Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
I agree about that aspect of the numbers, but it does matter as it feeds a narrative that deaths are still occuring at a substantial rate when that may no longer be the case. If we have to take more drastic measures in future — which is unfortunately probable — we ought to do so because infections, hospitalisations, and deaths are really rising quickly; and not because we have some quirky way of recording cases going back weeks and even months.
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
Yes. It's quite a view to suggest that inaccurate statistics should continue to be published, despite a clear and obvious flaw in the methodology.
“Signaling the states they see as most competitive, the Biden campaign said their ads will target: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Texas.”
Texas.
Its one red wall we can all cheer collapsing
Of those states only Texas is really US red wall, the others voted for Bill Clinton or Obama and a few even voted for Hillary
People are seeing whats happening round thw world with Covid and realise that all Governments are struggling and that the UK is not the worst in the world
“Signaling the states they see as most competitive, the Biden campaign said their ads will target: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Texas.”
Texas.
Its one red wall we can all cheer collapsing
Of those states only Texas is really US red wall, the others voted for Bill Clinton or Obama and a few even voted for Hillary
Iowa and Ohio are just as tough for Biden this election I think.
And here we go. This is when the shine wears off the SNP Covid response.
I would expect Sturgeon popularity polling to start declining sharply.
Do you think? I don't actually. I think people will get it (obviously not being Aberdeen pubgoers or owners will help).
This is the first of many reversals. They will add up and add up fast in my opinion.
Obviously this first one will actually make Sturgeon more popular as no one likes Aberdeen and believe they deserve it but once Edinburgh and Glasgow get local lock downs reintroduced or school suspended there will be serious discontent.
Schools are the big one IMO, they are back pretty soon and she needs to have the balls to keep them open even if it means tolerating an R of 0.9-1.1, I'm worried that she won't and will take the easy option of closing them down.
Back next week here. We are a household that had been shielding up until last week.
We are already pretty nervous about returning to school. If cnuts are going on fucking pub crawls I am going to be pretty hair trigger about withdrawing my child from school.
I'd never describe myself as a pure libertarian, but I do think in the particular circumstance of the pandemic people should be allowed to do what they feel is right for their family. I'd have schools open and a voluntary return for pupils.
Voluntary return? When by all accounts childrens' mental health issues are skyrocketing given the anxiety and stress of the pandemic without the natural release of social interaction and routine?
Blimey I know what I'd do if I had children.
What would you do if your child has had multiple visits to the hospital for respiratory problems over the years and you wife had been in ICU with respiratory issues within the last year?
And here we go. This is when the shine wears off the SNP Covid response.
I would expect Sturgeon popularity polling to start declining sharply.
Do you think? I don't actually. I think people will get it (obviously not being Aberdeen pubgoers or owners will help).
This is the first of many reversals. They will add up and add up fast in my opinion.
Obviously this first one will actually make Sturgeon more popular as no one likes Aberdeen and believe they deserve it but once Edinburgh and Glasgow get local lock downs reintroduced or school suspended there will be serious discontent.
Schools are the big one IMO, they are back pretty soon and she needs to have the balls to keep them open even if it means tolerating an R of 0.9-1.1, I'm worried that she won't and will take the easy option of closing them down.
Back next week here. We are a household that had been shielding up until last week.
We are already pretty nervous about returning to school. If cnuts are going on fucking pub crawls I am going to be pretty hair trigger about withdrawing my child from school.
I'd never describe myself as a pure libertarian, but I do think in the particular circumstance of the pandemic people should be allowed to do what they feel is right for their family. I'd have schools open and a voluntary return for pupils.
Voluntary return? When by all accounts childrens' mental health issues are skyrocketing given the anxiety and stress of the pandemic without the natural release of social interaction and routine?
Blimey I know what I'd do if I had children.
What would you do if your child has had multiple visits to the hospital for respiratory problems over the years and you wife had been in ICU with respiratory issues within the last year?
Well in that case I would not be sending them to school.
If that is the case with you then first off I'm sorry to hear that and second off we are (I was) talking about the general case here not what must be a very small minority.
“Signaling the states they see as most competitive, the Biden campaign said their ads will target: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Texas.”
Texas.
Its one red wall we can all cheer collapsing
Of those states only Texas is really US red wall, the others voted for Bill Clinton or Obama and a few even voted for Hillary
Texas is a red wall all in itself. Had Hillary won Texas in 2016 she would have won the Presidency 270 to 268.
“Signaling the states they see as most competitive, the Biden campaign said their ads will target: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Texas.”
Texas.
Its one red wall we can all cheer collapsing
Of those states only Texas is really US red wall, the others voted for Bill Clinton or Obama and a few even voted for Hillary
If Texas goes Blue then it's "Game over, man" for the Republican party
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
“Signaling the states they see as most competitive, the Biden campaign said their ads will target: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Texas.”
Texas.
Its one red wall we can all cheer collapsing
Of those states only Texas is really US red wall, the others voted for Bill Clinton or Obama and a few even voted for Hillary
If Texas goes Blue then it's "Game over, man" for the Republican party
Even with Texas going Blue I would still predict the NY Times would produce "Why Can't The Democrats Appeal to Real Americans" type articles.
Best prime minister: Boris Johnson: 33% (-2) Keir Starmer: 31% (-3) Don't know: 33% (+4)
Looks like 'Don't know' heading for PM soon
I have a watercolour by a local artist with two elderly chaps leaning on a fence. One says to the other " One day the don't knows will get in, and then where will we be."
People are seeing whats happening round thw world with Covid and realise that all Governments are struggling and that the UK is not the worst in the world
realise that all Governments are struggling and that the UK is not quite the worst in the world.
Best prime minister: Boris Johnson: 33% (-2) Keir Starmer: 31% (-3) Don't know: 33% (+4)
Looks like 'Don't know' heading for PM soon
What are the don;t knows thinking? they don;t much approve of Boris or the way Starmer opposes him.
Starmer has only ever really said that Johnsons measures were not enough. Nobody serious in power has ever said they were too much.
I think that's where the gap is, personally.
There's probably a gap in the market for a non lockdown party. Not sure who is going to fill it though.
By the way, what is Farage up to?
The Brexit Party are on three per cent in this latest poll despite not even saying they will ever run for office again (except in Wales?).
could Farage unite a growing grievance community who don;t like refugeess crossing the channel/masks/severe lockdowns/Black lives Mattter/Begum coming back/Defund the BBC/Statue removal?
Brexit is vital. If Farage thinks he can turn any agreeement into a betrayal narrative, then that's the key. That's the springboard.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
Yes. It's quite a view to suggest that inaccurate statistics should continue to be published, despite a clear and obvious flaw in the methodology.
Not if you are a left-winger living in Spain where the government has probably under-counted its deaths by 20,000!
“Signaling the states they see as most competitive, the Biden campaign said their ads will target: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Texas.”
Texas.
Its one red wall we can all cheer collapsing
Of those states only Texas is really US red wall, the others voted for Bill Clinton or Obama and a few even voted for Hillary
If Texas goes Blue then it's "Game over, man" for the Republican party
Not necessarily (I presume you're talking about 2024 and onward ? - certainly 2020 TX blue presages a Dem win !). The route back for the GOP WILL include Texas but it's possible that it becomes a swing state in itself for the next few elections. We'll have to see how elsewhere has trended when the dust has settled - PA, MI and WI turning red wasn't game over for the Democrats in 2016.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Comparing Survation with the baseline of the General Election, I assume Survation are GB only polling
Tory share is barely moved, its almost a rounding error away from being unchanged completely. All others are within margin of error except the Lib Dems. Story seems to be a swing from the Lib Dems to Lab and Green Party.
Survation produces UK data - the GB equivalent would be Con 45 Lab 36.
Someone had better start talking about relative risk here because, mostly down to certain journalists, it seems that people think pubs are equivalent to schools. Given what we have seen with the R rate here and in other countries that started full school return with next to no safety measures, you need to close down pretty much everything except the most essential businesses if you are going to get anywhere near it being safe enough.
So.
The economy will suffer serious damage if schools don't open.
Schools can't open safely unless the economy is mostly closed down.
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
Yes. It's quite a view to suggest that inaccurate statistics should continue to be published, despite a clear and obvious flaw in the methodology.
Not if you are a left-winger living in Spain where the government has probably under-counted its deaths by 20,000!
Anyone wanting data to stay inaccurate is a fool.
We can never get to 100% accuracy. We can try and get the most accurate numbers in the short term and correct them in the medium and long term.
This will be bad news for the gold Coast, which is a resort in QLD, but the airport which serves it is in NSW.
People were shocked by Schengen borders between EU countires being closed in March. I don't remember any within country borders in Schengen being closed. It tended rather to be travel restrictions as a distance from home (eg France).
Whats happening there is similar to Europe in April. They enforce a stringent lockdown but cases keep going up.
No they didn’t. Stop talking utter bollocks.
From the BBC
Victoria reported 725 new infections on Wednesday, yet another daily record despite being four weeks into lockdown.
So? We know that lockdown works, it just lags. You want evidence? It worked in this country. It worked all across Europe. Your misleading agenda to suggest otherwise is just that. A complete fabrication.
Ok we will see where Melbourne is in a couple of weeks. I think the lockdown there is one of the most severe.
I had a thought that lockdown initially has an accelerating effect on cases and potentially deaths. Because what lockdown does is push people together for long periods (within families) where previously even they may have had more fleeting contact. And creates higher viral loads. After this initial period many of the ongoing chains are broken an numbers start to come down (albeit after a possible further secondary hospital spreading effect).
I have always felt that keeping people inside with this disease did not seem a good idea. Covid seems to spread far far more inside than it does outside. Hand washing and social distancing are the most effective ways to reduce transmission.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Comparing Survation with the baseline of the General Election, I assume Survation are GB only polling
Tory share is barely moved, its almost a rounding error away from being unchanged completely. All others are within margin of error except the Lib Dems. Story seems to be a swing from the Lib Dems to Lab and Green Party.
Survation produces UK data - the GB equivalent would be Con 45 Lab 36.
Survation is UK? OK that changes things.
In which case the CON 44 (+0.4%) LAB 35 (+2.9%) LDEM 8 (-3.6%) GRN 5 (+2.3%)
In which case the Tories are actually up in the polls not down, though within a rounding error amount.
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
Yes. It's quite a view to suggest that inaccurate statistics should continue to be published, despite a clear and obvious flaw in the methodology.
Not if you are a left-winger living in Spain where the government has probably under-counted its deaths by 20,000!
Anyone wanting data to stay inaccurate is a fool.
We can never get to 100% accuracy. We can try and get the most accurate numbers in the short term and correct them in the medium and long term.
Of course but all the countries with lower figures will be anxious to keep down the league table.
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
Yes. It's quite a view to suggest that inaccurate statistics should continue to be published, despite a clear and obvious flaw in the methodology.
Not if you are a left-winger living in Spain where the government has probably under-counted its deaths by 20,000!
Anyone wanting data to stay inaccurate is a fool.
We can never get to 100% accuracy. We can try and get the most accurate numbers in the short term and correct them in the medium and long term.
Depends on how wrong, is 40 a day a decision making figure, would reducing UK deaths by 1000 change anything?
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
Yes. It's quite a view to suggest that inaccurate statistics should continue to be published, despite a clear and obvious flaw in the methodology.
Not if you are a left-winger living in Spain where the government has probably under-counted its deaths by 20,000!
Anyone wanting data to stay inaccurate is a fool.
We can never get to 100% accuracy. We can try and get the most accurate numbers in the short term and correct them in the medium and long term.
Of course but all the countries with lower figures will be anxious to keep down the league table.
And for that, they should rightly be slapped over the head. With house bricks.
What you really mean, I hthink, is that "Opinium makes Starmer UK PM" provided he does enough to win over the support of SNP and LD MPs. I don´t think he has even started doing that yet.
He has no need to do that prior to the day after the General Election. If that outcome happened it doesn't matter what is said between now and the General Election, the SNP will demand a second independence referendum as their pound of flesh to give Labour support. If they get it, they will be won over. If they don't, it will be messy.
On the contrary, if they are to have any hope of backing from elsewhere, the Labour Party needs to start preparing the ground now. Time after time the Labour leadership seems to be promising reforms, often at the last minute when they are desperate for votes. And then when Labour Party support is needed to get those reforms through, they are nowhere to be seen, or even actively opposed to them.
Blair, Miliband and Corbyn were all guilty of this. Labour are not to be trusted as far as you can see them... This is why they need to start working on the problem now, and there is as yet no sign that they have realised it.
Different scenarios. Blair didn't need help from other parties and Miliband/Corbyn were in opposition.
On the Flavible numbers the SNP will be in a more powerful position than the DUP was for May. They will demand an independence referendum and if one is promised and in the Queen's Speech they will vote for it. If it is refused they can simply vote down the Queen's Speech.
So why then in the run-up to the election, was there a tacit understanding between Ashdown and Blair, in order to finally get rid of the totally disfunctional Conservative government? The key to that understanding was electoral reform. And then Blair stabbed the Liberals in the back. As they usually do.
Would Blair have taken power if he had not smooched the Lib Dems in the run up? And presented the Labour Party as something acceptable to Lib Dems and all decent reasonable people? I think not. He had the mad Foot legacy to contend with, and needed to change his image. A shame he did not completely change the reality while he was about it.
Both Milliband and Corbyn had nice, tasty things in their manifestos. But they did not really mean them. Have you so soon forgotten the Labour Party´s betrayal over AV?
Blair proves my point not yours. Blair was laying the groundwork in case he needed Lib Dem support after the election - but all that went out the window the second the results came in as he realised he didn't need them. Exactly the same as Trudeau in Canada.
Miliband and Corbyn both lost. They themselves, their parties and their manifestos were unpopular. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Whereas the closest the UK has ever come to electoral reform in Westminster was the AV referendum under a Tory Prime Minister. What soundings had the Tories done about electoral reform before the election? Absolutely none whatsoever. But it was the price the Lib Dems demanded for their support - and Cameron needed their support.
Ultimately the first rule of politics is to know how to count. If third parties hold the balance of power after the election they can try to demand what they want and that their potential partners are prepared to offer. But if the arithmetic renders them redundant then they are square out of luck - just like the Lib Dems in 1997 or the Canadian NDP in 2015.
The starting point of this discussion, made by some PB Tory, was that Starmer would come to power with the support of the SNP and the Lib Dems. My argument was that there is nothing inevitable about this, since the Labour Party has a long history of betrayal. As does the Conservative Party, of course. Neither is trustworthy.
If the Labour Party wants to build up trust, it needs to start working on that now. A policy that they have been supporting in the five years leading up to an election, would probably be more sincerely held than something they have grabbed hold of at the last minute.
At present, the two things that Starmer has going for him is that he is not Corbyn, and he is not Johnson. That, while valid, is hardly an overpowerful argument for supporting him.
It was the starting point, but I disagree. The reality is that it is a numbers game. "Trust" is less consequential to numbers and bartering afterwards.
In a hung parliament scenario post election horse trading will determine the outcome of what happens next. Trust will be difficult no doubt, but horse trading depends upon numbers. If the SNP + Lab are prepared to work together and have the numbers to work together then they will. If the numbers are there they won't. Same with the LDs and Lab.
In an ideal world you might want trust. We don't live in an ideal world. It will be cold, hard realpolitik that matters. Numbers and power will triumph over trust, just as it always has.
That might well be the case in Toryland, Mr Thompson, but that does not necessarily apply elsewhere. In the case of the Lib Dems, any kind of arrangement would need the approval of the membership. Our eyes are fully open. Trust is important.
Firstly the Lib Dems are not going to be that consequential. Realpolitik means buying off the SNP is going to be the trickier issue to deal with by far if it comes to it.
Secondly again it doesn't matter what your eyes see. Once the election returns are done, once the Returning Officers have announced every result it ceases to matter too much what the voters wanted it becomes about what the voters have elected. If its a majority that party becomes the government, if its not then horse trading begins until a majority is found as happened in 2010 and 2017.
What horses parties are prepared to trade matters far more the ethereal factors like their members trust. Just as happened with the DUP and Lib Dems in 2010 and 2017.
If you want more of a say then step one is simple: win more seats. It is as simple as that. If you have more seats, you have more bargaining power if there's a hung parliament, that is why the SNP will be powerful should it happen. If you don't, your memberships opinions won't matter that much.
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
Yes. It's quite a view to suggest that inaccurate statistics should continue to be published, despite a clear and obvious flaw in the methodology.
Not if you are a left-winger living in Spain where the government has probably under-counted its deaths by 20,000!
Anyone wanting data to stay inaccurate is a fool.
We can never get to 100% accuracy. We can try and get the most accurate numbers in the short term and correct them in the medium and long term.
Depends on how wrong, is 40 a day a decision making figure, would reducing UK deaths by 1000 change anything?
The headline numbers drive... headlines. Most people are unaware, that even before any corrections, the numbers look like this
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
Yes. It's quite a view to suggest that inaccurate statistics should continue to be published, despite a clear and obvious flaw in the methodology.
Not if you are a left-winger living in Spain where the government has probably under-counted its deaths by 20,000!
Anyone wanting data to stay inaccurate is a fool.
We can never get to 100% accuracy. We can try and get the most accurate numbers in the short term and correct them in the medium and long term.
Depends on how wrong, is 40 a day a decision making figure, would reducing UK deaths by 1000 change anything?
The 'wrong' PHE figures are giving the impression things are currently (a) worse in England than they are, and (b) that Scotland, Wales and NI and doing vastly better than England, which is being used by some for political point scoring. As a minimum we need to compare like with like. I don't believe that overall we will see the total number fall that much, but the current rates are much lower than the PHE number is suggesting.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
There seems to be a serious lack of cut through for Starmer, I do wonder whether it's because he's still failing to make the case for a "Labour" way of doing lockdown and instead just carping from the sidelines. It makes him seem much less impressive.
There seems to be a serious lack of cut through for Starmer, I do wonder whether it's because he's still failing to make the case for a "Labour" way of doing lockdown and instead just carping from the sidelines. It makes him seem much less impressive.
We're in a pandemic holding pattern till the schools reopen now I think.
I think this exams thing is worse for Nicola than people rate, it's made it to Instagram which is my test of cut through. The last political thing to make it to Instagram was the Marcus Rashford lunch vouchers and that had huge cut through as well.
There seems to be a serious lack of cut through for Starmer, I do wonder whether it's because he's still failing to make the case for a "Labour" way of doing lockdown and instead just carping from the sidelines. It makes him seem much less impressive.
We're in a pandemic holding pattern till the schools reopen now I think.
But Starmer isn't out there saying what Labour would be doing to get the schools open and ensure they stay open. There's nothing to differentiate Labour from the government position at all until after the fact if the government gets it wrong. It's one of the reasons Osborne struggled in the aftermath of the financial crash, he foolishly signed the Tories up to Labour's economic plan which made criticism of it more difficult than necessary when it all blew up.
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
Yes. It's quite a view to suggest that inaccurate statistics should continue to be published, despite a clear and obvious flaw in the methodology.
Not if you are a left-winger living in Spain where the government has probably under-counted its deaths by 20,000!
Anyone wanting data to stay inaccurate is a fool.
We can never get to 100% accuracy. We can try and get the most accurate numbers in the short term and correct them in the medium and long term.
Depends on how wrong, is 40 a day a decision making figure, would reducing UK deaths by 1000 change anything?
Let's put it this way. Do you think people who died after being hit by a bus should be classified as a Covid-19 death?
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
"Look at the share not the lead"
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
Yes. It's quite a view to suggest that inaccurate statistics should continue to be published, despite a clear and obvious flaw in the methodology.
Not if you are a left-winger living in Spain where the government has probably under-counted its deaths by 20,000!
Anyone wanting data to stay inaccurate is a fool.
We can never get to 100% accuracy. We can try and get the most accurate numbers in the short term and correct them in the medium and long term.
Depends on how wrong, is 40 a day a decision making figure, would reducing UK deaths by 1000 change anything?
Aren;t you the least bit concerned at the Spanish undercount reported in El Pais last week?
It's how they count deaths in Scotland, Wales and NI as well as almost all other European countries. Only PHE have this definition where no one recovers from COVID, essentially anyone who has tested positive will eventually be counted in the PHE series, even if they die two years from now by being hit by a bus. It's a worry for the DoH because loads of old people in homes who weren't far from death are now being counted as virus deaths after a positive test three or four months ago. That's also what accounts for the difference between the ONS showing ~200 deaths per week at the moment and falling by 20% per week vs PHE reporting upwards of 400 deaths per week and not falling. I think we're actually at around 15-20 deaths per day in the whole of the UK at the moment.
I tend to favour being pessimistic when it comes to COVID-19, but the PHE approach needs a cut-off otherwise eventually something like 4 million people in the UK are going to be recorded as COVID-19 deaths, even though some of them will not die for another 80-90 years.
Does it really matter as it just feeds the pissing competition of your countries worse than mine. It’s not a competition.
Inaccurate numbers should be corrected - otherwise they will drive poor choices via public opinion.
Yes. It's quite a view to suggest that inaccurate statistics should continue to be published, despite a clear and obvious flaw in the methodology.
Not if you are a left-winger living in Spain where the government has probably under-counted its deaths by 20,000!
Anyone wanting data to stay inaccurate is a fool.
We can never get to 100% accuracy. We can try and get the most accurate numbers in the short term and correct them in the medium and long term.
Depends on how wrong, is 40 a day a decision making figure, would reducing UK deaths by 1000 change anything?
Let's put it this way. Do you think people who died after being hit by a bus should be classified as a Covid-19 death?
I actually think PHE death figures are just made up and have no basis in reality. A bit like the hospital admission figures which show more people being admitted to hospital with Covid in Wales than in England
There seems to be a serious lack of cut through for Starmer, I do wonder whether it's because he's still failing to make the case for a "Labour" way of doing lockdown and instead just carping from the sidelines. It makes him seem much less impressive.
I think a lot of it - that I've only recently understood myself to be honest - is the utter hatred much of the public have for the Labour Party.
There seems to be a serious lack of cut through for Starmer, I do wonder whether it's because he's still failing to make the case for a "Labour" way of doing lockdown and instead just carping from the sidelines. It makes him seem much less impressive.
I think a lot of it - that I've only recently understood myself to be honest - is the utter hatred much of the public have for the Labour Party.
Its a quieter version of the much more public hatred for the Conservative Party.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Quite - not so long ago hitting 30 would not have been unusual for a government operating in difficult times. To be above 40 in the midts of the current situation is extraordinary. PM Sanchez in Spain is still under 30!
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
"Look at the share not the lead"
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
The "share" was averaging over 50%, so it's gone down.
A honeymoon is supposed to be a highlight, not just "we haven't lost anything yet".
Let's hope Johnson and Hancock don't get any ideas on that front.
Haven't they already closed down Leicester including pubs? Since the Aberdeen outbreak appears to be centered on pubs, it at least seems more targeted.
No, Leicester pubs opened on Monday though non essential journeys into or within the city are still banned.
It must make sense to someone...
So you can only visit the pub if it's essential ?
So it would seem...
I worked in a pub in Dunvegan for a couple of months when I was a student. For the old bloke that came in at 11.01am every day with shakes that would bother the Richter scale to have a large dram and peppermint cordial (yeuch), his visit was definitely essential.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
"Look at the share not the lead"
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
The "share" was averaging over 50%, so it's gone down.
A honeymoon is supposed to be a highlight, not just "we haven't lost anything yet".
Again nobody seriously thinks 50% is the baseline. You make yourself look foolish pretending it is.
Losing share is what parties of government tend to do after their honeymoon period once tough decisions need to be taken. This government has been compelled to take many tough decisions in the past six months but still the share is 100% of the General Election share.
There seems to be a serious lack of cut through for Starmer, I do wonder whether it's because he's still failing to make the case for a "Labour" way of doing lockdown and instead just carping from the sidelines. It makes him seem much less impressive.
I think a lot of it - that I've only recently understood myself to be honest - is the utter hatred much of the public have for the Labour Party.
Its a quieter version of the much more public hatred for the Conservative Party.
And that will be the argument of the next election.
I can see the scenario where Johnson is in Trump's current position. I can also see him winning another landslide.
Mr. Contrarian, but if Farage did return in a significant way, cui bono?
If the Conservatives are losing votes anyway then it might make it harder for Labour to come back in the Red Wall territories.
But I wonder... might a resurgent I Can't Believe It's Not UKIP cut into the Conservatives' soft southern underbelly?
Mr Morris I think they could but they need a trigger, a springboard, a platform. The refugee boat thing, for example, galls plenty of people (judging by Farage's hit numbers on his videos....? ) as do statues and BLM and masks and lockdown and NHS worship and the BBC and woke universities.
Are they enough to form a party over, or revive an old franchise? I don;t think so. But a brexit 'betrayal' would take it over the line, in my view.
Farage would then have enough momentum to make a comeback, if he wanted. I'm not sure he does.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
There is still an element of "you make your own luck" to all this.
Trump closed down the CDC operation in China that was meant to warn about pandemics. Trump failed to enact any meaningful testing (early on when we were complaining about UK testing numbers we were by an order of magnitude massively out-testing the USA despite being a fraction of their size). The list goes on.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
"Look at the share not the lead"
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
The "share" was averaging over 50%, so it's gone down.
A honeymoon is supposed to be a highlight, not just "we haven't lost anything yet".
Again nobody seriously thinks 50% is the baseline. You make yourself look foolish pretending it is.
Losing share is what parties of government tend to do after their honeymoon period once tough decisions need to be taken. This government has been compelled to take many tough decisions in the past six months but still the share is 100% of the General Election share.
I specifically said that 50% wasn't a baseline - agreeing that was ridiculous.
You did however say that the honeymoon wasn't over, but in the very next post you're talking about "after their honeymoon".
I'm not suggesting that the Tories are polling badly - I'm saying they won't be happy to be heading towards a recession, with a new more popular Labour leader, with their honeymoon polling boost already long gone.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
There is still an element of "you make your own luck" to all this.
Trump closed down the CDC operation in China that was meant to warn about pandemics. Trump failed to enact any meaningful testing (early on when we were complaining about UK testing numbers we were by an order of magnitude massively out-testing the USA despite being a fraction of their size). The list goes on.
I completely agree - but if this had happened even a year ago it's quite feasible he'd have got over it before the election
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
"Look at the share not the lead"
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
The "share" was averaging over 50%, so it's gone down.
A honeymoon is supposed to be a highlight, not just "we haven't lost anything yet".
Again nobody seriously thinks 50% is the baseline. You make yourself look foolish pretending it is.
Losing share is what parties of government tend to do after their honeymoon period once tough decisions need to be taken. This government has been compelled to take many tough decisions in the past six months but still the share is 100% of the General Election share.
I specifically said that 50% wasn't a baseline - agreeing that was ridiculous.
You did however say that the honeymoon wasn't over, but in the very next post you're talking about "after their honeymoon".
I'm not suggesting that the Tories are polling badly - I'm saying they won't be happy to be heading towards a recession, with a new more popular Labour leader, with their honeymoon polling boost already long gone.
Completely agree mate.
The Tories had their honeymoon, it's gone and they're polling ahead of Labour.
But nothing has really happened yet - beyond the repetitional damage from Cummings which I maintain was what killed the honeymoon and will in the long term be what started the rot - to impact the lives of most people.
But No Deal is coming and that's gonna rip the Tory coalition apart.
There seems to be a serious lack of cut through for Starmer, I do wonder whether it's because he's still failing to make the case for a "Labour" way of doing lockdown and instead just carping from the sidelines. It makes him seem much less impressive.
I think a lot of it - that I've only recently understood myself to be honest - is the utter hatred much of the public have for the Labour Party.
Its a quieter version of the much more public hatred for the Conservative Party.
I still think that much of it is the Brexit divide powering positions. It was clear from the 'red wall' seats last time the Corbyn was a big factor but I think there remains huge resentment in the areas that voted for Brexit, at the failure of many to accept the result. Add to that the contempt many barely hide at voters perceived 'stupidity' for not 'thinking' the right way. Starmer needs to address all of these before he will shift many of those votes. Remember I voted remain and would do so again but there are many like me who accept the result and believe it has to be implemented. Now Starmer is clearly not Corbyn which is a plus but no-one seems to know what he is for. Strongly suggests his strategy is to stay quiet and hope for the best. Might work but I doubt it.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
"Look at the share not the lead"
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
The "share" was averaging over 50%, so it's gone down.
A honeymoon is supposed to be a highlight, not just "we haven't lost anything yet".
Again nobody seriously thinks 50% is the baseline. You make yourself look foolish pretending it is.
Losing share is what parties of government tend to do after their honeymoon period once tough decisions need to be taken. This government has been compelled to take many tough decisions in the past six months but still the share is 100% of the General Election share.
I specifically said that 50% wasn't a baseline - agreeing that was ridiculous.
You did however say that the honeymoon wasn't over, but in the very next post you're talking about "after their honeymoon".
I'm not suggesting that the Tories are polling badly - I'm saying they won't be happy to be heading towards a recession, with a new more popular Labour leader, with their honeymoon polling boost already long gone.
Completely agree mate.
The Tories had their honeymoon, it's gone and they're polling ahead of Labour.
But nothing has really happened yet - beyond the repetitional damage from Cummings which I maintain was what killed the honeymoon and will in the long term be what started the rot - to impact the lives of most people.
But No Deal is coming and that's gonna rip the Tory coalition apart.
Hmm, why would it rip the Tories apart? They all seem to be signing up to anything Mr Johnson provides (or doesn't, in this case). Even the Scottish Tories are now all very for Brexit.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
"Look at the share not the lead"
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
The "share" was averaging over 50%, so it's gone down.
A honeymoon is supposed to be a highlight, not just "we haven't lost anything yet".
Again nobody seriously thinks 50% is the baseline. You make yourself look foolish pretending it is.
Losing share is what parties of government tend to do after their honeymoon period once tough decisions need to be taken. This government has been compelled to take many tough decisions in the past six months but still the share is 100% of the General Election share.
I specifically said that 50% wasn't a baseline - agreeing that was ridiculous.
You did however say that the honeymoon wasn't over, but in the very next post you're talking about "after their honeymoon".
I'm not suggesting that the Tories are polling badly - I'm saying they won't be happy to be heading towards a recession, with a new more popular Labour leader, with their honeymoon polling boost already long gone.
Completely agree mate.
The Tories had their honeymoon, it's gone and they're polling ahead of Labour.
But nothing has really happened yet - beyond the repetitional damage from Cummings which I maintain was what killed the honeymoon and will in the long term be what started the rot - to impact the lives of most people.
But No Deal is coming and that's gonna rip the Tory coalition apart.
Hmm, why would it rip the Tories apart? They all seem to be signing up to anything Mr Johnson provides (or doesn't, in this case). Even the Scottish Tories are now all very for Brexit.
“Brexit” still doesn’t mean anything. Yes it happened last year, but nothing has actually changed yet. We’ll see what happens when things actually start to change for the better, or for the worse.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
"Look at the share not the lead"
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
The "share" was averaging over 50%, so it's gone down.
A honeymoon is supposed to be a highlight, not just "we haven't lost anything yet".
Again nobody seriously thinks 50% is the baseline. You make yourself look foolish pretending it is.
Losing share is what parties of government tend to do after their honeymoon period once tough decisions need to be taken. This government has been compelled to take many tough decisions in the past six months but still the share is 100% of the General Election share.
I specifically said that 50% wasn't a baseline - agreeing that was ridiculous.
You did however say that the honeymoon wasn't over, but in the very next post you're talking about "after their honeymoon".
I'm not suggesting that the Tories are polling badly - I'm saying they won't be happy to be heading towards a recession, with a new more popular Labour leader, with their honeymoon polling boost already long gone.
Yes the honeymoon isn't over because they've not gone down yet.
After the honeymoon is when they go down. That hasn't happened yet, they're still at 100% of what they started at.
The extract you might have seen is the entirety of the comment, there is no out of context manipulation.
Eh? That shows exactly the same aggressive clipping! It is indeed the only comment where his face doesn't rest at the end but weirdly cuts to his smile before his next question.
Interesting. Do you think we should add France to the quarantine list ?
Gradually many eurlopean countries are moving towards the UK position - Switzerland today blaked out most of mainland Spain. I think there is a realisation slowly dawning that mass tourism this summer was an accident waiting to happen. Fortunately most punters all over Europe have voted with their feet. But it was a mistake to open up the borders so completely and so quickly - however laudable the motives.
There seems to be a serious lack of cut through for Starmer, I do wonder whether it's because he's still failing to make the case for a "Labour" way of doing lockdown and instead just carping from the sidelines. It makes him seem much less impressive.
I think a lot of it - that I've only recently understood myself to be honest - is the utter hatred much of the public have for the Labour Party.
That's an interesting comment - what was it that brought it home to you and do you understand why some people feel that way?
"Beirut explosion: How chemicals abandoned by a Russian businessman triggered a devastating blast felt in Cyprus Authorities hint at poor storage of explosive material left after ship seized in 2014"
Interesting that this is not made more of. The UK government has had a lot of flak, but they have navigated some choppy waters and we are not currently badly placed. Enjoyed a Rishi meal last night (service appalling, but that's not Boris's fault), food delicious.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
"Look at the share not the lead"
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
The "share" was averaging over 50%, so it's gone down.
A honeymoon is supposed to be a highlight, not just "we haven't lost anything yet".
Again nobody seriously thinks 50% is the baseline. You make yourself look foolish pretending it is.
Losing share is what parties of government tend to do after their honeymoon period once tough decisions need to be taken. This government has been compelled to take many tough decisions in the past six months but still the share is 100% of the General Election share.
I specifically said that 50% wasn't a baseline - agreeing that was ridiculous.
You did however say that the honeymoon wasn't over, but in the very next post you're talking about "after their honeymoon".
I'm not suggesting that the Tories are polling badly - I'm saying they won't be happy to be heading towards a recession, with a new more popular Labour leader, with their honeymoon polling boost already long gone.
Yes the honeymoon isn't over because they've not gone down yet.
After the honeymoon is when they go down. That hasn't happened yet, they're still at 100% of what they started at.
So what was the 20%+ lead if not a honeymoon?
You sit on your sofa with your partner, then you get married, you go to Bali for your honeymoon, you return to the sofa.
Are we know redefining honeymoon so that it doesn't end till you get up from the sofa and trip over the cat?
There seems to be a serious lack of cut through for Starmer, I do wonder whether it's because he's still failing to make the case for a "Labour" way of doing lockdown and instead just carping from the sidelines. It makes him seem much less impressive.
I think a lot of it - that I've only recently understood myself to be honest - is the utter hatred much of the public have for the Labour Party.
Its a quieter version of the much more public hatred for the Conservative Party.
I still think that much of it is the Brexit divide powering positions. It was clear from the 'red wall' seats last time the Corbyn was a big factor but I think there remains huge resentment in the areas that voted for Brexit, at the failure of many to accept the result. Add to that the contempt many barely hide at voters perceived 'stupidity' for not 'thinking' the right way. Starmer needs to address all of these before he will shift many of those votes. Remember I voted remain and would do so again but there are many like me who accept the result and believe it has to be implemented. Now Starmer is clearly not Corbyn which is a plus but no-one seems to know what he is for. Strongly suggests his strategy is to stay quiet and hope for the best. Might work but I doubt it.
I agree, staying quiet and hoping for the best wouldn't work. But that's not his strategy at all. His strategy is long term - he knows there's going to be no election(s) for some time. The virus has somewhat deprived him of the oxygen of publicity, and folk tend to support governments in times of crisis. Given that he's broadly supportive of the main measures, he critiques what should be improved: testing and tracing; targeting of job protection measures; care homes; etc.
Meanwhile, he's focused on sorting out the Labour Party internally to be a credible fighting force. A clear political/policy strategy will emerge in due course, though I suspect not until we see where we are at the end of the Brexit transition period. There is nothing to suggest that he will just "hope for the best" in the longer term - he's too smart for that.
Interesting that this is not made more of. The UK government has had a lot of flak, but they have navigated some choppy waters and we are not currently badly placed. Enjoyed a Rishi meal last night (service appalling, but that's not Boris's fault), food delicious.
It just shows the poor journalism in this country. Why would France have 5 times the number of people in hospital with Covid than the UK?
There seems to be a serious lack of cut through for Starmer, I do wonder whether it's because he's still failing to make the case for a "Labour" way of doing lockdown and instead just carping from the sidelines. It makes him seem much less impressive.
I think a lot of it - that I've only recently understood myself to be honest - is the utter hatred much of the public have for the Labour Party.
Its a quieter version of the much more public hatred for the Conservative Party.
I still think that much of it is the Brexit divide powering positions. It was clear from the 'red wall' seats last time the Corbyn was a big factor but I think there remains huge resentment in the areas that voted for Brexit, at the failure of many to accept the result. Add to that the contempt many barely hide at voters perceived 'stupidity' for not 'thinking' the right way. Starmer needs to address all of these before he will shift many of those votes. Remember I voted remain and would do so again but there are many like me who accept the result and believe it has to be implemented. Now Starmer is clearly not Corbyn which is a plus but no-one seems to know what he is for. Strongly suggests his strategy is to stay quiet and hope for the best. Might work but I doubt it.
I agree, staying quiet and hoping for the best wouldn't work. But that's not his strategy at all. His strategy is long term - he knows there's going to be no election(s) for some time. The virus has somewhat deprived him of the oxygen of publicity, and folk tend to support governments in times of crisis. Given that he's broadly supportive of the main measures, he critiques what should be improved: testing and tracing; targeting of job protection measures; care homes; etc.
Meanwhile, he's focused on sorting out the Labour Party internally to be a credible fighting force. A clear political/policy strategy will emerge in due course, though I suspect not until we see where we are at the end of the Brexit transition period. There is nothing to suggest that he will just "hope for the best" in the longer term - he's too smart for that.
Yes - we will see. That is where the trouble starts because I think many of his core beliefs are not so very different from his predecessors - It is a really long time now since the UK voted in large numbers for the party - do you remember Tony Blair? There was a reason he was so successful but very few Labour party members want to accept that.
Comments
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
Opinium = SKSIBIPM
Survation = SKSWNBPM
ComRes = SKSWNBPM
RedW = SKSWNBPM
Kantar = SKSWNBPM
Could you imagine such a thing before this election?
Starmer has only ever really said that Johnsons measures were not enough. Nobody serious in power has ever said they were too much.
I think that's where the gap is, personally.
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/510637-michelle-obama-says-she-is-managing-low-grade-depression
If that is the case with you then first off I'm sorry to hear that and second off we are (I was) talking about the general case here not what must be a very small minority.
- Boris is an a*se.
- Starmer is a grey blob
Neither give the impression of being up to the job of PM.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1291012543419482113
could Farage unite a growing grievance community who don;t like refugeess crossing the channel/masks/severe lockdowns/Black lives Mattter/Begum coming back/Defund the BBC/Statue removal?
Brexit is vital. If Farage thinks he can turn any agreeement into a betrayal narrative, then that's the key. That's the springboard.
So.
The economy will suffer serious damage if schools don't open.
Schools can't open safely unless the economy is mostly closed down.
Work that one out.
We can never get to 100% accuracy. We can try and get the most accurate numbers in the short term and correct them in the medium and long term.
In which case the
CON 44 (+0.4%)
LAB 35 (+2.9%)
LDEM 8 (-3.6%)
GRN 5 (+2.3%)
In which case the Tories are actually up in the polls not down, though within a rounding error amount.
Mulberry Harbour Part Deux?
Secondly again it doesn't matter what your eyes see. Once the election returns are done, once the Returning Officers have announced every result it ceases to matter too much what the voters wanted it becomes about what the voters have elected. If its a majority that party becomes the government, if its not then horse trading begins until a majority is found as happened in 2010 and 2017.
What horses parties are prepared to trade matters far more the ethereal factors like their members trust. Just as happened with the DUP and Lib Dems in 2010 and 2017.
If you want more of a say then step one is simple: win more seats. It is as simple as that. If you have more seats, you have more bargaining power if there's a hung parliament, that is why the SNP will be powerful should it happen. If you don't, your memberships opinions won't matter that much.
New Labour, new party
https://twitter.com/HughRBrechin/status/1291018419534540801?s=20
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
If the Conservatives are losing votes anyway then it might make it harder for Labour to come back in the Red Wall territories.
But I wonder... might a resurgent I Can't Believe It's Not UKIP cut into the Conservatives' soft southern underbelly?
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
A honeymoon is supposed to be a highlight, not just "we haven't lost anything yet".
Losing share is what parties of government tend to do after their honeymoon period once tough decisions need to be taken. This government has been compelled to take many tough decisions in the past six months but still the share is 100% of the General Election share.
France currently has 384 people in ICU with Covid and 5198 in hospital
The UK has 72 people in ICU and 1152 in hospital
https://www.thelocal.fr/20200804/frances-coronavirus-intensive-care-rates-increase-for-the-second-time-since-april
I can see the scenario where Johnson is in Trump's current position. I can also see him winning another landslide.
Are they enough to form a party over, or revive an old franchise? I don;t think so. But a brexit 'betrayal' would take it over the line, in my view.
Farage would then have enough momentum to make a comeback, if he wanted. I'm not sure he does.
Trump closed down the CDC operation in China that was meant to warn about pandemics.
Trump failed to enact any meaningful testing (early on when we were complaining about UK testing numbers we were by an order of magnitude massively out-testing the USA despite being a fraction of their size).
The list goes on.
You did however say that the honeymoon wasn't over, but in the very next post you're talking about "after their honeymoon".
I'm not suggesting that the Tories are polling badly - I'm saying they won't be happy to be heading towards a recession, with a new more popular Labour leader, with their honeymoon polling boost already long gone.
The Tories had their honeymoon, it's gone and they're polling ahead of Labour.
But nothing has really happened yet - beyond the repetitional damage from Cummings which I maintain was what killed the honeymoon and will in the long term be what started the rot - to impact the lives of most people.
But No Deal is coming and that's gonna rip the Tory coalition apart.
I remember people on here saying his gypsy comment was taken out of context and he was aggressively 'clipped'
The full video is here
https://youtu.be/01viD5j8nVc
The extract you might have seen is the entirety of the comment, there is no out of context manipulation.
https://twitter.com/Davyshanks/status/1290997321459806209?s=20
I've been in around 11 of them but some of the names are probably new iterations of old premises.
After the honeymoon is when they go down. That hasn't happened yet, they're still at 100% of what they started at.
Authorities hint at poor storage of explosive material left after ship seized in 2014"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/05/beirut-explosion-chemicals-abandoned-russian-businessman-triggered/
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1291035226949419010?s=20
You sit on your sofa with your partner, then you get married, you go to Bali for your honeymoon, you return to the sofa.
Are we know redefining honeymoon so that it doesn't end till you get up from the sofa and trip over the cat?
Meanwhile, he's focused on sorting out the Labour Party internally to be a credible fighting force. A clear political/policy strategy will emerge in due course, though I suspect not until we see where we are at the end of the Brexit transition period. There is nothing to suggest that he will just "hope for the best" in the longer term - he's too smart for that.
PS forgot linky link
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/