Categories
Options
If it looks like an outlier, walks like an outlier, and talks like an outlier then it probably is an
If it looks like an outlier, walks like an outlier, and talks like an outlier then it probably is an outlier – politicalbetting.com
Westminster voting intention:CON: 43% (+2)LAB: 29% (-5)GRN: 8% (+2)LDEM: 8% (+2)REFUK: 3% (-)via @YouGov, 12 – 13 AprChgs. w/ 08 Aprhttps://t.co/iLUFQC28FB pic.twitter.com/MBO4Y10HGc
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1383086531359957000?s=19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wfFoBMO-JI
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/pregnant-women-offered-covid-vaccine-uk
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the Greens get 8% at the next election.
But there's still time, of course, for things to get better.
Or worse.
That is plenty to win re-election, and it seems pretty sticky. Lowest Tory share in any poll since January is 39%, suggesting it is about right as a ballpark figure.
My father says the Oxford AstraZeneca is the new MMR, i.e. the most calls/texts he receives from friends is them asking 'is it safe?' and it just isn't the vaccine hesitant groups asking.
He's worried that if it is decided that kids need to receive a Covid-19 vaccine then the uptake is going to be significantly lower as parents have doubts just not about the Oxford AZN one but all Covid-19 vaccines.
YouGov occasionally throws out "outlier" numbers for one of the parties which generates a lot of press coverage (one could be cynical about that I suppose). It's the highest poll rating for the Greens since the GE.
Sometimes a lot changes, sometimes it doesn't - the latest Opinium poll shows Labour still 16 points ahead of the Conservatives in London (49-33). Both parties are up a point since Dec 2019, the Greens are up three to six and the LDs down six to nine.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had 8% support, mind. Just won't get that under FPTP.
The political landscape continues to evolve not necessarily to Keir Starmer's advantage.
There's no one unified Green Party.
The Vegan Branch of the SNP probably won't put up a full slate of candidates in Scottish Westminster seats if there's a risk to the SNP, they only put up 22 candidates out of 59 seats in 2019.
Then there's the E&W Green Party who made pacts with the Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru at GE2019, I can see something similar happening in 2024 so the Green support is already capped.
I'm also left to wonder what will happen on May 6th - will those who came out and voted for Boris and Brexit on December 12th 2019 come out in numbers to back local Conservative councils and councillors?
@HYUFD rightly mentions split voting at local level and we'll see how that manifests. It's often the case in low turnout elections those wanting to kick the Government are more motivated than those wanting to back it. It's also worth pointing out the 2017 County contests were held at the peak of Theresa May's popularity (those words still don't sit well together) so for the Conservatives to hold all those seems improbable.
Now, I'm not going to discount a Conservative victory in 2024 - it's the most likely outcome for no other reason than Brand "Boris" will still be popular in much of England and Wales. As others have said, 2019 increasingly "feels" like an opposition winning power after a long period of Government by another party.
The Greens ensuring Baroness Ruth fluked her way to a seat actually ensured the Greens got a list seat. If the SNP had won Ed Central then the Cons would have taken the list seat not the Greens.
If the Greens started freeing themselves from the really stupid people that they've always embraced then who knows.
Actual 'Green' policy things like climate change are being handled much better by the mainstream parties.
100% agreed.
Hope this is remembered next time we discuss leadership approval.
I'm hoping to get his thoughts for a piece I'm doing in the next couple of months.
In 2005, 2009, and 2011, Pittsburgh was ranked as the most liveable city in the United States by The Economist and, in those years, between the 26th- and 29th-most liveable city worldwide. Pittsburgh ranked No. 28 in the book Cities Ranked and Rated (2004) by Bert Sperling and Peter Sander.
In 2010, Forbes and Yahoo! ranked Pittsburgh as the most liveable city in the United States.
...
Liveability rankings typically consider factors such as cost of living, crime, and cultural opportunities. Pittsburgh has a low cost of living compared to other northeastern U.S. cities. According to the Federal Housing Board, the average price for a 3- to 4-bedroom, 2-bath family home in Pittsburgh for 2004 is $162,000, well below the national average of $264,540. Average 2010 rent for all bedrooms in Pittsburgh was $789. This compares to the nationwide average of $1,087. Pittsburgh has five city parks and several parks managed by the Nature Conservancy. The largest, Frick Park, provides 664 acres (269 ha) of woodland park with extensive hiking and biking trails throughout steep valleys and wooded slopes. Birding enthusiasts love to visit the Clayton Hill area of Frick Park, where well over 100 species of birds have been recorded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh#Livability
Perhaps not the things that a flint knapper from Camden Town might be looking for but it suits many people.
And you can find similar in the UK:
https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/04/03/the-truth-behind-the-tories-northern-strongholds
It's all about balancing risks.
Even all that might not be irretrievable if it weren't for the fact that his shadow cabinet is even worse. At least one can envisage Starmer as PM without difficulty, but even Labour party members don't seem to think much of the Shadow Chancellor, Shadow Health Sec or Shadow Home Sec, if indeed they've noticed them at all.
It's a hell of a lot to turn round, and as things stand he seems to be losing ground, not gaining it.
It seems unpromising flint territory. and knapping flint smacks of work.
Boris won't wait until the last minutes though. He'll do a Maggie and call the election in the fourth year (2023) IMO.
So perhaps its low production but sold at very high prices to insecure nouveaux.
Alternatively its some sort of money laundering scam.
Pittsburgh has left steel and smoke behind, and has embraced technology & medical services. Outside of the city & its immediate environs, it's one big rust belt of small cities interspersed among farms, woods & hills. A few bright spots, relatively, but essentially two different worlds.
Their best people (Benn, Mrs EdB, Cruddas, etc) have rather stepped aside - too scarred by the Corbyn experience. Their current people are very wishy-washy, and they have a whole load of colleagues who frankly are more hostile than the Tories.
When I'm seriously considering whether Lammy is a value bet for next leader then I think it tells you all you need to know. (I will say of Lammy that he's much improved, and no I haven't backed him)
75% Conservative vote in every street - must be getting boring.
There's a by-election in East Han Central - perhaps you can help the local Tories find their vote as they're not having any joy.
Unless and until that starts to fracture, all talk of potential other Labour leaders is moot.
As @Black_Rook astutely observes there just aren't the voters to get Labour in with the Tories that high.
Talk about your low bars!
But specifically on leader ratings the net score is important because it contextualises things, and it also tells you just how unpopular someone is.
Take 2015, Farage's absolute positives were similar to the leaders of other third parties, how his net score wasn't because he was so unpopular, it is the reason why say Kennedy in 2001 (absolute rating 35%, net 15%) ended up with a lot more MPs than Farage in 2015, (absolute 31%, net minus 25%).
The Lib Dems/Kennedy net scores showed they were very tactical voting friendly, Farage's net scores showed he wasn't going to get any tactical votes.
As far as I can see he does not need one and have advised him to have them tell him exactly what law he is breaching
I presume you meant East Ham Central.
Oh and it's bellwhether.
A day's time travel for the Cookie family today. Forwards or backwards wasn't 100% clear- but we have had a FAMILY DAY OUT which wasn't a walk: a visit to a low-watt family theme park in Cheshire. Hundreds of smiling faces and the only face masks in sight were worn by staff. A few polite notices suggesting you give each other space, the odd discreet hand sanitiser - but no aggressive black and yellow tape. And no-one treating each other like plague-carriers. (I did see one family arrive, all facemasked up in their car; I noticed them later, gacemasks all discarded.) Made me think we will put this sorry episode behind us quicker than I had thought.
Also: the roads were busier than Ihave seen them for over a year.
Also: a trip into Sale in the evening, which was also bustling: outside spaces thronging with eaters and drinkers. All slightly misleading of course: the insides were dutifully empty - but again, shows the appetite for a restoration of normality.
Another bit of time travel too: a quick trip to the nearest shop in No Man's Heath, for some calpol for my youngest. No Man's Heath is a tiny hamlet, but it is still hard to find its shop, which is down a little residential cul-de-sac. The shop was full of unappetising tinned food and didn't take credit cards or do contactless payment. Still, it did sell my calpol and a tin of ribena.
https://twitter.com/ZackBornstein/status/1383126910041878532
Which is why (for example) the risk vector for under 30s now we have Moderna is different from that for over 50s two months ago.
I suspect Survation is as usual closer to the reality
If they are trying to enforce the law, that is good.
If they are breaking the law to feel important, that is not good.
In that case, we might as well farm law enforcement out to the Mafia, who would probably do a better job. After all, to cut crime, they just have to do less work.
P.S. it is unusual to see the words "Boris" and "worker" in the same sentence.
@Opinium
With CDU leader Laschet however the CDU/CSU are only on 27% with the SPD on 23%, the Greens on 20%, the AfD on 11% and the FDP on 10%
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1383102918463778822?s=20
Afterall if that's what we're going off then in 1987 General Election Kinnock had net -30%, Steel +15%, Owen +12
Or 1983 Foot had -39%, Steel +26%
Kinnock ended up with a lot more MPs than Steel and Owen.
The police said it was for not having a takeaway license - this is why I have asked him to get them to tell him exactly which law he has broken
Estimated national equivalent shares for the opposition party in earlier years:
1980 42% Lab
1981 41%
1982 29%
1983 36%
1984 37%
1985 39%
1986 37%
1987 32%
1988 38%
1989 42%
1990 44%
1991 38%
1992 30%
1993 39%
1994 40%
1995 47%
1996 43%
1998 31% Con
1999 34%
2000 38%
2002 34%
2003 35%
2004 37%
2006 39%
2007 40%
2008 43%
2009 35%
2011 37% Lab
2012 39%
2013 29%
2014 31%
2016 33%
2017 28%
2018 36%
2019 31%
I just cited just one third party example.
When you see the rest of it then you'll agree with me.
I do believe there is some truth in this analysis
And in some of those seats, the candidates had close Green links (David Drew in Stroud, for example, sat as an independent on the district council and worked with the Greens not Labour).
We cannot assume that people will vote tactically just because it seems to others it’s the rational thing to do.
Shrugs shoulders
But people vote for a party not against it, so being deeply more unpopular certainly could be a factor but I'd rather be 20% more gross popular and 2% less net than the other way around.