP.
  • HYUFD said:
    Is that a personal promise?

    Again, is this Boris being cheeky, it is calculated? I don't know, but it feels like the making cupboard buses.
    What are making cupboard buses?
  • It's an utterly bizarre and ahistorical quote to begin with, as you would expect from a Trump ally. In the present day, the greatest contributor of anti-semitism into a democracy is Viktor Orban, the Tories' new ally, and in the past it was Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Henry Ford, all unimaginably different figures from Corbyn.

    The introduction of pure fake news into the antisemitism debate is extremely dangerous to the fight against real antisemitism.

    Maybe the UK is judged to be more significant than Hungary thus Corbyn is a bigger risk?
    It's just thoroughgoing absurdity, I'm afraid.
    That someone as vile and antisemitic as Corbyn is even a candidate to become Prime Minister?

    I completely agree it is an absurdity and I hope the country passes judgement on that next week. We don't need our own Orban who leads the Labour Party in office.
    All you are doing here is passing on clearly partisan nonsense spread by a Trump supporter. The end result will be to legitimise antisemitism through debasement and politicisation.
    I despise Trump and everything he stands for. I hope he loses next term.

    There is no legitimisation of antisemitism, unless you think antisemitism is OK and thus vote Labour. I will not.

    What debases politics is antisemites like Jeremy "English Jews don't get irony" Corbyn being party leader. I fully respect all the many MPs and voters from his party and even celebrities like Tony Robinson who have said they couldn't support that and quit the party - even if I disagree with their politics.
    If people posing as natural arbiters, but who are in fact combatants in a political culture war, start making claims about Corbyn that are so fantastical as to stretch credulity in the entire millennia-old blight of anti-semitism itself, the only people who will lose out are Jewish people, long after the tory party has temporarily gained a short-term advantage before an election.
    Why would the Jews lose out? That sounds like a threat or victim-blaming.

    What is fantastical is that the Labour Party is led by Corbyn, not quoting Corbyn's own words and history back at him.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153

    kle4 said:

    I know it's only £500 for a deposit to stand for parliament, but do the Greens really have so much money they can repeatedly lose hundreds of thousands of pounds standing? They're standing in 472 seats and got 1.6% of the vote last time, and a twentieth of that vote was in Brighton Pavillion, so that's a but load of lost deposits in the other 456 seats they stood in in 2017.

    I guess a few big donations covers that kind of cost, but given their strategy is to target key seats rather than the old UKIP approach of mass support reaching a critical mass, it seems such a waste.

    The Greens do only concentrate on a few key seats in the GE, but standing in the others is important in terms of developing a local profile to help win election of councillors, and to qualify for the PEB. They do have quite a substantial membership now.
    Standing in lots of seats is important, and they definitely are building membership - they stood five times as many candidates in Wiltshire locals in 2017 than in 2013 - but it's still an awful lot where I find it hard to believe they are developing any profile with 0.something% of the vote.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,113
    edited December 2019
    Scottish Westminster voting intention:

    SNP: 39% (-1)
    CON: 29% (+1)
    LAB: 21% (+1)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)

    via @Panelbase, 03 - 06 Dec
    Chgtfs. w/ 22 Nov

    Sorry see it has been posted several times
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    camel said:

    Nobidexx said:

    On these numbers the tories might actually end up with a net gain in Scotland depending on how the SNP's vote is distributed compared to last time.
    This chart is a colourful picture neatly illustrating the absurdity of FPTP.
    A few more points from SNP->CON and watch those seats fall... (in my dreams)
  • Something rather different from the norm.

    Ever wondered how many bars there are in the centre of Manchester (within inner ring road).

    Well so far in 2019 I have visited 465 of them, dozen or so still to do before Christmas to do them all, over £2.2k spent...

    https://1drv.ms/x/s!AoYMQnEVOpEDhtRHoTkTMLDgqo5b7Q?e=iTXxO0
  • It's an utterly bizarre and ahistorical quote to begin with, as you would expect from a Trump ally. In the present day, the greatest contributor of anti-semitism into a democracy is Viktor Orban, the Tories' new ally, and in the past it was Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Henry Ford, all unimaginably different figures from Corbyn.

    The introduction of pure fake news into the antisemitism debate is extremely dangerous to the fight against real antisemitism.

    Maybe the UK is judged to be more significant than Hungary thus Corbyn is a bigger risk?
    It's just thoroughgoing absurdity, I'm afraid.
    That someone as vile and antisemitic as Corbyn is even a candidate to become Prime Minister?

    I completely agree it is an absurdity and I hope the country passes judgement on that next week. We don't need our own Orban who leads the Labour Party in office.
    All you are doing here is passing on clearly partisan nonsense spread by a Trump supporter. The end result will be to legitimise antisemitism through debasement and politicisation.
    I despise Trump and everything he stands for. I hope he loses next term.

    There is no legitimisation of antisemitism, unless you think antisemitism is OK and thus vote Labour. I will not.

    What debases politics is antisemites like Jeremy "English Jews don't get irony" Corbyn being party leader. I fully respect all the many MPs and voters from his party and even celebrities like Tony Robinson who have said they couldn't support that and quit the party - even if I disagree with their politics.
    If people posing as natural arbiters, but who are in fact combatants in a political culture war, start making claims about Corbyn that are so fantastical as to stretch credulity in the entire millennia-old blight of anti-semitism itself, the only people who will lose out are Jewish people, long after the tory party has temporarily gained a short-term advantage before an election.
    Why would the Jews lose out? That sounds like a threat or victim-blaming.

    What is fantastical is that the Labour Party is led by Corbyn, not quoting Corbyn's own words and history back at him.
    If you delegitimise a genuine threat into absurdity, the victim loses out.
  • Did the Lib Dems sign Fi and Nick for their campaign?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,602
    Here's a good betting opportunity — a 10% return for backing Labour in Bristol West, although there isn't a great deal of liquidity. Labour are 100% certain to hold the seat IMO.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.164386551
  • It's an utterly bizarre and ahistorical quote to begin with, as you would expect from a Trump ally. In the present day, the greatest contributor of anti-semitism into a democracy is Viktor Orban, the Tories' new ally, and in the past it was Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Henry Ford, all unimaginably different figures from Corbyn.

    The introduction of pure fake news into the antisemitism debate is extremely dangerous to the fight against real antisemitism.

    Maybe the UK is judged to be more significant than Hungary thus Corbyn is a bigger risk?
    It's just thoroughgoing absurdity, I'm afraid.
    That someone as vile and antisemitic as Corbyn is even a candidate to become Prime Minister?

    I completely agree it is an absurdity and I hope the country passes judgement on that next week. We don't need our own Orban who leads the Labour Party in office.
    All you are doing here is passing on clearly partisan nonsense spread by a Trump supporter. The end result will be to legitimise antisemitism through debasement and politicisation.
    I despise Trump and everything he stands for. I hope he loses next term.

    There is no legitimisation of antisemitism, unless you think antisemitism is OK and thus vote Labour. I will not.

    What debases politics is antisemites like Jeremy "English Jews don't get irony" Corbyn being party leader. I fully respect all the many MPs and voters from his party and even celebrities like Tony Robinson who have said they couldn't support that and quit the party - even if I disagree with their politics.
    If people posing as natural arbiters, but who are in fact combatants in a political culture war, start making claims about Corbyn that are so fantastical as to stretch credulity in the entire millennia-old blight of anti-semitism itself, the only people who will lose out are Jewish people, long after the tory party has temporarily gained a short-term advantage before an election.
    Why would the Jews lose out? That sounds like a threat or victim-blaming.

    What is fantastical is that the Labour Party is led by Corbyn, not quoting Corbyn's own words and history back at him.
    If you delegitimise a genuine threat into absurdity, the victim loses out.
    Indeed. And Jeremy Corbyn is a genuine threat. Why are you trying to deligitimise that into absurdity?
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    nunu2 said:

    That is an excellent poll for the Tories in Scotland. Forget about talk about a hung Parliament.
    Quite, if the SCons hold the line then absent a national polling disaster it's difficult to see NOM happening. The MRP models generally have been down on the SCons retaining all their seats even with predictions of large Tory majorities nationwide.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I know it's only £500 for a deposit to stand for parliament, but do the Greens really have so much money they can repeatedly lose hundreds of thousands of pounds standing? They're standing in 472 seats and got 1.6% of the vote last time, and a twentieth of that vote was in Brighton Pavillion, so that's a but load of lost deposits in the other 456 seats they stood in in 2017.

    I guess a few big donations covers that kind of cost, but given their strategy is to target key seats rather than the old UKIP approach of mass support reaching a critical mass, it seems such a waste.

    The Greens do only concentrate on a few key seats in the GE, but standing in the others is important in terms of developing a local profile to help win election of councillors, and to qualify for the PEB. They do have quite a substantial membership now.
    Standing in lots of seats is important, and they definitely are building membership - they stood five times as many candidates in Wiltshire locals in 2017 than in 2013 - but it's still an awful lot where I find it hard to believe they are developing any profile with 0.something% of the vote.
    The Greens make £112k per annum from Short Money. Over a 4 year Parliament (let alone a 5 year) that's £448k. That pays for a lot of lost deposits!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,602

    Scottish Westminster voting intention:

    SNP: 39% (-1)
    CON: 29% (+1)
    LAB: 21% (+1)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)

    via @Panelbase, 03 - 06 Dec
    Chgtfs. w/ 22 Nov

    Sorry see it has been posted several times

    0.7% swing from Con to SNP compared to 2017. Tories would only lose Stirling to the SNP.
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    RobD said:

    camel said:

    Nobidexx said:

    On these numbers the tories might actually end up with a net gain in Scotland depending on how the SNP's vote is distributed compared to last time.
    This chart is a colourful picture neatly illustrating the absurdity of FPTP.
    A few more points from SNP->CON and watch those seats fall... (in my dreams)
    So long as SNP<48.5 I will be happy. If SNP>48.5 I will be very annoyed. If SNP=48.5 I will be seriously questioning the democratic process.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,167
    edited December 2019
    Re Corbyn and antisemitism, there is no rational sense to what you're saying, I'm afraid, and I can see we won't make any progress with it. 'Night to all.

    The Telegraph, incidentally, if it wants to stop the "politics of hate", should stop printing inflammatory front pages about George Soros.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,076
    It looks like the Conservatives will get a reasonable majority. The Lib Dems have had a poor campaign and so will only break through in a few places (with lots more second places) and losses in Scotland seem to also be limited. I'm not convinced Labour will be able to hold off the Conservatives in enough marginals, with the exception of very Remainy areas where tactical voting will see them through.

    Disappointing from my perspective, but if this is going to be the case then there's a point at which Labour being truly hammered is better than a moderate loss. I feel like that's the only way Labour may consider coming back to the centre and therefore be considered as a viable alternative government.

    But even that may be being too optimistic. I think the tendency on the left will be one of 'if we control Labour for long enough, the pendulum will swing our way eventually'. Whereas the reality is that Thursday and the following leadership election may secure a Tory-led government for another decade.
This discussion has been closed.