Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
No he didn't. Pretty much everyone, barring a few ardent Corbynistas, believed that Johnson could and would beat Corbyn.
It was the leadership of the Tory Party when Mrs May quit.
His speciality is narcissistic shits
But it wasn't really rocket science that the Tory membership would plump for the most Brexity candidate on offer and that's where Johnson positioned himself.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
Wowsers. Are you one of the people responding to Tory MPs by cheering them on? Lets go to people drowning and tell them "UC is actually extremely generous" and how terrible they must be with their reality of personal experience not to understand that.
These hungry kids - as their parents have such largesse is the solution to have social services take their kids away? Or fine the parents? They need to be punished for being hungry.
If the Gov't was going to u-turn then it should have done it by this point. Personally I think they'd be better off sticking right now.
Its too late to u-turn for half-term but a pre-emptive u-turn for Christmas is entirely rational. The problem is this issue won't go away and will be back with a vengeance at Christmas - is Boris really going to dig in and be the Scrooge who won't allow kids to eat at Christmas?
The u-turn for that is inevitable. They'll be trying to think a way of dressing it up with face-saving to say it isn't a u-turn, but it will be.
Going off the tone from various Tory MPs I don't think the Tories think they are doing anything wrong. That they wheel out Jenrick - Mr you scratch my back - out to defend why the country can't afford this demonstrates that they simply don't care what people think.
Why should you or I feed these kids? Why should we pay our taxes only to have it handed over to degenerates smackheads and prostitutes? Its THEIR fault these kids are hungry thanks to them wasting their child benefits on booze. And if the kids are starving then social services should take them away. <- this is literally what I have read someone saying on a local MP's Twitter feed. That some people have been gaslit to believe there is no hunger that isn't caused by scum parents is why the Tories feel they can act with impunity.
Don't forget, in a culture wars environment, they *cannot* concede to Burham or Rashford. These people are *wrong*.</p>
They have a point.
There is no justification for not feeding kids in this country. People already get Child Benefit, Child Tax Credits or a Child element of Universal Credit (which has had an uplift this year) etc, etc - what are they meant to go towards if not feeding kids?
That some people take the money they get from the government in Child Benefits and buy booze and fags is undeniable. What can be done about that is a very difficult question to answer though.
But this is burning the Tories badly. A u-turn of some form before Christmas is inevitable, mark my words. There is simply no possible way they will want this as a live issue at Christmas time.
Where does not enough money go? Having seen people close to me drown in debt once you slip under the water its almost impossible to resurface. As previously discussed UC / Minimum Wage isn't enough money to survive on. All you need is an unexpected bill and you're sunk. So I'm confident that a lot of the hungry kids come from families who are not scum and are mortified by the position they are in. But all the focus goes to the minority who just don't care.
I agree that it is burning the Tories. Their challenge is how to u-turn without having been seen to u-turn and without admitting that minimum wage / UC is insufficient. As there is literally no way to kill this issue by Christmas - I guarantee you that some kids will be hungry regardless of what they do - the alternative is power through and try to reframe the debate back onto the feckless workshy scum.
The problem is that people on Universal Credit aren't necessarily workshy, the benefits system traps them in penury. That's not their fault and it needs massive reform.
Someone who is working poor, claiming all benefits they are entitled to (not something that should be criticised) can be on a marginal tax rate of over 90% thanks to the benefit system. A lot of poor-income jobs eg in hospitality etc can have people working differing amounts of hours so if someone wants extra wages they ought to be able to work extra hours and be paid more for it - but the benefits system means if they work an extra hour on minimum wage then they lose benefits for that and end up taking home less than a pound an hour.
Who wants to work extra for less than a pound an hour? How are they going to pay their bills or be encouraged to earn more when 90% of what they work for goes to HMRC?
The system is buggered and it traps people in poverty. Is there anyone here who would fancy doing an extra hours work for less than one pound?
To be fair to Swinson continuing to deny an election after Article 50 was extended was frankly unsustainable - and that was a great polling situation for the Lib Dems. They'd consistently upticked for about a month or so now and could have made many gains.
What made Swinson lose her own seat and net seats was the hubris that followed. Especially that magazine they published introducing "Jo Swinson, Britain's Next Prime Minister" was absurd and made her look absolutely foolish.
Swinson should have been targetting about 30+ seats and having a bigger role in the next Parliament with a second referendum as policy, not acting like Icarus pledging to become Prime Minister and reverse Brexit without a further referendum.
Calling the election was a mix of over-optimism and misjudgement, falling into the trap of the SNP, who claimed to want to get rid of the Tories but really wanted a Boris win as playing directly into their longer-term strategy, as is clearly coming to pass now.
The warts and all LibDem GE Review suggests the MPs saw an election as the best/only way to stop Brexit, and believed that otherwise it would get through after the New Year with enough Labour support. But it points out they did little research or internal consultation before making the jump in parliament.
Their biggest misjudgement was not to throw their support behind one of the soft Brexit options during the Letwin process. LibDem votes would have been sufficient to get a majority for CM/CU/SM and at least allow Parliament to have taken that process to the next stage. Whether that would have changed the dynamic in the country and/or led to a concrete outcome in parliament, who can say?
I had no problem with "stop Brexit" as a legitimate political platform. The issue of course that it was a relatively unpopular position. Compromise was needed but the dying 2017 parliament couldn't find any compromise that worked. So the election was needed because we couldn't drift along like that with parliament literally unable to move in any direction no matter how funny it was to watch.
Yes. That night when every single one of Letwin's options got voted down sealed the fate of a compromise path. Despite the second go to make something of the process, its credibility was shot the moment news that the MPs had voted against everything hit the media.
Mrs May should have spent her political capital on it from the beginning.
Frankly it was the Lib Dems and People's Vote gang who gave us hard Brexit.
If they'd backed Clarke's motion C or Nick Boles' motion D - it would all look very different now.
Bollocks leave voters gave us hard brexit. Nobody else
It is with fear and trepidation I am about to get in the car and go for my prescription wondering if the neighbours will report me the Stasi Welsh government for having the temerity to go out
Wear a Dominic Cummings mask as suggested by repeated Daily Star front pages. Then you can do anything.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
No he didn't. Pretty much everyone, barring a few ardent Corbynistas, believed that Johnson could and would beat Corbyn.
It was the leadership of the Tory Party when Mrs May quit.
His speciality is narcissistic shits
But it wasn't really rocket science that the Tory membership would plump for the most Brexity candidate on offer and that's where Johnson positioned himself.
The board consensus was that Boris wouldn't get the backing of MPs.
Also - arguably Raab was a more Brexity option. Johnson had multiple positions as per.
If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016
Are you still maintaining the fiction that you want Biden to win because the tone of every post you write on the US election suggests otherwise?
I have said I would have voted for Hillary too in 2016 and did so at the time, that does not change the fact Hillary lost, in fact the last Republican I would have voted for was George W Bush in 2000.
However it seems that unlike some on here I can distinguish between who I would vote for and who I think will win which is what this site is supposed to be about and as I showed last night Trump's vote has not disappeared and very rarely does the candidate with the most energy amongst their supporters lose
Absolutely, just look at the size of the rallies Prime Minister Corbyn was able to pull when he was campaigning. 🤪
Yes in 2017 we saw that Corbyn's huge rallies were a better reflection of the result than the big poll leads May had, May won by only 2%, that would be enough for another Trump EC win.
By 2019 Boris had bigger rallies than May had had and Corbyn's rallies were smaller
In the US too in 2016 Trump had bigger rallies than Hillary, in 2012 and 2008 Obama had bigger rallies than Romney or McCain in 2004 Bush had bigger rallies than Kerry, it is normally an indicator of the winner the enthusiasm they have for their campaign
Thanks for the thread Robert. I agree with your conclusion.
Those clutching to the faint hope of a Trump win are pinning their hopes on all of the following: 1. Trump supporters are hiding from the pollsters. 2. Despite coming from the "expendible" demographic most at risk from Covid-19, a significant proportion of older registered Democrats are voting for Trump. 3. Polling companies which got it utterly wrong in 2018 will get it right in 2020, and other companies changes to their methods in the wake of 2016 count for nothing. 4. To counter what's happening in early voting, Trump will pull it out of the bag by winning a far higher proportion of the vote share on election day than happened in 2016.
Yes, it's possible. Very occasionally, an absolute outsider wins the Grand National. But personally, I think the chances of Biden winning the popular vote by >10% now exceed by some way those of Trump winning the electoral college.
If Biden was winning the popular vote by over 10% there should be significant switching from 2016 Trump voters to Biden, that is not happening, most polls show over 90% of Trump 2016 voters are still voting for Trump and over 90% of Hillary voters are voting for Biden.
Where Biden is doing better is he is picking up about 50% of the Other candidate vote in 2016 but then Trump is also picking up about 20% of the Other vote from 2016 so both Biden and Trump could see higher voteshares than 2016 and a result something like Biden 50% and Trump 47% in the national popular vote is certainly possible and that would be a less than 1% swing from 2016 and thus Trump could still scrape home in the EC.
Plus we know from 2016 there was a shy Trump vote otherwise Trump would not have won as the polls were showing Hillary not only winning the popular vote but the EC too, there was no shy GOP vote in 2018 or 2014 and no shy Romney vote in 2012 either however, only a shy vote when Trump is on the ballot
You are more knowledgeable than me on this HYUFD but weren't the polls pretty accurate and not missing shy Trump supporters, but that Trump got the votes where it mattered (probably because Clinton took the rust belt for granted).
So question for anyone with the knowledge:
Were there shy Trump supporters in 2016? If there were has that been taken into account by pollsters this time?
Irksome to have rain when I want to post a parcel...
F1: account not yet updated with the Hamilton wins bet. Mildly surprised. Will give it a few days then send an enquiry if need be.
Hello Morris - I'm not sure of the nature of the bet you are waiting to be settled, but I'm guessing this was placed with the Betfair Betting Exchange. Betfair are notorious, if that is the word, for waiting until the very last element of doubt, no matter how inconceivable that doubt might be has been eliminated. Given the nature of their business and the terrifying risk as they see it of ultimately having to pay out to both backer and layer, one can sort of understand their attitude up to a point, plus it has to be said, this also does wonders for their cashflow! Given all the possible post-election appeals, court actions and other recriminations surrounding the U.S. election results, I am fully reconciled to having to wait weeks or even months to receive certain elements of my winnings from Betfair, always assuming of course that these prove to be winning bets!
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016
Are you still maintaining the fiction that you want Biden to win because the tone of every post you write on the US election suggests otherwise?
I have said I would have voted for Hillary too in 2016 and did so at the time, that does not change the fact Hillary lost, in fact the last Republican I would have voted for was George W Bush in 2000.
However it seems that unlike some on here I can distinguish between who I would vote for and who I think will win which is what this site is supposed to be about and as I showed last night Trump's vote has not disappeared and very rarely does the candidate with the most energy amongst their supporters lose
Absolutely, just look at the size of the rallies Prime Minister Corbyn was able to pull when he was campaigning. 🤪
Yes in 2017 we saw that Corbyn's huge rallies were a better reflection of the result than the big poll leads May had, May won by only 2%, that would be enough for another Trump EC win.
By 2019 Boris had bigger rallies than May had had and Corbyn's rallies were smaller
In the US too in 2016 Trump had bigger rallies than Hillary, in 2012 and 2008 Obama had bigger rallies than Romney or McCain in 2004 Bush had bigger rallies than Kerry, it is normally an indicator of the winner the enthusiasm they have for their campaign
Johnson had rallies? Must have missed those, he did have invited to events in fridges but rallies?
If the Gov't was going to u-turn then it should have done it by this point. Personally I think they'd be better off sticking right now.
Its too late to u-turn for half-term but a pre-emptive u-turn for Christmas is entirely rational. The problem is this issue won't go away and will be back with a vengeance at Christmas - is Boris really going to dig in and be the Scrooge who won't allow kids to eat at Christmas?
The u-turn for that is inevitable. They'll be trying to think a way of dressing it up with face-saving to say it isn't a u-turn, but it will be.
Going off the tone from various Tory MPs I don't think the Tories think they are doing anything wrong. That they wheel out Jenrick - Mr you scratch my back - out to defend why the country can't afford this demonstrates that they simply don't care what people think.
Why should you or I feed these kids? Why should we pay our taxes only to have it handed over to degenerates smackheads and prostitutes? Its THEIR fault these kids are hungry thanks to them wasting their child benefits on booze. And if the kids are starving then social services should take them away. <- this is literally what I have read someone saying on a local MP's Twitter feed. That some people have been gaslit to believe there is no hunger that isn't caused by scum parents is why the Tories feel they can act with impunity.
Don't forget, in a culture wars environment, they *cannot* concede to Burham or Rashford. These people are *wrong*.</p>
They have a point.
There is no justification for not feeding kids in this country. People already get Child Benefit, Child Tax Credits or a Child element of Universal Credit (which has had an uplift this year) etc, etc - what are they meant to go towards if not feeding kids?
That some people take the money they get from the government in Child Benefits and buy booze and fags is undeniable. What can be done about that is a very difficult question to answer though.
But this is burning the Tories badly. A u-turn of some form before Christmas is inevitable, mark my words. There is simply no possible way they will want this as a live issue at Christmas time.
Where does not enough money go? Having seen people close to me drown in debt once you slip under the water its almost impossible to resurface. As previously discussed UC / Minimum Wage isn't enough money to survive on. All you need is an unexpected bill and you're sunk. So I'm confident that a lot of the hungry kids come from families who are not scum and are mortified by the position they are in. But all the focus goes to the minority who just don't care.
I agree that it is burning the Tories. Their challenge is how to u-turn without having been seen to u-turn and without admitting that minimum wage / UC is insufficient. As there is literally no way to kill this issue by Christmas - I guarantee you that some kids will be hungry regardless of what they do - the alternative is power through and try to reframe the debate back onto the feckless workshy scum.
The problem is that people on Universal Credit aren't necessarily workshy, the benefits system traps them in penury. That's not their fault and it needs massive reform.
Someone who is working poor, claiming all benefits they are entitled to (not something that should be criticised) can be on a marginal tax rate of over 90% thanks to the benefit system. A lot of poor-income jobs eg in hospitality etc can have people working differing amounts of hours so if someone wants extra wages they ought to be able to work extra hours and be paid more for it - but the benefits system means if they work an extra hour on minimum wage then they lose benefits for that and end up taking home less than a pound an hour.
Who wants to work extra for less than a pound an hour? How are they going to pay their bills or be encouraged to earn more when 90% of what they work for goes to HMRC?
The system is buggered and it traps people in poverty. Is there anyone here who would fancy doing an extra hours work for less than one pound?
We don't always agree but I do respect that you are banging on about the outrageousness of UC - the taper is indeed insanity especially when imposed by politicians who supposedly set out to make work pay
It is with fear and trepidation I am about to get in the car and go for my prescription wondering if the neighbours will report me the Stasi Welsh government for having the temerity to go out
Wear a Dominic Cummings mask as suggested by repeated Daily Star front pages. Then you can do anything.
I am not obsessed by Cummings like the left are.
He is one of several including Labour and SNP mps who have crossed the line in acceptable behaviour
It is with fear and trepidation I am about to get in the car and go for my prescription wondering if the neighbours will report me the Stasi Welsh government for having the temerity to go out
Ridiculous hyperbole from you again, and offensive to those innocent souls murdered by the actual Stasi.
If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016
Are you still maintaining the fiction that you want Biden to win because the tone of every post you write on the US election suggests otherwise?
I have said I would have voted for Hillary too in 2016 and did so at the time, that does not change the fact Hillary lost, in fact the last Republican I would have voted for was George W Bush in 2000.
However it seems that unlike some on here I can distinguish between who I would vote for and who I think will win which is what this site is supposed to be about and as I showed last night Trump's vote has not disappeared and very rarely does the candidate with the most energy amongst their supporters lose
Absolutely, just look at the size of the rallies Prime Minister Corbyn was able to pull when he was campaigning. 🤪
Yes in 2017 we saw that Corbyn's huge rallies were a better reflection of the result than the big poll leads May had, May won by only 2%, that would be enough for another Trump EC win.
By 2019 Boris had bigger rallies than May had had and Corbyn's rallies were smaller
In the US too in 2016 Trump had bigger rallies than Hillary, in 2012 and 2008 Obama had bigger rallies than Romney or McCain in 2004 Bush had bigger rallies than Kerry, it is normally an indicator of the winner the enthusiasm they have for their campaign
Johnson had rallies? Must have missed those, he did have invited to events in fridges but rallies?
To be fair to Swinson continuing to deny an election after Article 50 was extended was frankly unsustainable - and that was a great polling situation for the Lib Dems. They'd consistently upticked for about a month or so now and could have made many gains.
What made Swinson lose her own seat and net seats was the hubris that followed. Especially that magazine they published introducing "Jo Swinson, Britain's Next Prime Minister" was absurd and made her look absolutely foolish.
Swinson should have been targetting about 30+ seats and having a bigger role in the next Parliament with a second referendum as policy, not acting like Icarus pledging to become Prime Minister and reverse Brexit without a further referendum.
Calling the election was a mix of over-optimism and misjudgement, falling into the trap of the SNP, who claimed to want to get rid of the Tories but really wanted a Boris win as playing directly into their longer-term strategy, as is clearly coming to pass now.
The warts and all LibDem GE Review suggests the MPs saw an election as the best/only way to stop Brexit, and believed that otherwise it would get through after the New Year with enough Labour support. But it points out they did little research or internal consultation before making the jump in parliament.
Their biggest misjudgement was not to throw their support behind one of the soft Brexit options during the Letwin process. LibDem votes would have been sufficient to get a majority for CM/CU/SM and at least allow Parliament to have taken that process to the next stage. Whether that would have changed the dynamic in the country and/or led to a concrete outcome in parliament, who can say?
I had no problem with "stop Brexit" as a legitimate political platform. The issue of course that it was a relatively unpopular position. Compromise was needed but the dying 2017 parliament couldn't find any compromise that worked. So the election was needed because we couldn't drift along like that with parliament literally unable to move in any direction no matter how funny it was to watch.
Yes. That night when every single one of Letwin's options got voted down sealed the fate of a compromise path. Despite the second go to make something of the process, its credibility was shot the moment news that the MPs had voted against everything hit the media.
Mrs May should have spent her political capital on it from the beginning.
Frankly it was the Lib Dems and People's Vote gang who gave us hard Brexit.
If they'd backed Clarke's motion C or Nick Boles' motion D - it would all look very different now.
Bollocks leave voters gave us hard brexit. Nobody else
Leave voters gave us Brexit but did not specify what kind.
Our politicans failed to find a workable compromise of soft Brexit.
It is with fear and trepidation I am about to get in the car and go for my prescription wondering if the neighbours will report me the Stasi Welsh government for having the temerity to go out
Wear a Dominic Cummings mask as suggested by repeated Daily Star front pages. Then you can do anything.
I am not obsessed by Cummings like the left are.
He is one of several including Labour and SNP mps who have crossed the line in acceptable behaviour
Your opposition to lockdown or indeed any policy, depends on which party called it.
If Biden was winning the popular vote by over 10% there should be significant switching from 2016 Trump voters to Biden, that is not happening, most polls show over 90% of Trump 2016 voters are still voting for Trump and over 90% of Hillary voters are voting for Biden.
Where Biden is doing better is he is picking up about 50% of the Other candidate vote in 2016 but then Trump is also picking up about 20% of the Other vote from 2016 so both Biden and Trump could see higher voteshares than 2016 and a result something like Biden 50% and Trump 47% in the national popular vote is certainly possible and that would be a less than 1% swing from 2016 and thus Trump could still scrape home in the EC.
Plus we know from 2016 there was a shy Trump vote otherwise Trump would not have won as the polls were showing Hillary not only winning the popular vote but the EC too, there was no shy GOP vote in 2018 or 2014 and no shy Romney vote in 2012 either however, only a shy vote when Trump is on the ballot
Completely wrong. As I keep saying, there was no shy Trump vote in 2016. People who reported as being undecided before the election post election reported going for Trump 6 to 1. Further whites without college degrees were significantly underrepresented. This time there are far fewer undecideds and pollsters weight far more for education. Even then the RCP acerage was, at worst, 3.5% out (in Michigan). For Trump to win the pollsters have to do worse than last time.
There are still about 3 or 4% who are not saying who they are voting for, if they again all go mainly to Trump they are again shy Trumps as they were in 2016.
Trump is also the first Republican candidate since Reagan with real strong support amongst white working class Democrats, they are often in rural and small town areas and still difficult to poll all of them without the mass polling Trafalgar does
A few things:
Are they actually "not saying who they are voting for" or are they in fact simply "undecided"?
What evidence do you have for this so called "mass polling" that Trafalgar are doing?
To be fair to Swinson continuing to deny an election after Article 50 was extended was frankly unsustainable - and that was a great polling situation for the Lib Dems. They'd consistently upticked for about a month or so now and could have made many gains.
What made Swinson lose her own seat and net seats was the hubris that followed. Especially that magazine they published introducing "Jo Swinson, Britain's Next Prime Minister" was absurd and made her look absolutely foolish.
Swinson should have been targetting about 30+ seats and having a bigger role in the next Parliament with a second referendum as policy, not acting like Icarus pledging to become Prime Minister and reverse Brexit without a further referendum.
Calling the election was a mix of over-optimism and misjudgement, falling into the trap of the SNP, who claimed to want to get rid of the Tories but really wanted a Boris win as playing directly into their longer-term strategy, as is clearly coming to pass now.
The warts and all LibDem GE Review suggests the MPs saw an election as the best/only way to stop Brexit, and believed that otherwise it would get through after the New Year with enough Labour support. But it points out they did little research or internal consultation before making the jump in parliament.
Their biggest misjudgement was not to throw their support behind one of the soft Brexit options during the Letwin process. LibDem votes would have been sufficient to get a majority for CM/CU/SM and at least allow Parliament to have taken that process to the next stage. Whether that would have changed the dynamic in the country and/or led to a concrete outcome in parliament, who can say?
I had no problem with "stop Brexit" as a legitimate political platform. The issue of course that it was a relatively unpopular position. Compromise was needed but the dying 2017 parliament couldn't find any compromise that worked. So the election was needed because we couldn't drift along like that with parliament literally unable to move in any direction no matter how funny it was to watch.
Yes. That night when every single one of Letwin's options got voted down sealed the fate of a compromise path. Despite the second go to make something of the process, its credibility was shot the moment news that the MPs had voted against everything hit the media.
Mrs May should have spent her political capital on it from the beginning.
Frankly it was the Lib Dems and People's Vote gang who gave us hard Brexit.
If they'd backed Clarke's motion C or Nick Boles' motion D - it would all look very different now.
Bollocks leave voters gave us hard brexit. Nobody else
Leave voters gave us Brexit but did not specify what kind.
Our politicans failed to find a workable compromise of soft Brexit.
The majority party didn’t want anything else because they were scared of Farage
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Yes badly worded by me. I was about to say I didn't actually say he wasn't wrong, when clearly I did
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
No he didn't. Pretty much everyone, barring a few ardent Corbynistas, believed that Johnson could and would beat Corbyn.
It was the leadership of the Tory Party when Mrs May quit.
His speciality is narcissistic shits
But it wasn't really rocket science that the Tory membership would plump for the most Brexity candidate on offer and that's where Johnson positioned himself.
The board consensus was that Boris wouldn't get the backing of MPs.
Also - arguably Raab was a more Brexity option. Johnson had multiple positions as per.
Raab had already acknowledged some reality. Boris was willing to tell people that Brexit would be brilliant, which is what people wanted to hear.
Robert, thanks for the header, I'm going to disagree respectfully. I will concentrate on two in particular:
1. While the Democrats still have a big lead by party registration (more on that below), the gap has been narrowing every day by around 2pp to stand at 11%. We will see what happens with "souls to the polls" but, if that has been impacted, and that narrowing continues at the same pace, then the Republicans are going to go into the final day feeling confident (the question of course is on cannibalisation of votes);
2. In NC, you have to be very careful aligning party registration with expected votes because of legacy Democrat-registered older voters who actually vote Republican. You can see that in two congressional districts, both rated Solid R, namely the 3rd and the 7th. If you looked at both for votes so far (https://twitter.com/OldNorthStPol/status/1320474545564852225/photo/1), you would think the Democrats are on for a landslide win, given they are matching Republican registration numbers. But, if you look at the explanations that Old North State Politics give for the districts (http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2020/08/lay-of-political-land-nc-congressional-districts.html), you will see that the 3rd and the 7th have a lot of older voters who are still registered Democrats but vote Republican. The 3rd is 48% rural and heavily older voter weighted and went 61% for Trump in 2016 even though party registrations for Democrats and Republicans are almost equal. The 7th went 59% for Trump, even though there is only a slight Rep lean in registrations. Again, this is probably a legacy issue.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
No he didn't. Pretty much everyone, barring a few ardent Corbynistas, believed that Johnson could and would beat Corbyn.
It was the leadership of the Tory Party when Mrs May quit.
His speciality is narcissistic shits
But it wasn't really rocket science that the Tory membership would plump for the most Brexity candidate on offer and that's where Johnson positioned himself.
The board consensus was that Boris wouldn't get the backing of MPs.
Also - arguably Raab was a more Brexity option. Johnson had multiple positions as per.
I agreed with HYUFD's position on Johnson being elected Tory leader and made money on it.
Though the majority of Tory MPs despised Johnson (which was why many here thought Johnson wouldn't be elected leader), a majority of Tory MPs also saw Johnson as the best campaigner and most able to beat Corbyn (which was HYUFD's insight).
It is with fear and trepidation I am about to get in the car and go for my prescription wondering if the neighbours will report me the Stasi Welsh government for having the temerity to go out
Ridiculous hyperbole from you again, and offensive to those innocent souls murdered by the actual Stasi.
Feelings are running very high in Wales just now and since when was satire banned
It is with fear and trepidation I am about to get in the car and go for my prescription wondering if the neighbours will report me the Stasi Welsh government for having the temerity to go out
Wear a Dominic Cummings mask as suggested by repeated Daily Star front pages. Then you can do anything.
I am not obsessed by Cummings like the left are.
He is one of several including Labour and SNP mps who have crossed the line in acceptable behaviour
Your opposition to lockdown or indeed any policy, depends on which party called it.
I am opposed to national lockdowns and have been consistent in my comments on this
I support the tiering system as used in England and Scotland
If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016
Are you still maintaining the fiction that you want Biden to win because the tone of every post you write on the US election suggests otherwise?
I have said I would have voted for Hillary too in 2016 and did so at the time, that does not change the fact Hillary lost, in fact the last Republican I would have voted for was George W Bush in 2000.
However it seems that unlike some on here I can distinguish between who I would vote for and who I think will win which is what this site is supposed to be about and as I showed last night Trump's vote has not disappeared and very rarely does the candidate with the most energy amongst their supporters lose
"No doubt the absolute highlight of the campaign has been Jeremy Corbyn’s appearance at an outdoor rally in Bristol this past Monday 9th December. The event was called by Labour with just a day's notice, but that did not stop an amazing approximate 4000 people turfing up the lawn on College Green on a workday afternoon to hear him speak for 10 minutes about the problems facing the country and Labour's transformative plans."
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
No he didn't. Pretty much everyone, barring a few ardent Corbynistas, believed that Johnson could and would beat Corbyn.
It was the leadership of the Tory Party when Mrs May quit.
His speciality is narcissistic shits
But it wasn't really rocket science that the Tory membership would plump for the most Brexity candidate on offer and that's where Johnson positioned himself.
The board consensus was that Boris wouldn't get the backing of MPs.
Also - arguably Raab was a more Brexity option. Johnson had multiple positions as per.
I agreed with HYUFD's position on Johnson being elected Tory leader and made money on it.
Though the majority of Tory MPs despised Johnson (which was why many here thought Johnson wouldn't be elected leader), a majority of Tory MPs also saw Johnson as the best campaigner and most able to beat Corbyn (which was HYUFD's insight).
The insight came from a single poll which showed Johnson the most likely to win an election after that nothing changed.
If Biden was winning the popular vote by over 10% there should be significant switching from 2016 Trump voters to Biden, that is not happening, most polls show over 90% of Trump 2016 voters are still voting for Trump and over 90% of Hillary voters are voting for Biden.
Where Biden is doing better is he is picking up about 50% of the Other candidate vote in 2016 but then Trump is also picking up about 20% of the Other vote from 2016 so both Biden and Trump could see higher voteshares than 2016 and a result something like Biden 50% and Trump 47% in the national popular vote is certainly possible and that would be a less than 1% swing from 2016 and thus Trump could still scrape home in the EC.
Plus we know from 2016 there was a shy Trump vote otherwise Trump would not have won as the polls were showing Hillary not only winning the popular vote but the EC too, there was no shy GOP vote in 2018 or 2014 and no shy Romney vote in 2012 either however, only a shy vote when Trump is on the ballot
Completely wrong. As I keep saying, there was no shy Trump vote in 2016. People who reported as being undecided before the election post election reported going for Trump 6 to 1. Further whites without college degrees were significantly underrepresented. This time there are far fewer undecideds and pollsters weight far more for education. Even then the RCP acerage was, at worst, 3.5% out (in Michigan). For Trump to win the pollsters have to do worse than last time.
There are still about 3 or 4% who are not saying who they are voting for, if they again all go mainly to Trump they are again shy Trumps as they were in 2016.
Trump is also the first Republican candidate since Reagan with real strong support amongst white working class Democrats, they are often in rural and small town areas and still difficult to poll all of them without the mass polling Trafalgar does
A few things:
Are they actually "not saying who they are voting for" or are they in fact simply "undecided"?
What evidence do you have for this so called "mass polling" that Trafalgar are doing?
Define "real strong support".
I don't know why HYUFD won't answer question 2.
I would love to see the counter argument to those who believe their polls are spoofs.
I am conflicted on this. The evidence put forward by @rcs1000 and @Alistair looks overwhelming, but I can't believe Trafalgar put this much evidence in made up stuff. It appears more credible than a lot of obvious nonsense stuff.
If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016
Are you still maintaining the fiction that you want Biden to win because the tone of every post you write on the US election suggests otherwise?
I have said I would have voted for Hillary too in 2016 and did so at the time, that does not change the fact Hillary lost, in fact the last Republican I would have voted for was George W Bush in 2000.
However it seems that unlike some on here I can distinguish between who I would vote for and who I think will win which is what this site is supposed to be about and as I showed last night Trump's vote has not disappeared and very rarely does the candidate with the most energy amongst their supporters lose
"No doubt the absolute highlight of the campaign has been Jeremy Corbyn’s appearance at an outdoor rally in Bristol this past Monday 9th December. The event was called by Labour with just a day's notice, but that did not stop an amazing approximate 4000 people turfing up the lawn on College Green on a workday afternoon to hear him speak for 10 minutes about the problems facing the country and Labour's transformative plans."
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
A shame he's now in a job where that isn't allowed.
It's allowed. Ask NP exMP.
It may be ill advised...
Yes, I was always fairly frank here, even when a PPS, but because I'm usually a loyalist I didn't stray too far - the whips didn't care if you expressed doubts about something so long as you didn't actually vote against it. In any case I never saw any sign that the whips were following PB (the fools!).
It's an odd feature of being an MP that actually almost nobody cares what you're doing and saying most of the time. Constituents - other than those following a particular NGO's campaign - mostly have better things to do than track your activities and thoughts, and the whips only care how you vote. You can proactively try to interest them - I built up a huge email list and wrote to them regularly, which did yield a harvest of personal votes which almost saved me in 2010. But if you choose to do nothing whatever except vote on 3-line whips (I knew two MPs who NEVER replied to letters), if you have a safe seat you'll be absolutely fine. It's a good reason for PR (because it avoids safe seats).
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Yes badly worded by me. I was about to say I didn't actually say he wasn't wrong, when clearly I did
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
I think where the polls will get it wrong (again) this time is (again) under-sampling white non-college voters. I'm sure they will use 2016 as the baseline but, given the anecdotal evidence, it looks like this group is fired up to vote. I'd expect them to rise as a % of the total vote, probably substantially
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Who cares? We're spunking billions on god knows what - just feed the f*cking kids.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
Labour should be popping a bollock to get Rashford into a safe seat for the next GE. Barry Gardiner can go the other way and play CF for Manchester Utd.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
People working do not have "far less" cash. Fake news.
And in case you didn't notice, the public as a whole thinks it's a good idea.
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Yes badly worded by me. I was about to say I didn't actually say he wasn't wrong, when clearly I did
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
I think where the polls will get it wrong (again) this time is (again) under-sampling white non-college voters. I'm sure they will use 2016 as the baseline but, given the anecdotal evidence, it looks like this group is fired up to vote. I'd expect them to rise as a % of the total vote, probably substantially
It was of course undercounting the turnout of black voters for Obama in 2012 too where the pollsters made an error in underestimating his poll lead, the white working class are Trump's core vote as the African American vote was for Obama
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Yes badly worded by me. I was about to say I didn't actually say he wasn't wrong, when clearly I did
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
I think where the polls will get it wrong (again) this time is (again) under-sampling white non-college voters. I'm sure they will use 2016 as the baseline but, given the anecdotal evidence, it looks like this group is fired up to vote. I'd expect them to rise as a % of the total vote, probably substantially
It was of course undercounting the turnout of black voters for Obama in 2012 too where the pollsters made an error in underestimating his poll lead, the white working class are Trump's core vote as the African American vote was for Obama
And the pollsters are now, on the whole, weighting for Trump's support amongst the white working class. They are not idiots you know.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
Why can’t you just make a point and the leave it, coming here everyday fighting your current hobby horse is boring in the extreme. Leave it unless you have more information.
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Yes badly worded by me. I was about to say I didn't actually say he wasn't wrong, when clearly I did
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
I think where the polls will get it wrong (again) this time is (again) under-sampling white non-college voters. I'm sure they will use 2016 as the baseline but, given the anecdotal evidence, it looks like this group is fired up to vote. I'd expect them to rise as a % of the total vote, probably substantially
It was of course undercounting the turnout of black voters for Obama in 2012 too where the pollsters made an error in underestimating his poll lead, the white working class are Trump's core vote as the African American vote was for Obama
Which will mean that the pollsters are in effect "fighting the last war" for the third election in a row.
Also, in a number of swing states, the student populations will be interesting to watch given the disruption to campuses. In tightly contested states, that could be a key factor.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
Roger a blind man could have forecast that any donkey could have beaten Corbyn.
Why didn’t we try? A donkey as PM would be far preferable to Johnson. Less randy for a start.
By the way, what do you make of the CalMac scandal that’s been breaking over the last couple of days?
First I had heard of it actually. It looks like a disaster to me , bizarre they would take ships to England for a service when they have facilities on their doorstep. Was another one recently where contracts to build all the windmills for a huge offshore wind farm went to Korea and bypassed the local facilities. That was supposedly down to UK legislation on procurement in that they had to put it out to all and sundry and take the lowest price. Whether true or not I don't know but hard to see them being stupid enough to do something like this if they did not have to.
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Yes badly worded by me. I was about to say I didn't actually say he wasn't wrong, when clearly I did
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
I think where the polls will get it wrong (again) this time is (again) under-sampling white non-college voters. I'm sure they will use 2016 as the baseline but, given the anecdotal evidence, it looks like this group is fired up to vote. I'd expect them to rise as a % of the total vote, probably substantially
It was of course undercounting the turnout of black voters for Obama in 2012 too where the pollsters made an error in underestimating his poll lead, the white working class are Trump's core vote as the African American vote was for Obama
And the pollsters are now, on the whole, weighting for Trump's support amongst the white working class. They are not idiots you know.
They are probably using 2016's numbers and thinking that is "safe" because 2016 was such an unusual turnout for non-college educated whites that it cannot be beaten. That would be mistaken. I think it was @TimT who said that, for both sides, this has an "end of days" feel to it.
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Yes badly worded by me. I was about to say I didn't actually say he wasn't wrong, when clearly I did
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
I think where the polls will get it wrong (again) this time is (again) under-sampling white non-college voters. I'm sure they will use 2016 as the baseline but, given the anecdotal evidence, it looks like this group is fired up to vote. I'd expect them to rise as a % of the total vote, probably substantially
It was of course undercounting the turnout of black voters for Obama in 2012 too where the pollsters made an error in underestimating his poll lead, the white working class are Trump's core vote as the African American vote was for Obama
And the pollsters are now, on the whole, weighting for Trump's support amongst the white working class. They are not idiots you know.
They are probably using 2016's numbers and thinking that is "safe" because 2016 was such an unusual turnout for non-college educated whites that it cannot be beaten. That would be mistaken. I think it was @TimT who said that, for both sides, this has an "end of days" feel to it.
So what are Trafalgar doing "differently"? Do you have any data on how many "non-college educated whites" didn't turn out in 2016?
To be fair to Swinson continuing to deny an election after Article 50 was extended was frankly unsustainable - and that was a great polling situation for the Lib Dems. They'd consistently upticked for about a month or so now and could have made many gains.
What made Swinson lose her own seat and net seats was the hubris that followed. Especially that magazine they published introducing "Jo Swinson, Britain's Next Prime Minister" was absurd and made her look absolutely foolish.
Swinson should have been targetting about 30+ seats and having a bigger role in the next Parliament with a second referendum as policy, not acting like Icarus pledging to become Prime Minister and reverse Brexit without a further referendum.
The problem for the LIb Dems advocating a second referendum would have been answering the following questions: a) What would be the "Leave" option in that referendum? b) who do you envisage as PM while the referendum is being organised?; and c) if a second referendum on Brexit is OK, why not a second referendum on Scotland?
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
People working do not have "far less" cash. Fake news.
And in case you didn't notice, the public as a whole thinks it's a good idea.
The public may support it as they have no idea how much UC is worth. If a man earns £35,000 per year and his wife stays at home looking after their two kids and his rent/morgage is £600 per month he would be worse off than a family on UC with two kids who did not work. He would not be entitled to any benefits other than Child Benefit.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
Why can’t you just make a point and the leave it, coming here everyday fighting your current hobby horse is boring in the extreme. Leave it unless you have more information.
So your opinion is worth more than mine?
Masks are working great in France aren't they, just 50,000 cases yesterday
Thanks for the thread Robert. I agree with your conclusion.
Those clutching to the faint hope of a Trump win are pinning their hopes on all of the following: 1. Trump supporters are hiding from the pollsters. 2. Despite coming from the "expendible" demographic most at risk from Covid-19, a significant proportion of older registered Democrats are voting for Trump. 3. Polling companies which got it utterly wrong in 2018 will get it right in 2020, and other companies changes to their methods in the wake of 2016 count for nothing. 4. To counter what's happening in early voting, Trump will pull it out of the bag by winning a far higher proportion of the vote share on election day than happened in 2016.
Yes, it's possible. Very occasionally, an absolute outsider wins the Grand National. But personally, I think the chances of Biden winning the popular vote by >10% now exceed by some way those of Trump winning the electoral college.
If Biden was winning the popular vote by over 10% there should be significant switching from 2016 Trump voters to Biden, that is not happening, most polls show over 90% of Trump 2016 voters are still voting for Trump and over 90% of Hillary voters are voting for Biden.
Where Biden is doing better is he is picking up about 50% of the Other candidate vote in 2016 but then Trump is also picking up about 20% of the Other vote from 2016 so both Biden and Trump could see higher voteshares than 2016 and a result something like Biden 50% and Trump 47% in the national popular vote is certainly possible and that would be a less than 1% swing from 2016 and thus Trump could still scrape home in the EC.
Plus we know from 2016 there was a shy Trump vote otherwise Trump would not have won as the polls were showing Hillary not only winning the popular vote but the EC too, there was no shy GOP vote in 2018 or 2014 and no shy Romney vote in 2012 either however, only a shy vote when Trump is on the ballot
You are more knowledgeable than me on this HYUFD but weren't the polls pretty accurate and not missing shy Trump supporters, but that Trump got the votes where it mattered (probably because Clinton took the rust belt for granted).
So question for anyone with the knowledge:
Were there shy Trump supporters in 2016? If there were has that been taken into account by pollsters this time?
Not really. The reportedly undecided voters, who may have been "shy" before the election, afterwards they reported going for Trump by 6 to 1. So they were reported as "undecided" beforehand. The most that can be said is that undecided in 2016 = shy Trump in 2016. There's no evididence of people saying they were voting Blue but then voting Red as a result of shy Trumpism. This time there are far fewer undecided/shy Trump voters.
Further, what happened in 2016 is that few major pollsters bothered with the rustbelt immediately before the election and failed to pick up a significant swing there, and undercounted whites without a college degree. Even then, nationally, but for 23,000 votes in Wisconsin, 44,000 votes in PA and 10,000 in Michigan then Clinton would, just barely, have won. Trump won by 78,000 votes over those three crucial states - slightly more than the capacity of Old Trafford and significantly less than many US College Football Stadiums.
So even the most marginal of swings from the Dems to the Reps will in those three states, assuming all else remains equal, it for Biden.
The most risble thing is @HYUFD 's "rally" comparison. Biden's selling point is that he is the one who is taking coronovirus seriously - so he isn't holding rallies. If he were he would be undermining his own message. We have no idea what a Biden rally would attract. It's a facile comparison.
Jon Sopel on R4 this morning was remarking that these Trump/Pence rallies are serving a purpose - they collect contact details from all attendees and ask them if they are registered to vote - and if not, ask them to register, then follow up with voting requests. While some states are (well) past voter registration deadlines, in others you can register up to election day itself.
On that matter no I don't think its been discussed here. That is a horribly leading question, it is a shame I didn't save the document when I looked at it yesterday as I would have liked to see the question order to see what followed this wonderfully leading question
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Yes badly worded by me. I was about to say I didn't actually say he wasn't wrong, when clearly I did
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
I think where the polls will get it wrong (again) this time is (again) under-sampling white non-college voters. I'm sure they will use 2016 as the baseline but, given the anecdotal evidence, it looks like this group is fired up to vote. I'd expect them to rise as a % of the total vote, probably substantially
It was of course undercounting the turnout of black voters for Obama in 2012 too where the pollsters made an error in underestimating his poll lead, the white working class are Trump's core vote as the African American vote was for Obama
Which will mean that the pollsters are in effect "fighting the last war" for the third election in a row.
Also, in a number of swing states, the student populations will be interesting to watch given the disruption to campuses. In tightly contested states, that could be a key factor.
Fighting the last war is of course the nature of things.
PS I found your last reply to me an interesting observation re underrepresenting white working class. I didn't like it as I don't know and may well not agree, but it was an interesting observation and I will be interested to see if accurate. The difficulty in being a pollster!
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
People working do not have "far less" cash. Fake news.
And in case you didn't notice, the public as a whole thinks it's a good idea.
The public may support it as they have no idea how much UC is worth. If a man earns £35,000 per year and his wife stays at home looking after their two kids and his rent/morgage is £600 per month he would be worse off than a family on UC with two kids who did not work. He would not be entitled to any benefits other than Child Benefit.
Its not fake news at all.
You do not "choose" to be on UC. You are on UC if you cannot get a job.
Anyway you said "far less" cash. I questioned how much less. 35k per year household income (with two working age adults) is only just a little bit higher than minimum wage.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
Why can’t you just make a point and the leave it, coming here everyday fighting your current hobby horse is boring in the extreme. Leave it unless you have more information.
So your opinion is worth more than mine?
Masks are working great in France aren't they, just 50,000 cases yesterday
Yes, your "opinion" on masks is quite clearly objectively wrong on every level.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
Roger a blind man could have forecast that any donkey could have beaten Corbyn.
Why didn’t we try? A donkey as PM would be far preferable to Johnson. Less randy for a start.
By the way, what do you make of the CalMac scandal that’s been breaking over the last couple of days?
First I had heard of it actually. It looks like a disaster to me , bizarre they would take ships to England for a service when they have facilities on their doorstep. Was another one recently where contracts to build all the windmills for a huge offshore wind farm went to Korea and bypassed the local facilities. That was supposedly down to UK legislation on procurement in that they had to put it out to all and sundry and take the lowest price. Whether true or not I don't know but hard to see them being stupid enough to do something like this if they did not have to.
Hello, Malcy. It's only in the Herald as far as I can see - looks rather like a concocted story as nobody else has run with it. Seems that the southern contractor offered a better deal. If they had not got it they'd have sued, I erxpect.
To be fair to Swinson continuing to deny an election after Article 50 was extended was frankly unsustainable - and that was a great polling situation for the Lib Dems. They'd consistently upticked for about a month or so now and could have made many gains.
What made Swinson lose her own seat and net seats was the hubris that followed. Especially that magazine they published introducing "Jo Swinson, Britain's Next Prime Minister" was absurd and made her look absolutely foolish.
Swinson should have been targetting about 30+ seats and having a bigger role in the next Parliament with a second referendum as policy, not acting like Icarus pledging to become Prime Minister and reverse Brexit without a further referendum.
The problem for the LIb Dems advocating a second referendum would have been answering the following questions: a) What would be the "Leave" option in that referendum? b) who do you envisage as PM while the referendum is being organised?; and c) if a second referendum on Brexit is OK, why not a second referendum on Scotland?
The LDs would have stuck with Ref2 as their policy if Labour had not adopted it. That pushed them to Revoke in order to create a difference and maximize their Remainer vote. It didn't work.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
People working do not have "far less" cash. Fake news.
And in case you didn't notice, the public as a whole thinks it's a good idea.
The public may support it as they have no idea how much UC is worth. If a man earns £35,000 per year and his wife stays at home looking after their two kids and his rent/morgage is £600 per month he would be worse off than a family on UC with two kids who did not work. He would not be entitled to any benefits other than Child Benefit.
Its not fake news at all.
That is not true. For one thing the amount of housing benefit paid will depend on whatever the 30th percentile of local rents are. The last time I had to claim this was far short of the rent I was paying (and far short of the rent asked for any flat when I was looking for one, so I don't know how they came up with the figure).
This is one of the main factors that puts people into difficulty. They have to pay the rest of their rent out of the social security income intended for utilities and food.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids gets however 409.89 personal benefit 281.25 for the first child 235.83 for the second child 1000£ housing benefit (obviously dependent on area but a low ball estimate for the south east) 100£ council tax support (again conservative estimate)
for a total of 2026.97 which equates to a salary of just over 30k
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
Why can’t you just make a point and the leave it, coming here everyday fighting your current hobby horse is boring in the extreme. Leave it unless you have more information.
So your opinion is worth more than mine?
Masks are working great in France aren't they, just 50,000 cases yesterday
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
People working do not have "far less" cash. Fake news.
And in case you didn't notice, the public as a whole thinks it's a good idea.
The public may support it as they have no idea how much UC is worth. If a man earns £35,000 per year and his wife stays at home looking after their two kids and his rent/morgage is £600 per month he would be worse off than a family on UC with two kids who did not work. He would not be entitled to any benefits other than Child Benefit.
Its not fake news at all.
That is not true. For one thing the amount of housing benefit paid will depend on whatever the 30th percentile of local rents are. The last time I had to claim this was far short of the rent I was paying (and far short of the rent asked for any flat when I was looking for one, so I don't know how they came up with the figure).
This is one of the main factors that puts people into difficulty. They have to pay the rest of their rent out of the social security income intended for utilities and food.
I think the idea is that those on benefits live in cheaper accommodation than the average for people who work.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids gets however 409.89 personal benefit 281.25 for the first child 235.83 for the second child 1000£ housing benefit (obviously dependent on area but a low ball estimate for the south east) 100£ council tax support (again conservative estimate)
for a total of 2026.97 which equates to a salary of just over 30k
I am well aware of what UC pays. You apparently are not. You don't get your rent paid - you get *some* of it paid depending on local rent levels. It is less than she'd get working full time on minimum wage - which in itself isn't enough to pay the bills and keep people's heads above water.
Have you ever met real people? They're the ones drowning below you and Nerys in your Ivory Towers.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
People working do not have "far less" cash. Fake news.
And in case you didn't notice, the public as a whole thinks it's a good idea.
The public may support it as they have no idea how much UC is worth. If a man earns £35,000 per year and his wife stays at home looking after their two kids and his rent/morgage is £600 per month he would be worse off than a family on UC with two kids who did not work. He would not be entitled to any benefits other than Child Benefit.
Its not fake news at all.
That is not true. For one thing the amount of housing benefit paid will depend on whatever the 30th percentile of local rents are. The last time I had to claim this was far short of the rent I was paying (and far short of the rent asked for any flat when I was looking for one, so I don't know how they came up with the figure).
This is one of the main factors that puts people into difficulty. They have to pay the rest of their rent out of the social security income intended for utilities and food.
I think the idea is that those on benefits live in cheaper accommodation than the average for people who work.
That only works if such properties are actually available for rent and remember a lot of landlords will not let to tenants on benefits (especially tenants on benefits that need to pay the rent themselves).
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
People working do not have "far less" cash. Fake news.
And in case you didn't notice, the public as a whole thinks it's a good idea.
The public may support it as they have no idea how much UC is worth. If a man earns £35,000 per year and his wife stays at home looking after their two kids and his rent/morgage is £600 per month he would be worse off than a family on UC with two kids who did not work. He would not be entitled to any benefits other than Child Benefit.
Its not fake news at all.
That is not true. For one thing the amount of housing benefit paid will depend on whatever the 30th percentile of local rents are. The last time I had to claim this was far short of the rent I was paying (and far short of the rent asked for any flat when I was looking for one, so I don't know how they came up with the figure).
This is one of the main factors that puts people into difficulty. They have to pay the rest of their rent out of the social security income intended for utilities and food.
I think the idea is that those on benefits live in cheaper accommodation than the average for people who work.
Sure that's the idea - not that I saw any of that cheaper accommodation when I was flat-hunting. But it's nonsense.
Most people will choose accommodation that they can afford when they are working, and only expect to claim social security for a while, until they get another job. They don't magically move into cheaper accommodation when they lose their job - and moving is an expensive, time-consuming thing to do, not really something to force people to do when they are looking for a job.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids gets however 409.89 personal benefit 281.25 for the first child 235.83 for the second child 1000£ housing benefit (obviously dependent on area but a low ball estimate for the south east) 100£ council tax support (again conservative estimate)
for a total of 2026.97 which equates to a salary of just over 30k
I am well aware of what UC pays. You apparently are not. You don't get your rent paid - you get *some* of it paid depending on local rent levels. It is less than she'd get working full time on minimum wage - which in itself isn't enough to pay the bills and keep people's heads above water.
Have you ever met real people? They're the ones drowning below you and Nerys in your Ivory Towers.
You get rent up to the LHA maximum for your living circumstances. If that covers your rent you get it all paid. Which is why I live where I do because I found the lha maximum for a single adult in my area and picked somewhere to live which would cover it. I know quite a few people who claim it is you who live in an ivory tower
Jon Sopel on R4 this morning was remarking that these Trump/Pence rallies are serving a purpose - they collect contact details from all attendees and ask them if they are registered to vote - and if not, ask them to register, then follow up with voting requests. While some states are (well) past voter registration deadlines, in others you can register up to election day itself.
To be fair to Swinson continuing to deny an election after Article 50 was extended was frankly unsustainable - and that was a great polling situation for the Lib Dems. They'd consistently upticked for about a month or so now and could have made many gains.
What made Swinson lose her own seat and net seats was the hubris that followed. Especially that magazine they published introducing "Jo Swinson, Britain's Next Prime Minister" was absurd and made her look absolutely foolish.
Swinson should have been targetting about 30+ seats and having a bigger role in the next Parliament with a second referendum as policy, not acting like Icarus pledging to become Prime Minister and reverse Brexit without a further referendum.
The problem for the LIb Dems advocating a second referendum would have been answering the following questions: a) What would be the "Leave" option in that referendum? b) who do you envisage as PM while the referendum is being organised?; and c) if a second referendum on Brexit is OK, why not a second referendum on Scotland?
The LDs would have stuck with Ref2 as their policy if Labour had not adopted it. That pushed them to Revoke in order to create a difference and maximize their Remainer vote. It didn't work.
In hindsight the problem with the 2nd referendum idea is that even now nobody has a clue what Brexit is so how can you ask people to confirm their acceptance of it?
No deal / WTO doesn't work. EEA/EFTA was rejected by Theresa May. Bespoke Canada/Afghanistan deals take years to negotiate. So there was never going to be an actual Brexit proposal available to be put to people in that confirmatory referendum.
Things I never wanted to read, part 823: "In SARS-CoV-1, faecal-oral transmission was not considered to occur in most circumstances; but, one explosive outbreak was attributed to aerosolisation and spread of the virus across an apartment block via a faulty sewage system."
Jon Sopel on R4 this morning was remarking that these Trump/Pence rallies are serving a purpose - they collect contact details from all attendees and ask them if they are registered to vote - and if not, ask them to register, then follow up with voting requests. While some states are (well) past voter registration deadlines, in others you can register up to election day itself.
Why would you attend a Trump rally and not be bothered to register to vote?
Because if you register the GOVERNMENT will know where you live and the GOVERNMENT might want to come to your home and steal your guns and your womenfolk
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
People working do not have "far less" cash. Fake news.
And in case you didn't notice, the public as a whole thinks it's a good idea.
The public may support it as they have no idea how much UC is worth. If a man earns £35,000 per year and his wife stays at home looking after their two kids and his rent/morgage is £600 per month he would be worse off than a family on UC with two kids who did not work. He would not be entitled to any benefits other than Child Benefit.
Its not fake news at all.
That is not true. For one thing the amount of housing benefit paid will depend on whatever the 30th percentile of local rents are. The last time I had to claim this was far short of the rent I was paying (and far short of the rent asked for any flat when I was looking for one, so I don't know how they came up with the figure).
This is one of the main factors that puts people into difficulty. They have to pay the rest of their rent out of the social security income intended for utilities and food.
I think the idea is that those on benefits live in cheaper accommodation than the average for people who work.
Sure that's the idea - not that I saw any of that cheaper accommodation when I was flat-hunting. But it's nonsense.
Most people will choose accommodation that they can afford when they are working, and only expect to claim social security for a while, until they get another job. They don't magically move into cheaper accommodation when they lose their job - and moving is an expensive, time-consuming thing to do, not really something to force people to do when they are looking for a job.
Sure give people not working on benefits all the best housing, what could possible go wrong?
Jon Sopel on R4 this morning was remarking that these Trump/Pence rallies are serving a purpose - they collect contact details from all attendees and ask them if they are registered to vote - and if not, ask them to register, then follow up with voting requests. While some states are (well) past voter registration deadlines, in others you can register up to election day itself.
Why would you attend a Trump rally and not be bothered to register to vote?
Because if you register the GOVERNMENT will know where you live and the GOVERNMENT might want to come to your home and steal your guns and your womenfolk
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids gets however 409.89 personal benefit 281.25 for the first child 235.83 for the second child 1000£ housing benefit (obviously dependent on area but a low ball estimate for the south east) 100£ council tax support (again conservative estimate)
for a total of 2026.97 which equates to a salary of just over 30k
Whatever rent and council tax support they get will be well short of their outgoings - so the absolute amount is meaningless (unless it takes them above the cap). They'll be using the elements paid for the children to pay the difference on rent and council tax.
To be fair to Swinson continuing to deny an election after Article 50 was extended was frankly unsustainable - and that was a great polling situation for the Lib Dems. They'd consistently upticked for about a month or so now and could have made many gains.
What made Swinson lose her own seat and net seats was the hubris that followed. Especially that magazine they published introducing "Jo Swinson, Britain's Next Prime Minister" was absurd and made her look absolutely foolish.
Swinson should have been targetting about 30+ seats and having a bigger role in the next Parliament with a second referendum as policy, not acting like Icarus pledging to become Prime Minister and reverse Brexit without a further referendum.
Calling the election was a mix of over-optimism and misjudgement, falling into the trap of the SNP, who claimed to want to get rid of the Tories but really wanted a Boris win as playing directly into their longer-term strategy, as is clearly coming to pass now.
The warts and all LibDem GE Review suggests the MPs saw an election as the best/only way to stop Brexit, and believed that otherwise it would get through after the New Year with enough Labour support. But it points out they did little research or internal consultation before making the jump in parliament.
Their biggest misjudgement was not to throw their support behind one of the soft Brexit options during the Letwin process. LibDem votes would have been sufficient to get a majority for CM/CU/SM and at least allow Parliament to have taken that process to the next stage. Whether that would have changed the dynamic in the country and/or led to a concrete outcome in parliament, who can say?
I had no problem with "stop Brexit" as a legitimate political platform. The issue of course that it was a relatively unpopular position. Compromise was needed but the dying 2017 parliament couldn't find any compromise that worked. So the election was needed because we couldn't drift along like that with parliament literally unable to move in any direction no matter how funny it was to watch.
Yes. That night when every single one of Letwin's options got voted down sealed the fate of a compromise path. Despite the second go to make something of the process, its credibility was shot the moment news that the MPs had voted against everything hit the media.
Mrs May should have spent her political capital on it from the beginning.
Frankly it was the Lib Dems and People's Vote gang who gave us hard Brexit.
If they'd backed Clarke's motion C or Nick Boles' motion D - it would all look very different now.
Bollocks leave voters gave us hard brexit. Nobody else
Leave voters gave us Brexit but did not specify what kind.
Our politicans failed to find a workable compromise of soft Brexit.
Taking Dan Hannan as one of the most significant figures in the Leave campaign: almost everything he argued for has turned out to be completely wrong. He did not even support leaving the single market and taking his pre-referendum positions and comparing what has actually happened and we can clearly see that the Hard Brexit Mob have not only railroaded Remainers, but a pretty good chunk of the Leavers too.
There was a compromise: something close to EEA, but this was condemned by the ERG nutters as "BINO". So you can see the root of the Lib Dem miscalculation. Instead of advocating compromise, they went for the polarizing "Remain, even without a referendum". This looked extreme when the Tories- however dishonestly- were selling the idea that they had a deal "oven ready". "Get Brexit done" cut through because people are sick of the whole process.
But it is not "our politicians" it is the continual internal fight inside the Tory party. Although I would guess a bare bones deal can be acheived, if Trump loses and the Tories cave, and maybe this can be the beginning of a recovery in UK/EU relations, yet the truth remains that the Johnson has been true to type all along: utterly unprepared and stunningly irresponsible.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids gets however 409.89 personal benefit 281.25 for the first child 235.83 for the second child 1000£ housing benefit (obviously dependent on area but a low ball estimate for the south east) 100£ council tax support (again conservative estimate)
for a total of 2026.97 which equates to a salary of just over 30k
I am well aware of what UC pays. You apparently are not. You don't get your rent paid - you get *some* of it paid depending on local rent levels. It is less than she'd get working full time on minimum wage - which in itself isn't enough to pay the bills and keep people's heads above water.
Have you ever met real people? They're the ones drowning below you and Nerys in your Ivory Towers.
You get rent up to the LHA maximum for your living circumstances. If that covers your rent you get it all paid. Which is why I live where I do because I found the lha maximum for a single adult in my area and picked somewhere to live which would cover it. I know quite a few people who claim it is you who live in an ivory tower
LHA maximum for this parent in my area is 293£ a week so as I said my estimate of how much she would get was conservative and regardless if she has to pay some rent doesnt change the fact that she is getting about what she would get on a 30k plus salary if working
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Yes badly worded by me. I was about to say I didn't actually say he wasn't wrong, when clearly I did
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
I think where the polls will get it wrong (again) this time is (again) under-sampling white non-college voters. I'm sure they will use 2016 as the baseline but, given the anecdotal evidence, it looks like this group is fired up to vote. I'd expect them to rise as a % of the total vote, probably substantially
It was of course undercounting the turnout of black voters for Obama in 2012 too where the pollsters made an error in underestimating his poll lead, the white working class are Trump's core vote as the African American vote was for Obama
Which will mean that the pollsters are in effect "fighting the last war" for the third election in a row.
Also, in a number of swing states, the student populations will be interesting to watch given the disruption to campuses. In tightly contested states, that could be a key factor.
Fighting the last war is of course the nature of things.
PS I found your last reply to me an interesting observation re underrepresenting white working class. I didn't like it as I don't know and may well not agree, but it was an interesting observation and I will be interested to see if accurate. The difficulty in being a pollster!
Ha! Maybe if I get it right, I should consider a new career as a pollster
(Although maybe not given the state of the industry.....!)
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Yes badly worded by me. I was about to say I didn't actually say he wasn't wrong, when clearly I did
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
I think where the polls will get it wrong (again) this time is (again) under-sampling white non-college voters. I'm sure they will use 2016 as the baseline but, given the anecdotal evidence, it looks like this group is fired up to vote. I'd expect them to rise as a % of the total vote, probably substantially
Why would you expect this group to be substantially more of the total vote? As a percentage of the electorate non-college whites have shrunk from 45% in 2016 to 41% in 2020. Their turnout would have to increase by a lot more than the rest of the electorate in order to rise as a % of the total vote at all, let alone substantially. Is there any evidence that this is likely?
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids gets however 409.89 personal benefit 281.25 for the first child 235.83 for the second child 1000£ housing benefit (obviously dependent on area but a low ball estimate for the south east) 100£ council tax support (again conservative estimate)
for a total of 2026.97 which equates to a salary of just over 30k
Whatever rent and council tax support they get will be well short of their outgoings - so the absolute amount is meaningless (unless it takes them above the cap). They'll be using the elements paid for the children to pay the difference on rent and council tax.
As so an effective income the same as a 30k plus salary is well short of their outgoings but the same woman working in a job paying her 30k a year would be able to manage just fine.....not sure I follow your logic there
Jon Sopel on R4 this morning was remarking that these Trump/Pence rallies are serving a purpose - they collect contact details from all attendees and ask them if they are registered to vote - and if not, ask them to register, then follow up with voting requests. While some states are (well) past voter registration deadlines, in others you can register up to election day itself.
Why would you attend a Trump rally and not be bothered to register to vote?
I'd go to a Trump rally* if I lived in the states, and you couldn't induce me to vote for him if you paid me. I went to a Corbyn rally a few years too, a Lib Dem event last year, and an All Under One Banner march in Edinburgh. They're interesting phenomena. A real chance to get talking to people who are really motivated about political beliefs that you might not share but find interesting.
*as long as I didn't have to pay. I wouldn't want to contribute to his campaign.
Jon Sopel on R4 this morning was remarking that these Trump/Pence rallies are serving a purpose - they collect contact details from all attendees and ask them if they are registered to vote - and if not, ask them to register, then follow up with voting requests. While some states are (well) past voter registration deadlines, in others you can register up to election day itself.
Why would you attend a Trump rally and not be bothered to register to vote?
Because if you register the GOVERNMENT will know where you live and the GOVERNMENT might want to come to your home and steal your guns and your womenfolk
Jon Sopel on R4 this morning was remarking that these Trump/Pence rallies are serving a purpose - they collect contact details from all attendees and ask them if they are registered to vote - and if not, ask them to register, then follow up with voting requests. While some states are (well) past voter registration deadlines, in others you can register up to election day itself.
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Yes badly worded by me. I was about to say I didn't actually say he wasn't wrong, when clearly I did
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
I think where the polls will get it wrong (again) this time is (again) under-sampling white non-college voters. I'm sure they will use 2016 as the baseline but, given the anecdotal evidence, it looks like this group is fired up to vote. I'd expect them to rise as a % of the total vote, probably substantially
It was of course undercounting the turnout of black voters for Obama in 2012 too where the pollsters made an error in underestimating his poll lead, the white working class are Trump's core vote as the African American vote was for Obama
And the pollsters are now, on the whole, weighting for Trump's support amongst the white working class. They are not idiots you know.
They are probably using 2016's numbers and thinking that is "safe" because 2016 was such an unusual turnout for non-college educated whites that it cannot be beaten. That would be mistaken. I think it was @TimT who said that, for both sides, this has an "end of days" feel to it.
So what are Trafalgar doing "differently"? Do you have any data on how many "non-college educated whites" didn't turn out in 2016?
No idea re Trafalgar, I sceptical re polling generally for a variety of reasons.
I'd have to look at the turnout for 2016 white non-college educated voters. Got a bit of work on this morning so will work later
If 200 billion doesn't sort child hunger how will a few million?
Nobody is saying it will "sort child hunger". They're saying that we're pissing so much money up the wall anyway we may as well feed a few kids for a fraction of the cost that we're spending on everything else.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids gets however 409.89 personal benefit 281.25 for the first child 235.83 for the second child 1000£ housing benefit (obviously dependent on area but a low ball estimate for the south east) 100£ council tax support (again conservative estimate)
for a total of 2026.97 which equates to a salary of just over 30k
Whatever rent and council tax support they get will be well short of their outgoings - so the absolute amount is meaningless (unless it takes them above the cap). They'll be using the elements paid for the children to pay the difference on rent and council tax.
But if those figures are correct, the person on 30k is in the same unhappy position. Doesn't quite add up.
Comments
These hungry kids - as their parents have such largesse is the solution to have social services take their kids away? Or fine the parents? They need to be punished for being hungry.
Someone who is working poor, claiming all benefits they are entitled to (not something that should be criticised) can be on a marginal tax rate of over 90% thanks to the benefit system. A lot of poor-income jobs eg in hospitality etc can have people working differing amounts of hours so if someone wants extra wages they ought to be able to work extra hours and be paid more for it - but the benefits system means if they work an extra hour on minimum wage then they lose benefits for that and end up taking home less than a pound an hour.
Who wants to work extra for less than a pound an hour? How are they going to pay their bills or be encouraged to earn more when 90% of what they work for goes to HMRC?
The system is buggered and it traps people in poverty. Is there anyone here who would fancy doing an extra hours work for less than one pound?
Also - arguably Raab was a more Brexity option. Johnson had multiple positions as per.
By 2019 Boris had bigger rallies than May had had and Corbyn's rallies were smaller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sVGp663xzI&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLnbvyLc9kM&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gYMYr_jFCY&feature=emb_err_woyt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul11i6fiSo0&feature=emb_logo
In the US too in 2016 Trump had bigger rallies than Hillary, in 2012 and 2008 Obama had bigger rallies than Romney or McCain in 2004 Bush had bigger rallies than Kerry, it is normally an indicator of the winner the enthusiasm they have for their campaign
So question for anyone with the knowledge:
Were there shy Trump supporters in 2016?
If there were has that been taken into account by pollsters this time?
Betfair are notorious, if that is the word, for waiting until the very last element of doubt, no matter how inconceivable that doubt might be has been eliminated. Given the nature of their business and the terrifying risk as they see it of ultimately having to pay out to both backer and layer, one can sort of understand their attitude up to a point, plus it has to be said, this also does wonders for their cashflow!
Given all the possible post-election appeals, court actions and other recriminations surrounding the U.S. election results, I am fully reconciled to having to wait weeks or even months to receive certain elements of my winnings from Betfair, always assuming of course that these prove to be winning bets!
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
He is one of several including Labour and SNP mps who have crossed the line in acceptable behaviour
Biden 47
Trump 46
Our politicans failed to find
a workable compromise of soft Brexit.
And of course all will make some sort of mistake in their sampling method which they try and minimise.
The point I was trying to make to HYUFD is quoting a probability of less than 50% does not mean that it won't happen as he seems to think (or at least imply)
1. While the Democrats still have a big lead by party registration (more on that below), the gap has been narrowing every day by around 2pp to stand at 11%. We will see what happens with "souls to the polls" but, if that has been impacted, and that narrowing continues at the same pace, then the Republicans are going to go into the final day feeling confident (the question of course is on cannibalisation of votes);
2. In NC, you have to be very careful aligning party registration with expected votes because of legacy Democrat-registered older voters who actually vote Republican. You can see that in two congressional districts, both rated Solid R, namely the 3rd and the 7th. If you looked at both for votes so far (https://twitter.com/OldNorthStPol/status/1320474545564852225/photo/1), you would think the Democrats are on for a landslide win, given they are matching Republican registration numbers. But, if you look at the explanations that Old North State Politics give for the districts (http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2020/08/lay-of-political-land-nc-congressional-districts.html), you will see that the 3rd and the 7th have a lot of older voters who are still registered Democrats but vote Republican. The 3rd is 48% rural and heavily older voter weighted and went 61% for Trump in 2016 even though party registrations for Democrats and Republicans are almost equal. The 7th went 59% for Trump, even though there is only a slight Rep lean in registrations. Again, this is probably a legacy issue.
Though the majority of Tory MPs despised Johnson (which was why many here thought Johnson wouldn't be elected leader), a majority of Tory MPs also saw Johnson as the best campaigner and most able to beat Corbyn (which was HYUFD's insight).
Have we discussed another reason why Trafalgar can be disregarded as a 'pollster'?
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1320446999821508609
I support the tiering system as used in England and Scotland
Counterfire, 12 December 2019
https://counterfire.org/news/20775-the-energy-for-labour-in-bristol-has-been-projected-across-the-south-west-campaign-report
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
I would love to see the counter argument to those who believe their polls are spoofs.
I am conflicted on this. The evidence put forward by @rcs1000 and @Alistair looks overwhelming, but I can't believe Trafalgar put this much evidence in made up stuff. It appears more credible than a lot of obvious nonsense stuff.
Can you see the odd one out
It's an odd feature of being an MP that actually almost nobody cares what you're doing and saying most of the time. Constituents - other than those following a particular NGO's campaign - mostly have better things to do than track your activities and thoughts, and the whips only care how you vote. You can proactively try to interest them - I built up a huge email list and wrote to them regularly, which did yield a harvest of personal votes which almost saved me in 2010. But if you choose to do nothing whatever except vote on 3-line whips (I knew two MPs who NEVER replied to letters), if you have a safe seat you'll be absolutely fine. It's a good reason for PR (because it avoids safe seats).
https://twitter.com/Cravenma/status/1320674371279691776
And in case you didn't notice, the public as a whole thinks it's a good idea.
Also, in a number of swing states, the student populations will be interesting to watch given the disruption to campuses. In tightly contested states, that could be a key factor.
Whether true or not I don't know but hard to see them being stupid enough to do something like this if they did not have to.
Do you have any data on how many "non-college educated whites" didn't turn out in 2016?
a) What would be the "Leave" option in that referendum?
b) who do you envisage as PM while the referendum is being organised?; and
c) if a second referendum on Brexit is OK, why not a second referendum on Scotland?
Its not fake news at all.
Masks are working great in France aren't they, just 50,000 cases yesterday
Further, what happened in 2016 is that few major pollsters bothered with the rustbelt immediately before the election and failed to pick up a significant swing there, and undercounted whites without a college degree. Even then, nationally, but for 23,000 votes in Wisconsin, 44,000 votes in PA and 10,000 in Michigan then Clinton would, just barely, have won. Trump won by 78,000 votes over those three crucial states - slightly more than the capacity of Old Trafford and significantly less than many US College Football Stadiums.
So even the most marginal of swings from the Dems to the Reps will in those three states, assuming all else remains equal, it for Biden.
The most risble thing is @HYUFD 's "rally" comparison. Biden's selling point is that he is the one who is taking coronovirus seriously - so he isn't holding rallies. If he were he would be undermining his own message. We have no idea what a Biden rally would attract. It's a facile comparison.
https://www.vote.org/voter-registration-deadlines/
PS I found your last reply to me an interesting observation re underrepresenting white working class. I didn't like it as I don't know and may well not agree, but it was an interesting observation and I will be interested to see if accurate. The difficulty in being a pollster!
Anyway you said "far less" cash. I questioned how much less. 35k per year household income (with two working age adults) is only just a little bit higher than minimum wage.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/texas/
(Tbf they are still projecting Texas for Trump atm since their model has other factors, e.g. incumbency, as well as the polling data.)
This is one of the main factors that puts people into difficulty. They have to pay the rest of their rent out of the social security income intended for utilities and food.
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids gets however
409.89 personal benefit
281.25 for the first child
235.83 for the second child
1000£ housing benefit (obviously dependent on area but a low ball estimate for the south east)
100£ council tax support (again conservative estimate)
for a total of 2026.97 which equates to a salary of just over 30k
Source for figures
https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get
https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/1320150365229273088
Have you ever met real people? They're the ones drowning below you and Nerys in your Ivory Towers.
Most people will choose accommodation that they can afford when they are working, and only expect to claim social security for a while, until they get another job. They don't magically move into cheaper accommodation when they lose their job - and moving is an expensive, time-consuming thing to do, not really something to force people to do when they are looking for a job.
No deal / WTO doesn't work. EEA/EFTA was rejected by Theresa May. Bespoke Canada/Afghanistan deals take years to negotiate. So there was never going to be an actual Brexit proposal available to be put to people in that confirmatory referendum.
"In SARS-CoV-1, faecal-oral transmission was not considered to occur in most circumstances; but, one explosive outbreak was attributed to aerosolisation and spread of the virus across an apartment block via a faulty sewage system."
There was a compromise: something close to EEA, but this was condemned by the ERG nutters as "BINO". So you can see the root of the Lib Dem miscalculation. Instead of advocating compromise, they went for the polarizing "Remain, even without a referendum". This looked extreme when the Tories- however dishonestly- were selling the idea that they had a deal "oven ready". "Get Brexit done" cut through because people are sick of the whole process.
But it is not "our politicians" it is the continual internal fight inside the Tory party. Although I would guess a bare bones deal can be acheived, if Trump loses and the Tories cave, and maybe this can be the beginning of a recovery in UK/EU relations, yet the truth remains that the Johnson has been true to type all along: utterly unprepared and stunningly irresponsible.
https://twitter.com/nicholasmith6/status/1320624139426779137
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/Early_Vote_Analysis_10_25.html
(Although maybe not given the state of the industry.....!)
I went to a Corbyn rally a few years too, a Lib Dem event last year, and an All Under One Banner march in Edinburgh. They're interesting phenomena. A real chance to get talking to people who are really motivated about political beliefs that you might not share but find interesting.
*as long as I didn't have to pay. I wouldn't want to contribute to his campaign.
I'd have to look at the turnout for 2016 white non-college educated voters. Got a bit of work on this morning so will work later