Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Will tonight see the first poll since GE2019 with LAB ahead?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Will tonight see the first poll since GE2019 with LAB ahead?
It might see an eternity ago but in the first polls in April this year after Starmer became LAB leader two pollsters had CON leads of 26%. Since then things have fallen back sharply for the governing party and in it last survey at the end of August Opinium, has LAB and CON level pegging on 40% each.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Being rude to Bruxelles always plays well.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1304802018972897280?s=20
https://twitter.com/stevebakerhw/status/1304803241818030080?s=21
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8725287/Hundreds-people-forced-wait-FIVE-HOURS-Covid-test-walk-centre-Bury.html
What's more, intentionally breaking international law would make other countries think twice before offering the United Kingdom the free trade deals it desperately needs, damage the country's reputation as a standard bearer for the rule of law and make it a less attractive destination for startups and foreign investment.
Thanks
Quite prescient even.
now includes Scotland
now includes Scotland
Go to the top of the class
Separately, some not so great state polls for Biden today - he’s only up +2 in Arizona, +3 in New Hampshire and +4 Nevada (Wisconsin a bit better). Probably too close for comfort at this stage.
No matter how much they bluster and gabble, the problem is still there and the Rest of the World does not operate by Boris or Cummings's diktats.
Surely under the WA Irish Sea checks are under the remit of HMRC? albeit with EU oversight. It would be a unique sort of blockade, by our own government.
I suspect even without Covid queues Labour will win them back. Not far from Manchester, so plenty of metropolitan elite voters!
He always shifts the goalposts, no wonder the terminally stupid follow his every word.
Maybe Maggie can do the same vs Boris.
Now, it's quite possible that it is the national polls which are incorrect, and the state level polls which are correct. It's also possible that President Trump manages a staggering level of vote efficiency, losing the popular vote by five points or more and still holding on (although I fear for America in that case).
But in 2016, the national polls were broadly correct, only overstating Clinton by 1% on average. That's a similar error level to 2008, 2004 and 2000 - only in 2012, when they understated Obama, was the error level more than about a percent.
My view is watch Trump's share in the national polls. He needs to get the lead down to four points or less by election night, where his better vote efficiency (and possibly some understatement) gives him a good chance. Right now, that hasn't happened. Right now, Biden's share is stable and above 50%, and President Trump has not yet begun gaining ground.
I do miss Centrist Telephone's analyses and unskeweing of the polls in the run up to GE2019.
https://twitter.com/centrist_phone/status/1304386444333645824?s=20
Do you post these anywhere as downloadable spreadsheets?
Now, that doesn't mean that population density doesn't play *a* role, but it's more likely at a micro level: do your cities rely on crowded metro systems? Do people live in apartment complexes with busy shared lifts? How many people live alone rather than in multi-person dwellings?
I find Johnson's argument in the Telegraph a good one but it's being made five days after the story broke and behind a paywall. Even if the story was leaked to the FT, he should have come out swinging before the legislation was published saying this is why the EU has acted in bad faith so this is why we need to act this way ...
Poorly managed the way it has happened.
Several won't be happy till we are on the verge of war.
Am increasingly pessimistic this weekend. Both about this and Covid.
https://twitter.com/AlistairHaimes/status/1243325362962120704
And the amazing follow up
https://twitter.com/AlistairHaimes/status/1243327747038068736
Real numbers. None of your poncy models, real numbers, real analysis.
Just look at that trend line on the Italy tweet he fitted. Just incredible. Breathtaking work.
This isn't an 'impasse' caused by trade issues (or not unless it really is linked to the theoretical trade deal with America). This is caused purely and simply by the failure of the UK to do what needs to be done and provide the details of their future food safety regime. As would be required of any other country selling food into the EU market.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
Because, of course, with schools back not only are colds now circulating all the children (see previous graphs in showing explosion of test of under 15 year olds) but more people can go into work and get Covid there too.
There's been numerous reports that the UK has been trying to get areas of simple agreement cleared up with the EU but the EU is not willing to sign off areas even where we agree until the disagreements are resolved.
If the EU is refusing to sign off British food, as a weapon to try to get us to accept EU demands on state aid or fishing waters, then that's not the UK dragging its feet.
In the National polls if there has been a trend it is very slightly in Biden's favor and as RCS has pointed out, the Nationals have tended to be more accurate in the past. It's certainly difficult to reconcile a 7 point gap with anything other than a pretty clear Biden win.
The betting markets remain unmoved. I'm not surprised.
But every food product produced by the UK is currently produced under EU regulations, is compliant with those regulations and is free to be transmitted everywhere within the SM. The idea that our food becomes "unregulated" at the end of the WA is simply absurd. Clearly, the EU is entitled to ensure that any subsequent change in our regulations does not mean that any product produced in or imported into the UK does not meet their standards and to restrict products that do not. If the EU wishes to exclude the celebrated chlorine washed chicken after we have allowed it they can of course do so. But if they choose to exclude our exports on 1st January 2021 that is their choice and their choice alone. There is no rational explanation or justification for it and trying to blame our government is just wrong. They are entirely satisfied with the certification that these products currently have. It will be identical the next day.
- density of cities
- average household size
- use of pubic transport
- number of people working in face-to-face jobs
I'm not sure urbanisation would be on there, because a really diffuse city without public transport is going to be far less affected than a concentrated one, where everyone travels about by it.
Deal or no deal we will need to be certified to sell food into the EU market. That is the reality of being a third party. But it can't just be put through on the nod. The UK still needs to provide the necessary details and clarifications to allow the certification to happen. And we haven't yet done that.
Of course you are free to accept that the UK have fulfilled all their responsibilities in this area and the EU are explicitly trying to manufacture reasons why they will refuse certification as a bargaining chip. But i don't believe that for a minute. And if they did then we would obviously do the same which would obviously be damaging to them.
So no, i favour the line of UK intransigence. And the only plausible explanation i can come up for this (beyond the malign) is that it's something to do with proposed US trade talks.
Other countries give places where infected people can stay without spreading it to the rest of their family. In some countries like the UAE this is mandatory. Ive not even heard the possibility being discussed in the UK despite a lot of poor overcrowded housing.
Anyway my point is that urbanisation % is more relevant than population density. I can't prove it though.
This is a completely artificial barrier created by the EU to cause the UK a problem. I do not say that there might not be problems in the future in the absence of a deal by which we agree to maintain their safety standards. Clearly, in the absence of agreement tariffs may well apply. But they have no basis for preventing our exports. We may have to review whether it is "safe" to allow the import of any more BMWs or Audis until we are satisfied that they now meet EU emission standards. It would be as absurd. Almost.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54132066
"Coronavirus: Oxford University to resume vaccine trial after pause"
NB: The video ad. I personally find the images of Trump surrounded by so many felons - i.e. most people he's hired - to be quite potent.
Given mutual trust, I'd think that a transitional agreement on mutual recognition could be reached to last until such time (if ever) that the UK decides to have different regulations from the EU. Mucking about with breaches of agreed Treaties, however, does not encourage mutual trust.
The 2019 Tory manifesto did however promise to regain control over UK fishing waters and end EU sovereignty over the UK, both of which the EU have refused to agree for a trade deal.
In that case the Tory manifesto also promised to end the implementation period in December 2020
If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.
There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
The latest Rasmussen national poll for example from 3 days ago is Biden 48% Trump 46% ie a 2 point Biden lead unchanged from Hillary's national popular vote lead in 2016.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_sep09
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was Clinton 45% and Trump 43% so in terms of Clinton's final lead was spot on
Who decides what is "serious"?
Who decides what is "strictly necessary"?
Who determines whether the proposal will "least disturb the functioning of this Protocol?
Who determines what are "proportionate rebalancing measures"?
I mean, if I drafted a contract or minute of agreement as vague and woolly as that I would be putting my insurers on notice.
Absolutely bonkers, both sides can attack but neither of them can defend.
Take it!