It seems that the Opposition Parties get £36.08 in Short Money (including travel expenses) per 200 votes.
Based on a 4 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 693 votes to make up for a lost deposit. Based on a 5 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 555 votes to make up for a lost deposit.
So the Greens can quite happily lose a deposit because they've only scored 1000-2000 votes, below the deposit saving threshold and still be making money from that.
It seems that the Opposition Parties get £36.08 in Short Money (including travel expenses) per 200 votes.
Based on a 4 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 693 votes to make up for a lost deposit. Based on a 5 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 555 votes to make up for a lost deposit.
So the Greens can quite happily lose a deposit because they've only scored 1000-2000 votes, below the deposit saving threshold and still be making money from that.
Does everyone get short money? Yorkshire Party for example?
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.
It seems that the Opposition Parties get £36.08 in Short Money (including travel expenses) per 200 votes.
Based on a 4 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 693 votes to make up for a lost deposit. Based on a 5 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 555 votes to make up for a lost deposit.
So the Greens can quite happily lose a deposit because they've only scored 1000-2000 votes, below the deposit saving threshold and still be making money from that.
Does everyone get short money? Yorkshire Party for example?
No, must have an MP and 150k+ votes or 2+ MPs.
So if the Greens lost their sole MP that'd be very expensive to them.
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.
I agree that Labour would have to go sub-200 seats for an attempt to get rid of Corbyn to be successful. If they stay above 200 it may prove difficult to shift him, or if he does resign he'll be replaced by someone almost as left-wing.
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.
I agree that Labour would have to go sub-200 seats for an attempt to get rid of Corbyn to be successful. If they stay above 200 it may prove difficult to shift him, or if he does resign he'll be replaced by someone almost as left-wing.
STimes claiming he is planning to be off straightaway with cuddly Uncle John as interim leader.
It seems that the Opposition Parties get £36.08 in Short Money (including travel expenses) per 200 votes.
Based on a 4 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 693 votes to make up for a lost deposit. Based on a 5 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 555 votes to make up for a lost deposit.
So the Greens can quite happily lose a deposit because they've only scored 1000-2000 votes, below the deposit saving threshold and still be making money from that.
Does everyone get short money? Yorkshire Party for example?
No, must have an MP and 150k+ votes or 2+ MPs.
So if the Greens lost their sole MP that'd be very expensive to them.
I see. Carswell would have been worth north of £1m for the UKIPs over his two years. Lucrative.
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.
I agree that Labour would have to go sub-200 seats for an attempt to get rid of Corbyn to be successful. If they stay above 200 it may prove difficult to shift him, or if he does resign he'll be replaced by someone almost as left-wing.
STimes claiming he is planning to be off straightaway with cuddly Uncle John as interim leader.
One of my favourite moments of the campaign was cuddly uncle John doing his cuddly uncle schtick on GMB, oblivious to how menacing his leather gloves looked.
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.
It's all in the rounding My Wales and Scotland predictions are the averages of a number of sources including Baxter and Flavible.
It seems that the Opposition Parties get £36.08 in Short Money (including travel expenses) per 200 votes.
Based on a 4 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 693 votes to make up for a lost deposit. Based on a 5 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 555 votes to make up for a lost deposit.
So the Greens can quite happily lose a deposit because they've only scored 1000-2000 votes, below the deposit saving threshold and still be making money from that.
Does everyone get short money? Yorkshire Party for example?
No, must have an MP and 150k+ votes or 2+ MPs.
So if the Greens lost their sole MP that'd be very expensive to them.
I see. Carswell would have been worth north of £1m for the UKIPs over his two years. Lucrative.
Indeed which is why there was uproar when Carswell said he was not claiming the money and Farage insisted it must be claimed. I am not sure how that dispute got resolved?
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.
I agree that Labour would have to go sub-200 seats for an attempt to get rid of Corbyn to be successful. If they stay above 200 it may prove difficult to shift him, or if he does resign he'll be replaced by someone almost as left-wing.
STimes claiming he is planning to be off straightaway with cuddly Uncle John as interim leader.
One of my favourite moments of the campaign was cuddly uncle John doing his cuddly uncle schtick on GMB, oblivious to how menacing his leather gloves looked.
He did look like an extra from The Long Good Friday.
The Times article is full of class detail about who is ramping whom. Essential reading for Pidders Rampers.
It seems that the Opposition Parties get £36.08 in Short Money (including travel expenses) per 200 votes.
Based on a 4 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 693 votes to make up for a lost deposit. Based on a 5 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 555 votes to make up for a lost deposit.
So the Greens can quite happily lose a deposit because they've only scored 1000-2000 votes, below the deposit saving threshold and still be making money from that.
Does everyone get short money? Yorkshire Party for example?
No, must have an MP and 150k+ votes or 2+ MPs.
So if the Greens lost their sole MP that'd be very expensive to them.
I see. Carswell would have been worth north of £1m for the UKIPs over his two years. Lucrative.
Yes, except Carswell had a bust-up with Farage about the Short money, which I believe resulted in him forcing UKIP not to claim it.
It seems that the Opposition Parties get £36.08 in Short Money (including travel expenses) per 200 votes.
Based on a 4 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 693 votes to make up for a lost deposit. Based on a 5 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 555 votes to make up for a lost deposit.
So the Greens can quite happily lose a deposit because they've only scored 1000-2000 votes, below the deposit saving threshold and still be making money from that.
Does everyone get short money? Yorkshire Party for example?
No, must have an MP and 150k+ votes or 2+ MPs.
So if the Greens lost their sole MP that'd be very expensive to them.
I see. Carswell would have been worth north of £1m for the UKIPs over his two years. Lucrative.
Yes, except Carswell had a bust-up with Farage about the Short money, which I believe resulted in him forcing UKIP not to claim it.
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.....
Yeah, that's the thing. Con PBers are so traumatised by 2017 that they are understating the chances of success. But all the anecdotage is going their way. A Lab majority is still possible but it would require things (big turnout differences compare to previous elections, the Libs doing much better in the South East than expected), but such things have not been rumoured (apart from, say, Guildford). But the rumours of a Labourgeddon in the North keep persisting.
To be honest, I wish we had consitituency polling and reportage from outside the North, as whilst everybody's looking there nobody is looking elsewhere. But [on the important assumption that we don't have a blindspot or atypical turnout patterns], a Con Maj is pretty safe and a big Con Maj is not out of the question
I did suspect that the SNP had fallen bellow 40% a few days ago.
At these figures I do suspect that the SNP might indeed lose a seat or two to the Conservatives even if they gain some seats off them elsewhere. I also suspect that Labour would be able to hold a second or even third seat.
1.33. I read an interesting point that the absense of the shad cab on the frontline has allowed the Tories to paint Labour as the party of Corbyn. Given his drag on the party with voters In surprised this was allowed to occur but I’m guessing it’s just Seamus ensuring everything stays on message. Either way I think more Starmer and one or two others would have helped.
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 POUM were called that by the PCE but they were neither Fascist nor Trotskyist. (I know what it says in Wikipedia and I don't care.) The POUM were the sister party of the Independent Labour Party in Britain. There was a Trotskyist group in Spain but it was tiny; the POUM had tens of thousands of members including many under arms and it was their militia that George Orwell signed up with - see "Homage to Catalonia".
1.33. I read an interesting point that the absense of the shad cab on the frontline has allowed the Tories to paint Labour as the party of Corbyn. Given his drag on the party with voters In surprised this was allowed to occur but I’m guessing it’s just Seamus ensuring everything stays on message. Either way I think more Starmer and one or two others would have helped.
1.33. I read an interesting point that the absense of the shad cab on the frontline has allowed the Tories to paint Labour as the party of Corbyn. Given his drag on the party with voters In surprised this was allowed to occur but I’m guessing it’s just Seamus ensuring everything stays on message. Either way I think more Starmer and one or two others would have helped.
Still probably a net positive not having Emily Thornberry and Diane Abbott on TV, and instead having some younger Northern spokespeople to mix things up a bit.
The secret files, seen by The Sunday Times, reveal the party is still overwhelmed with complaints about anti-Jewish racism that have been left unresolved for months or years. Most have resulted in lenient punishments or no sanctions, according to the documents, despite Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign claims of zero tolerance.
The secret files, seen by The Sunday Times, reveal the party is still overwhelmed with complaints about anti-Jewish racism that have been left unresolved for months or years. Most have resulted in lenient punishments or no sanctions, according to the documents, despite Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign claims of zero tolerance.
The other story in the Times is that Corbyn plans to go quickly after the election and hand over to McDonnell. If he serves as interim leader for an extended period pending a contest I don’t know whether he would count as ‘next leader’?
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?
Comments
Based on a 4 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 693 votes to make up for a lost deposit.
Based on a 5 year Parliament the Greens would need to get 555 votes to make up for a lost deposit.
So the Greens can quite happily lose a deposit because they've only scored 1000-2000 votes, below the deposit saving threshold and still be making money from that.
So if the Greens lost their sole MP that'd be very expensive to them.
Jeremy vine or Maitlis models.wont work
The Times article is full of class detail about who is ramping whom. Essential reading for Pidders Rampers.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/01/douglas-carswell-stands-lose-right-200000-annual-research-grant/
To be honest, I wish we had consitituency polling and reportage from outside the North, as whilst everybody's looking there nobody is looking elsewhere. But [on the important assumption that we don't have a blindspot or atypical turnout patterns], a Con Maj is pretty safe and a big Con Maj is not out of the question
At these figures I do suspect that the SNP might indeed lose a seat or two to the Conservatives even if they gain some seats off them elsewhere.
I also suspect that Labour would be able to hold a second or even third seat.
The right leaning papers going again on the anti-semitism and left learning going on PLEEEASSEEEE vote tactically.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7768219/Channel-4-News-biased-against-Tories-say-journalists.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/exposed-the-secret-labour-files-of-shame-mwhhfkknv