Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember Starmer only got 31% of first choices in the YouGov L
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember Starmer only got 31% of first choices in the YouGov LAB members’ poll
A fair amount has happened in the LAB leadership race since the YouGov members’ poll which was carried out over Christmas. The big number that people recall is that after six rounds of lower preference distribution Starmer was beating RLB by 61% to 39%. The first preferences were:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/shf/details.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/15/exclusive-2000-syrian-troops-deployed-to-libya-to-support-regime
Not the most stable of situations.
Imagine if Trump’s semi-random efforts do succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime.
What then ?
Is it better to back Nandy and RLB at 28% ish rather than lay Starmer at 67%? @MikeSmithson
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/15/european-troops-may-be-at-risk-after-dispute-process-triggered-iran
Iran’s president has warned that European soldiers in the Middle East could be in danger after the UK, France and Germany triggered a dispute mechanism in a nuclear agreement that could lead to the reimposition of international sanctions on the country.
Hassan Rouhani’s remarks on Wednesday were the first direct threat he has made against European powers as tensions have grown between Tehran and Washington since Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the nuclear deal more than 18 months ago.
“Today, the American soldier is in danger, tomorrow the European soldier could be in danger,” Rouhani said in a televised address to his cabinet....
And he’s the moderate ?
I don't make the rules.
It was indeed faster than 122mph. When's the investiture?
Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2020/01/15/health-secretary-hints-four-hour-aande-wait-target-could-be-scrapp/
The way to prevent Indyref2 was for the Tories to win a majority (not an individual candidate to be an MP). The Tories won a majority. Checkmate.
The problem is it is abused as a first rather than last point of call by far too many who have neither had a serious accident nor are having an emergency.
If more people got told by A&E "sorry your issue is one for your GP, go book an appointment with them" then A&E would be better. Going to A&E because you can't be bothered to get an appointment and wait for it is not the solution.
Hell, some issues could be dealt with by telling people to go speak to a pharmacist.
In my experience on ‘the ground’ Corbynistas are just as pro EU as moderates.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1217431477664866310?s=21
Double checkmate no backsies.
Corbyn supporters as a whole are not all raging trots. See @NickPalmer ...
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/02/keir-starmer-comfortably-leads-labour-leader-race
Removing don’t knows, 72% of the British public want rid of the House of Lords and therefore think the appointment of Zak Goldsmith and Nicky Morgan to said chamber is a disgrace.
Or just straight revoke?
God that’s bad for RLB and basically disproves your point.
While Starmer leads with all Labour members against Long Bailey 61% to 39% with Leavers Long Bailey leads 60% to 40% so Long Bailey's supporters are far more pro Brexit than the average Labour member and therefore more likely to back Nandy if she is eliminated
1) your ability to get a GP appointment is very dependent on the practice. In mine the waiting list for an appointment is approx three weeks.
2) illness and pain do not keep office hours. The illness/injury may strike in the middle of the night or on weekends when the GP is shut.
3) pharmacists are not GPS. Pharmacists are skilled individuals who can advise but they don't diagnose nor prescribe and cases that require something not over the counter or grey-market stuff they cannot help with
4) pharmacists don't do tests. Many symptoms may have trivial or serious causes and a blood test or other tests are necessary for differential diagnosis.
There are ways to defend against this - yearly or six-monthly checkups are a good one - but none that cure the problem entirely. Even 111 can go wrong. One good solution is having GPs in A&E for the minor cases.
Personally I think an hour should be the minimum, doubling the number of questions. Through sheer volume some answers may slip through.
You'll be claiming next that there aren't stations called:
- Carlisle Citadel
- Hull Paragon
- Darlington Bank Top
- etc.
If I were to guess, I think that a lower proportion of Phillips supporters than Long-Bailey supporters have moved on from Brexit. Not so sure about Starmer supporters. They were probably more uniformly Remain in the first place, but they are probably also more pragmatic.
I've not made up my mind yet (I'd like to see a debate first) and I think people could shift if the debates show Starmer stumbling, but he will need to make a serious mistake to lose this. The deputy race is pretty sewn up for Rayner: consider that she has a big PLP lead AND Momentum support, a unique feat worthy of more attention than it's had. If she'd stood for leader we'd be seeing a more uncertain race IMO.
Your premise is that RLB voters are more likely to go to Nandy than Starmer right?
You assert that the reason for this is because of Brexit?
First let’s remember that the overwhelming majority of Labour members are pro Remain.
Based on your data, nearly 4 in 10 of that small amount of Brexit supporting members are already backing Starmer over RLB. That’s a huge amount for “Mr Remain” which essentially wipes out the relevancy of that cohort.
Therefore I say that the argument has nothing to do with Brexit and is more down to left wing right wing. RLB may transfer to Nandy because shes seen as more left wing. Not because of anything to do with Brexit.
I dont know what the pundits reaction to the debate is yet, but I think she will have another surge. Enough to put her into double digits. I'm saying this as someone who was really turned off by her in the bullying allegations.
https://twitter.com/workinprocessuk/status/1216993463515918336?s=21
Indirectly, it might help her, because she is seen as having more foresight than the other candidates, and because it is evidence that she puts principle ahead of self-interest.
But if actual Leave voters are still plumping 40% to Starmer then he must he doing something right with that cohort.
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1217429931883405318?s=20
Only 17% of Labour members voted Leave according to this poll: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/labour-members-love-corbyn-but-hate-brexit/
So if 60% of them are backing RLB over Starmer that’s only 10% of the membership. And we don’t even know it they’d vote for Nandy over Starmer as a second choice anyway.
I think the fact that 40% of Labour’s tiny Leave constituent are happy to back Mr Remain over RLB anyway shows that he’s clearly appealing to Leave members anyway. Certainly not the kryptonite you’re saying he is.
The interesting part to me was Warren Vs Sanders, where she drew blood. That being said, "drawing blood" is not necessarily a winning strategy. Most people believe Buttigieg drew Warren's blood last debate, and that resulted in then both going backwards.
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1217444588681670656?s=20
Johnson: Money for the NHS
rinse, repeat....
If all the resources get thrown at A&E so you can be seen quickly at A&E then people with minor ailments go to A&E rather than the proper channels in order to beat the queues elsewhere. Which adds to the pressure at A&E making the time longer.
A&E does and should have a triage system for visits, urgent accidents should be seen as quickly as possible but then again it really should all be urgent issues there. But by saying that everyone should be seen quickly you're putting pressure on the wrong issue - you are rewarding those who go with minor ailments who are doing the wrong thing and diverting A&E from properly triaging the patients because they're trying to "beat the clock" on someone who shouldn't even be there rather than prioritising the real issues.
If you go with a minor ailment that is more suitable for a GP visit then you should be left waiting all day if you're not a priority. I'd far rather a real emergency is seen immediately if need be than worry about percentages that don't say anything about real emergencies. Real emergencies shouldn't be left waiting for 4 hours if need be!
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1217413635896639488
It'll be amusing if Emily Thornberry to decides join in some Scot Nat bashing in an attempt to court SLAB as well.
2) If its something you can wait weeks for you can wait until morning to book your appointment, if you can't book it online.
3 and 4) Absolutely in which case the pharmacist if they can't help you can advise you to speak to your GP or go to A&E if it is an emergency.
Where are the politicians who can tell hard truths whilst still charming and persuading their audience? Competing to show how left wing they are? How does that beat Trump?
So much for taking back control . When will the UK be adopting the dollar ?
If Brexit turns out to be a blunder of such clear and monumental proportions as Suez, will you be admitting to your grandkids that you not only voted for the project but spent 3 years on the country's leading political website arguing fervently with all-comers in support of it?
All health issues on one site. Dentists too.
Doesn't work for you? Then sorry, you'll have to pay for a Plan B.
Q: Why did you not mention the green new deal in your speech?
Nandy says she did not use the phrase because “it means absolutely nothing to most of my constituents”.
She says the party needs to find the right language to explain its policies.
A pretty damned good answer!