It is a truth universally acknowledged that the most accurate poll is the one that reflects most your leanings – politicalbetting.com
Over the past three days three separate national polls have been published. All of them show the Tory lead less than the general election but that is about as far as it goes.
I suspect come the next election Boris won’t be there and the Tories will get a bounce from it. I listened to the House of Commons debate. It all seems Rather small stuff at the moment.
Sure I'm late to the party, but my goodness was Simon Case unimpressive.
I've often bemoaned alpha personalities getting top jobs beyond their ability, but if that is what the alternative looks like I'm happy to admit I was wrong.
Don't worry about a worldwide pandemic, worry about who paid for the wallpaper in flat, thats much more important.
As I said in the other thread, you're clearly missing the point deliberately.
Either there are rules about pseudo political donations to avoid allegations of undue influence and conflicts of interest that apply equally, or there are not.
Boris knows the rules so there's no excuse.
If you want a free for all on political donations, feel free to argue that, but otherwise Boris, as Prime Minister, should follow the rules.
I make no comment on the seriousness of the matter, but he should still follow the rules.
Don't worry about a worldwide pandemic, worry about who paid for the wallpaper in flat, thats much more important.
You can worry about both when there is little to nothing you can do about the first issue.
I can't remember where I read it yesterday but the was a story about the Private hospitals in India being full with moderately ill patients because they wanted to be sure they had a bed if they became seriously ill.
While I don't know how accurate the story was it was clearly accurate enough the journalist thought it worth reporting.
Don't worry about a worldwide pandemic, worry about who paid for the wallpaper in flat, thats much more important.
As I said in the other thread, you're clearly missing the point deliberately.
Either there are rules about pseudo political donations to avoid allegations of undue influence and conflicts of interest that apply equally, or there are not.
Boris knows the rules so there's no excuse.
If you want a free for all on political donations, feel free to argue that, but otherwise Boris, as Prime Minister, should follow the rules.
I make no comment on the seriousness of the matter, but he should still follow the rules.
See here's the thing.
The labour narrative is that Boris is not fit to be prime minister. Trouble is, less than two months ago, they granted him and his government more power to decide matters by fiat than any PM in history. More power than any labour party would have ever dreamed of granting any tory at any stage since WWII.
This makes any criticism labour make of the tories little more than hollow opportunism. If they are so bad why did you grant them all that power?
@rcs1000 is there anyway to strip embedded tweets from quotes? I'm a firm believer that the reason for the significant slowdown was because tweets were being loaded many times throughout the thread, hidden behind quotes.
Gove has answered everything except the actual allegation...
And that's the trouble with developing a reputation for... let's say saying true things without being truthful. Once people expect it, they will look for the gaps. Especially when they are as blatant as this.
@rcs1000 is there anyway to strip embedded tweets from quotes? I'm a firm believer that the reason for the significant slowdown was because tweets were being loaded many times throughout the thread, hidden behind quotes.
I imagine that there would be a way to ensure that any www.twitter.com/ string in a quoted comment has a space inserted somewhere in order to stop it forming a valid link.
Always best to wait for a few polls before rushing to judgement either way. Everything about this poll suggests that the bubble, not for the first time, has no real clue.
Edit: I still expect labour to hold Hartlepool and lose Teeside and WM Mayorals!
Always best to wait for a few polls before rushing to judgement either way. Everything about this poll suggests that the bubble, not for the first time, has no real clue.
Edit: I still expect labour to hold Hartlepool and lose Teeside and WM Mayorals!
@rcs1000 is there anyway to strip embedded tweets from quotes? I'm a firm believer that the reason for the significant slowdown was because tweets were being loaded many times throughout the thread, hidden behind quotes.
Probably not as you don't have control over the javascript that loads the tweets - and you can't guarantee in an async world what scripts will run first.
Now the easiest way to fix it would be a piece of Javascript that mangled any link to twitter that was within a blockquote. If you set that to ran on newly created posts as the "Post Comment" button was pressed it would provide your solution but I'm not sure how easy that would be to work.
I will however look at options if rcs1000 wants to offload it to someone who probably has more recent Javascript experience than he has.
@rcs1000 is there anyway to strip embedded tweets from quotes? I'm a firm believer that the reason for the significant slowdown was because tweets were being loaded many times throughout the thread, hidden behind quotes.
Probably not as you don't have control over the javascript that loads the tweets - and you can't guarantee in an async world what scripts will run first.
Now the easiest way to fix it would be a piece of Javascript that mangled any link to twitter that was within a blockquote. If you set that to ran on newly created posts as the "Post Comment" button was pressed it would provide your solution but I'm not sure how easy that would be to work.
I will however look at options if rcs1000 wants to offload it to someone who probably has more recent Javascript experience than he has.
Yes you can, with an adblocker.
JS is client-side, you can do whatever you want when its in your browser.
Always best to wait for a few polls before rushing to judgement either way. Everything about this poll suggests that the bubble, not for the first time, has no real clue.
Edit: I still expect labour to hold Hartlepool and lose Teeside and WM Mayorals!
Labour will lose all 3 by a significant margin.
Teeside by a significant margin yes, but Hartlepool will surely be relative marginal (although given that Hartlepool will vote for Houchen, I can't see them deciding that a Labour MP is best for Westminster).
The question is whether they can make a gain in the WoE Mayoral election.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but when Cummingsgate happened, we had a poll soon after showing a large Tory lead, it took a few days for the results to appear but they did
@rcs1000 is there anyway to strip embedded tweets from quotes? I'm a firm believer that the reason for the significant slowdown was because tweets were being loaded many times throughout the thread, hidden behind quotes.
Probably not as you don't have control over the javascript that loads the tweets - and you can't guarantee in an async world what scripts will run first.
Now the easiest way to fix it would be a piece of Javascript that mangled any link to twitter that was within a blockquote. If you set that to ran on newly created posts as the "Post Comment" button was pressed it would provide your solution but I'm not sure how easy that would be to work.
I will however look at options if rcs1000 wants to offload it to someone who probably has more recent Javascript experience than he has.
Yes you can, with an adblocker.
JS is client-side, you can do whatever you want when its in your browser.
Part of my living comes from Browser Addons and while I personally would prefer to have tweets displayed I understand that others don't
Also Ad blockers are something I suspect some users here would neither understand nor wish to go near.
Always best to wait for a few polls before rushing to judgement either way. Everything about this poll suggests that the bubble, not for the first time, has no real clue.
Edit: I still expect labour to hold Hartlepool and lose Teeside and WM Mayorals!
@rcs1000 is there anyway to strip embedded tweets from quotes? I'm a firm believer that the reason for the significant slowdown was because tweets were being loaded many times throughout the thread, hidden behind quotes.
The ad blocker add-on, Ublock Origin, will make embedded Tweets appear as links, which then makes PB fly.
Install the add-on, find your way into its dashboard, and set-up a filter to block platform.twitter.com as follows:
Always best to wait for a few polls before rushing to judgement either way. Everything about this poll suggests that the bubble, not for the first time, has no real clue.
Edit: I still expect labour to hold Hartlepool and lose Teeside and WM Mayorals!
Labour will lose all 3 by a significant margin.
Teeside by a significant margin yes, but Hartlepool will surely be relative marginal (although given that Hartlepool will vote for Houchen, I can't see them deciding that a Labour MP is best for Westminster).
The question is whether they can make a gain in the WoE Mayoral election.
I think thatv is possible - not least because we've not even heard a whisper on the ground!
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
The polls reflect that, don't they?
Even when tory votes go missing they aren't going to labour.
Always best to wait for a few polls before rushing to judgement either way. Everything about this poll suggests that the bubble, not for the first time, has no real clue.
Edit: I still expect labour to hold Hartlepool and lose Teeside and WM Mayorals!
Labour will lose all 3 by a significant margin.
Teesside they seem to have picked a poor candidate who is openly mocked by party locals. She was on Tyne Tees telly doing an election stunt with Jet from Gladiators. It was cringeworthy. I don’t know about the West Mids but it largely seems labour territory to me. As for Hartlepool I’ve backed labour so, of course, they will lose.
Is mayor of the West of England the most grandilinquent title in the country? It's Bristol, Bath and a few suburbs.
Why does it include Bristol? Bristol already has an elected mayor...
The thing with a lot of these positions, it is either former PPC who didn't make it or former MPs that got flushed by the electorate and up they pop again elsewhere.
Gove has answered everything except the actual allegation...
The question I saw asked of gove was if he had heard it. He said he hadn’t. If Boris said it then it is very damaging potentially, depending on context.
@rcs1000 is there anyway to strip embedded tweets from quotes? I'm a firm believer that the reason for the significant slowdown was because tweets were being loaded many times throughout the thread, hidden behind quotes.
The ad blocker add-on, Ublock Origin, will make embedded Tweets appear as links, which then makes PB fly.
Install the add-on, find your way into its dashboard, and set-up a filter to block platform.twitter.com as follows:
but that isn't the issue - the issue is how do you enable tweets for those who want to see them without inconveniencing those who don't want to see them yet use a device which doesn't support customisable adblockers.
Gove has answered everything except the actual allegation...
The question I saw asked of gove was if he had heard it. He said he hadn’t. If Boris said it then it is very damaging potentially, depending on context.
And that's the point
Gove says he was in the meeting and it wasn't said.
Peston says he heard it was said after everyone had left the meeting
The European Commission - the EU's executive branch - said it was suing the company for not respecting its vaccine supply contract, and for not having a "reliable" plan to ensure timely deliveries.
AstraZeneca said the move was "without merit".
It said it would "strongly defend itself in court".
This has turned into the international equivalent of when you hear those stories of two neighbours who has a falling out and before you know it they are burning down each others gardens.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
Gove has answered everything except the actual allegation...
The question I saw asked of gove was if he had heard it. He said he hadn’t. If Boris said it then it is very damaging potentially, depending on context.
And that's the point
Gove says he was in the meeting and it wasn't said.
Peston says he heard it was said after everyone had left the meeting
Both statements could easily be 100% true..
Indeed they could be but Gove answered what was asked of him. this BBC article says it was ‘bodies could pile high’, not ‘let the bodies pile high’. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56890714
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
The European Commission - the EU's executive branch - said it was suing the company for not respecting its vaccine supply contract, and for not having a "reliable" plan to ensure timely deliveries.
AstraZeneca said the move was "without merit".
It said it would "strongly defend itself in court".
This has turned into the international equivalent of when you hear those stories of two neighbours who has a falling out and before you know it they are burning down each others gardens.
I don't think AZ will be the ones burning things down.
The issue is that the other neighbours are looking at the troublesome neighbour and thinking - hmm we might be next, what can we do to mitigate the risk
And deciding that future home improvements may be better spent on their properties in a different neighbourhood.
Whilst I accept the premise of the header the Ipsos poll is looking pretty isolated right now. Fortunately there is a poll due with a somewhat larger sample of several million next week.
Gove has answered everything except the actual allegation...
The question I saw asked of gove was if he had heard it. He said he hadn’t. If Boris said it then it is very damaging potentially, depending on context.
And that's the point
Gove says he was in the meeting and it wasn't said.
Peston says he heard it was said after everyone had left the meeting
Both statements could easily be 100% true..
The Peston quote if taken literally simply cannot be true!
Don't agree Mike. Even I would accept that a poll showing 100% support for the Lib Dems was probably a bit of an outlier. Generally speaking when I see a poll with a large Tory lead I just reflect upon the waste of time and money that our educational system represents.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
Gove has answered everything except the actual allegation...
The question I saw asked of gove was if he had heard it. He said he hadn’t. If Boris said it then it is very damaging potentially, depending on context.
And that's the point
Gove says he was in the meeting and it wasn't said.
Peston says he heard it was said after everyone had left the meeting
Both statements could easily be 100% true..
The Peston quote if taken literally simply cannot be true!
I am told he shouted it in his study just after he agreed to the second lockdown 'in a rage'. The doors to the Cabinet room and outer office were allegedly open and supposedly a number of people heard. I am bothering to repeat this assertion about what the Prime Minister said because two eyewitnesses – or perhaps I should say 'ear witnesses' – have corroborated the Daily Mail's account to me.
So it's clear that what Gove said in Parliament is correct - as taken from the Guardian Blog
In his response, Gove repeated the point that he had been in a meeting in the cabinet room with the PM. He never heard the PM say “any such thing”, he said. They were all dealing with difficult discussions.
This answer did not address the point that the remark might have been made outside the room, after the meeting was over.
So as far as I can see Gove has been very careful to ensure he answered the question he was asked and didn't extend beyond that.
Which for Gove is job done until whatever is revealed next kicks off.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
The polls reflect that, don't they?
Even when tory votes go missing they aren't going to labour.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
1997 was my first general election and I voted Tory.
I'll always remember it, I was doing my A Levels at the time (a time when A Levels were hard), whilst my focus was on my exams I took a very deep interest in the election, I was expecting a Labour majority of 100, I wasn't expecting one closer to 200.
I was up for Portillo, I was up when the Tories were wiped out in Scotland & Wales, I was up for when my own rock solid Tory seat went to the yellow peril.
Don't worry about a worldwide pandemic, worry about who paid for the wallpaper in flat, thats much more important.
One of the key accusations relates directly to the pandemic. If proven to be true, even uttered in jest, you are right, it is far more damning than Carrie's wallpaper.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
1997 was my first general election and I voted Tory.
I'll always remember it, I was doing my A Levels at the time (a time when A Levels were hard), whilst my focus was on my exams I took a very deep interest in the election, I was expecting a Labour majority of 100, I wasn't expecting one closer to 200.
I was up for Portillo, I was up when the Tories were wiped out in Scotland & Wales, I was up for when my own rock solid Tory seat went to the yellow peril.
It had a profound impact on me.
It was less of a surprise to me but the first election I could vote was 1983 and anyone who was working for the SDP or Liberals at that election was beyond being shocked.
On topic, looking at the details of the Ipsos MORI poll Ipsos MORI have a pretty strict turnout filter so that sometimes explains their figures but the lead is 4% when all voters expressing a VI is taken into account, so a difference of 1%.
Last month it was a difference of 4%, so I reckon Ipsos MORI have picked up a slightly soft Tory sample.
Interestingly Keir Starmer has a better rating than the PM on handling the pandemic.
The Ipsos MORI poll looks very like an outlier to me. Three other polls done since it started have much bigger Tory leads and even the secondaries in the IM are positive for the Tories. Despite all the noise over Cummings, the reality is that the political fundamentals are heavily in the Tories' favour: * Successful vaccine roll-out * Lockdown easing * Furlough cushion * House prices strong * Triple lock * Labour not trusted We are set fair with this for a few months yet. People feel positive, especially the older demographics that vote, so they really don't care that much about whether Johnson said this or did that - and certainly not enough to change the way they vote.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
That may be true but what about 2001 ?
Similar event. @contrarian is right. Tony Blair received fewer votes than John Major, if I remember correctly. His great trick was to convince millions of Tory voters that Labour wasn't a threat. Add that to tactical voting from LDs and others, and the result was a landslide. In 2001, those Tories didn't see any reason to vote and the anti-Tory backlash was still strong.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
1997 was my first general election and I voted Tory.
I'll always remember it, I was doing my A Levels at the time (a time when A Levels were hard), whilst my focus was on my exams I took a very deep interest in the election, I was expecting a Labour majority of 100, I wasn't expecting one closer to 200.
I was up for Portillo, I was up when the Tories were wiped out in Scotland & Wales, I was up for when my own rock solid Tory seat went to the yellow peril.
It had a profound impact on me.
2001 was my first election, nothing could have been more boring than that one.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
Indeed. What is interesting though is Ken Clark was doing an amazing job as chancellor. Labour enjoyed a golden early period partly because of his efforts, which were just coming to fruition as the election became due.
A year later, and the defeat might not have been so bad. Indeed, Clark could have started to share the fruits of his recovery early. As I remember, he decided not to.
The European Commission - the EU's executive branch - said it was suing the company for not respecting its vaccine supply contract, and for not having a "reliable" plan to ensure timely deliveries.
AstraZeneca said the move was "without merit".
It said it would "strongly defend itself in court".
This has turned into the international equivalent of when you hear those stories of two neighbours who has a falling out and before you know it they are burning down each others gardens.
Having seen the contracts, I would be very surprised if it actually got anywhere near a court of law. My guess is that there will be a "symbolic" victory where the EU announces that they have won. When, in fact, all they have done is pissed off an entity who might otherwise have made significant investments in the bloc.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
That may be true but what about 2001 ?
Similar event. @contrarian is right. Tony Blair received fewer votes than John Major, if I remember correctly. His great trick was to convince millions of Tory voters that Labour wasn't a threat. Add that to tactical voting from LDs and others, and the result was a landslide. In 2001, those Tories didn't see any reason to vote and the anti-Tory backlash was still strong.
Since John Major received what remains the largest number of votes in a UK general election in 1992, that is not surprising.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
That may be true but what about 2001 ?
Similar event. @contrarian is right. Tony Blair received fewer votes than John Major, if I remember correctly. His great trick was to convince millions of Tory voters that Labour wasn't a threat. Add that to tactical voting from LDs and others, and the result was a landslide. In 2001, those Tories didn't see any reason to vote and the anti-Tory backlash was still strong.
Also Brown stuck to tory spending plans for three years (I think?) and with a fantastic recovery from 1998, they were a cert in 2001.
Don't agree Mike. Even I would accept that a poll showing 100% support for the Lib Dems was probably a bit of an outlier. Generally speaking when I see a poll with a large Tory lead I just reflect upon the waste of time and money that our educational system represents.
If you think public services are full of wasteful spending you should come and join the blue team.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
1997 was my first general election and I voted Tory.
I'll always remember it, I was doing my A Levels at the time (a time when A Levels were hard), whilst my focus was on my exams I took a very deep interest in the election, I was expecting a Labour majority of 100, I wasn't expecting one closer to 200.
I was up for Portillo, I was up when the Tories were wiped out in Scotland & Wales, I was up for when my own rock solid Tory seat went to the yellow peril.
It had a profound impact on me.
It was less of a surprise to me but the first election I could vote was 1983 and anyone who was working for the SDP or Liberals at that election was beyond being shocked.
I went even more hardcore, in 2000 I moved to London.
At times I felt like I was the only OUT AND PROUD Tory in London.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
That may be true but what about 2001 ?
Similar event. @contrarian is right. Tony Blair received fewer votes than John Major, if I remember correctly. His great trick was to convince millions of Tory voters that Labour wasn't a threat. Add that to tactical voting from LDs and others, and the result was a landslide. In 2001, those Tories didn't see any reason to vote and the anti-Tory backlash was still strong.
The anti-Tory party got organised just after the 1992 election and endured until 2010, briefly reviving - to an extent - in 2017. It is currently in disarray.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
Indeed. What is interesting though is Ken Clark was doing an amazing job as chancellor. Labour enjoyed a golden early period partly because of his efforts, which were just coming to fruition as the election became due.
A year later, and the defeat might not have been so bad. Indeed, Clark could have started to share the fruits of his recovery early. As I remember, he decided not to.
Hmm, maybe. It seemed at the time, as I recall it, that the government was hanging on to the last possible moment when the demand for a change was deafening and that aggravated the defeat. I do agree that Clarke was an excellent Chancellor though.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
That may be true but what about 2001 ?
Similar event. @contrarian is right. Tony Blair received fewer votes than John Major, if I remember correctly. His great trick was to convince millions of Tory voters that Labour wasn't a threat. Add that to tactical voting from LDs and others, and the result was a landslide. In 2001, those Tories didn't see any reason to vote and the anti-Tory backlash was still strong.
The anti-Tory party got organised just after the 1992 election and endured until 2010, briefly reviving - to an extent - in 2017. It is currently in disarray.
Just before, actually. Tactical voting was around in 1992, it just wasn’t as well-organised as in 1997.
On a UNS Major would have had a majority of 77, not 21, and then I think history would have been somewhat different. Sure, Black Wednesday would still have happened, but the splits and weakness of 94-97 would have been less marked and the defeat less severe.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
That may be true but what about 2001 ?
Similar event. @contrarian is right. Tony Blair received fewer votes than John Major, if I remember correctly. His great trick was to convince millions of Tory voters that Labour wasn't a threat. Add that to tactical voting from LDs and others, and the result was a landslide. In 2001, those Tories didn't see any reason to vote and the anti-Tory backlash was still strong.
Since John Major received what remains the largest number of votes in a UK general election in 1992, that is not surprising.
My guess is that a lot of people who would have voted Labour in seats where Labour might have won in 1997 and 2001 instead voted LibDem when they realised this was the way to stop the Tory winning. In 2005, post-Iraq, people started to vote LibDem to stop Labour candidates winning.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
Indeed. What is interesting though is Ken Clark was doing an amazing job as chancellor. Labour enjoyed a golden early period partly because of his efforts, which were just coming to fruition as the election became due.
A year later, and the defeat might not have been so bad. Indeed, Clark could have started to share the fruits of his recovery early. As I remember, he decided not to.
Hmm, maybe. It seemed at the time, as I recall it, that the government was hanging on to the last possible moment when the demand for a change was deafening and that aggravated the defeat. I do agree that Clarke was an excellent Chancellor though.
Oh Blair would have won a 1998 election no doubt. And handily. But not by so much, maybe. Also, the tories were horribly split on Europe.
The fact is that, whatever your views on leave or remain, the tories don't have that problem any more. They are essentially united. And that makes them incredibly difficult to shift.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
That may be true but what about 2001 ?
Similar event. @contrarian is right. Tony Blair received fewer votes than John Major, if I remember correctly. His great trick was to convince millions of Tory voters that Labour wasn't a threat. Add that to tactical voting from LDs and others, and the result was a landslide. In 2001, those Tories didn't see any reason to vote and the anti-Tory backlash was still strong.
Since John Major received what remains the largest number of votes in a UK general election in 1992, that is not surprising.
My guess is that a lot of people who would have voted Labour in seats where Labour might have won in 1997 and 2001 instead voted LibDem when they realised this was the way to stop the Tory winning. In 2005, post-Iraq, people started to vote LibDem to stop Labour candidates winning.
Do you remember the old ‘I’m Backing Blair’ website from 2005 which told you who to vote for with the best chance of beating Labour?
The European Commission - the EU's executive branch - said it was suing the company for not respecting its vaccine supply contract, and for not having a "reliable" plan to ensure timely deliveries.
AstraZeneca said the move was "without merit".
It said it would "strongly defend itself in court".
This has turned into the international equivalent of when you hear those stories of two neighbours who has a falling out and before you know it they are burning down each others gardens.
Having seen the contracts, I would be very surprised if it actually got anywhere near a court of law. My guess is that there will be a "symbolic" victory where the EU announces that they have won. When, in fact, all they have done is pissed off an entity who might otherwise have made significant investments in the bloc.
The case is being brought in Belgium before Belgian courts. Is this as stipulated in the contract, Robert?
Does anyone know how such cases typically proceed in Belgium - does it follow pretty much the same course as we'd expect in the US and UK, or is it completely different?
So, to be clear, the allegation is that this was a howl of frustration by Boris after a meeting at which he had been bullied into agreeing a second lockdown against his wishes in a room on his own but heard by those outside the door? I mean, jeez. Is that really it?
The European Commission - the EU's executive branch - said it was suing the company for not respecting its vaccine supply contract, and for not having a "reliable" plan to ensure timely deliveries.
AstraZeneca said the move was "without merit".
It said it would "strongly defend itself in court".
This has turned into the international equivalent of when you hear those stories of two neighbours who has a falling out and before you know it they are burning down each others gardens.
Having seen the contracts, I would be very surprised if it actually got anywhere near a court of law. My guess is that there will be a "symbolic" victory where the EU announces that they have won. When, in fact, all they have done is pissed off an entity who might otherwise have made significant investments in the bloc.
The case is being brought in Belgium before Belgian courts. Is this as stipulated in the contract, Robert?
Does anyone know how such cases typically proceed in Belgium - does it follow pretty much the same course as we'd expect in the US and UK, or is it completely different?
Yes, Belgian law and jurisdiction are expressly stipulated in the contract.
Don't worry about a worldwide pandemic, worry about who paid for the wallpaper in flat, thats much more important.
As I said in the other thread, you're clearly missing the point deliberately.
Either there are rules about pseudo political donations to avoid allegations of undue influence and conflicts of interest that apply equally, or there are not.
Boris knows the rules so there's no excuse.
If you want a free for all on political donations, feel free to argue that, but otherwise Boris, as Prime Minister, should follow the rules.
I make no comment on the seriousness of the matter, but he should still follow the rules.
Boris Johnson follow the rules? Don't make us larf!
Might as well ask BoJo's soulmate Trumpsky to follow the rules. Two rotten peas in a toxic pod.
Don't worry about a worldwide pandemic, worry about who paid for the wallpaper in flat, thats much more important.
As I said in the other thread, you're clearly missing the point deliberately.
Either there are rules about pseudo political donations to avoid allegations of undue influence and conflicts of interest that apply equally, or there are not.
Boris knows the rules so there's no excuse.
If you want a free for all on political donations, feel free to argue that, but otherwise Boris, as Prime Minister, should follow the rules.
I make no comment on the seriousness of the matter, but he should still follow the rules.
Boris Johnson follow the rules? Don't make us larf!
Might as well ask BoJo's soulmate Trumpsky to follow the rules. Two rotten peas in a toxic pod.
Nah, Boris was too lazy to even mildly fiddle his taxes.
"Final remedies focus on reparation through performance or restoration. If these remedies are not or no longer possible, the most common remedy is financial compensation.
"Belgian law adheres to the principle of restitutio in integrum, which requires that the injured party be put in the position it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Punitive damages are not allowed. The injured party is entitled to full compensation of its damage, but nothing more.
"When the exact amount of damages is difficult to determine (for example, in cases of reputational damage or violation of moral rights), the judge can award damages on an ex aequo et bono basis (that is, according to the right and good)."
"Final remedies focus on reparation through performance or restoration. If these remedies are not or no longer possible, the most common remedy is financial compensation.
"Belgian law adheres to the principle of restitutio in integrum, which requires that the injured party be put in the position it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Punitive damages are not allowed. The injured party is entitled to full compensation of its damage, but nothing more.
"When the exact amount of damages is difficult to determine (for example, in cases of reputational damage or violation of moral rights), the judge can award damages on an ex aequo et bono basis (that is, according to the right and good)."
Given the AZN contract is a non-profit contract, and that the damages to the EU are presumably limited to any upfront payments, it seems the best the EU can hope for is annulling the contract with repayments, or holding AZN to performance, which is 'best efforts', i.e. the current situation.
"Final remedies focus on reparation through performance or restoration. If these remedies are not or no longer possible, the most common remedy is financial compensation.
"Belgian law adheres to the principle of restitutio in integrum, which requires that the injured party be put in the position it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Punitive damages are not allowed. The injured party is entitled to full compensation of its damage, but nothing more.
"When the exact amount of damages is difficult to determine (for example, in cases of reputational damage or violation of moral rights), the judge can award damages on an ex aequo et bono basis (that is, according to the right and good)."
Comments
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/26/photos-show-the-deadly-toll-of-covid-in-india-as-coronavirus-cases-top-17-million.html
Wait.
Edit: never mind. Fourth like... dammit.
I've often bemoaned alpha personalities getting top jobs beyond their ability, but if that is what the alternative looks like I'm happy to admit I was wrong.
Either there are rules about pseudo political donations to avoid allegations of undue influence and conflicts of interest that apply equally, or there are not.
Boris knows the rules so there's no excuse.
If you want a free for all on political donations, feel free to argue that, but otherwise Boris, as Prime Minister, should follow the rules.
I make no comment on the seriousness of the matter, but he should still follow the rules.
I can't remember where I read it yesterday but the was a story about the Private hospitals in India being full with moderately ill patients because they wanted to be sure they had a bed if they became seriously ill.
While I don't know how accurate the story was it was clearly accurate enough the journalist thought it worth reporting.
The labour narrative is that Boris is not fit to be prime minister. Trouble is, less than two months ago, they granted him and his government more power to decide matters by fiat than any PM in history. More power than any labour party would have ever dreamed of granting any tory at any stage since WWII.
This makes any criticism labour make of the tories little more than hollow opportunism. If they are so bad why did you grant them all that power?
Voters aren't fools and they know this.
Interesting attempted deconstruction of Mr Gove's Parliamentary remarks on the Graun feed (at 16:41).
Gove has answered everything except the actual allegation...
IPSOS looks an outlier, then
Edit: I still expect labour to hold Hartlepool and lose Teeside and WM Mayorals!
Now the easiest way to fix it would be a piece of Javascript that mangled any link to twitter that was within a blockquote. If you set that to ran on newly created posts as the "Post Comment" button was pressed it would provide your solution but I'm not sure how easy that would be to work.
I will however look at options if rcs1000 wants to offload it to someone who probably has more recent Javascript experience than he has.
JS is client-side, you can do whatever you want when its in your browser.
The question is whether they can make a gain in the WoE Mayoral election.
! PoliticalBetting rules:
||twitter.*^$domain=vf.politicalbetting.com
||facebook.*^$domain=vf.politicalbetting.com
They will block Tweets and Facebook from loading, you'll just see the links.
Also Ad blockers are something I suspect some users here would neither understand nor wish to go near.
Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
Big contrast to Ipsos earlier, with fieldwork done this morning too - no evidence of briefing drama cutting through yet.
Current CON lead by pollster:
Ipsos: +3
Survation: +6
ComRes: +9
YouGov: +10
Redfield: +10
Opinium: +11
Quote Tweet
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton
· 15m
Westminster Voting Intention (26 April):
Conservative 44% (–)
Labour 34% (–)
Liberal Democrat 8% (-2)
SNP 5% (+1)
Green 4% (–)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Changes +/- 19 April
Joint lowest Lab % since May 2020.
Follow @redfieldwilton to see our weekly VI first.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-26-april-2021/
5:05 PM · Apr 26, 2021·Twitter Web App
Install the add-on, find your way into its dashboard, and set-up a filter to block platform.twitter.com as follows:
Even when tory votes go missing they aren't going to labour.
It's Bristol, Bath and a few suburbs.
The thing with a lot of these positions, it is either former PPC who didn't make it or former MPs that got flushed by the electorate and up they pop again elsewhere.
46% do not believe either !!!!!!!!
Who are you more inclined to believe, regarding the claims made by Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings about leaks and conduct in Downing Street?
Boris Johnson - 22%
Dominic Cummings - 16%
Neither - 46%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/04/26/3548c/2?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_2
And
A third of Britons are closely following the story around Dominic Cummings and his allegations about Boris Johnson’s conduct as PM
Following very/fairly closely - 34%
Not following closely - 27%
Aware but not following - 26%
Not aware at all - 12%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/04/26/3548c/1?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1
Gove says he was in the meeting and it wasn't said.
Peston says he heard it was said after everyone had left the meeting
Both statements could easily be 100% true..
AstraZeneca said the move was "without merit".
It said it would "strongly defend itself in court".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56891326
This has turned into the international equivalent of when you hear those stories of two neighbours who has a falling out and before you know it they are burning down each others gardens.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
The issue is that the other neighbours are looking at the troublesome neighbour and thinking - hmm we might be next, what can we do to mitigate the risk
And deciding that future home improvements may be better spent on their properties in a different neighbourhood.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-boris-s-bodies-pile-high-in-their-thousands-comment
I am told he shouted it in his study just after he agreed to the second lockdown 'in a rage'. The doors to the Cabinet room and outer office were allegedly open and supposedly a number of people heard. I am bothering to repeat this assertion about what the Prime Minister said because two eyewitnesses – or perhaps I should say 'ear witnesses' – have corroborated the Daily Mail's account to me.
So it's clear that what Gove said in Parliament is correct - as taken from the Guardian Blog
In his response, Gove repeated the point that he had been in a meeting in the cabinet room with the PM. He never heard the PM say “any such thing”, he said. They were all dealing with difficult discussions.
This answer did not address the point that the remark might have been made outside the room, after the meeting was over.
So as far as I can see Gove has been very careful to ensure he answered the question he was asked and didn't extend beyond that.
Which for Gove is job done until whatever is revealed next kicks off.
I'll always remember it, I was doing my A Levels at the time (a time when A Levels were hard), whilst my focus was on my exams I took a very deep interest in the election, I was expecting a Labour majority of 100, I wasn't expecting one closer to 200.
I was up for Portillo, I was up when the Tories were wiped out in Scotland & Wales, I was up for when my own rock solid Tory seat went to the yellow peril.
It had a profound impact on me.
Last month it was a difference of 4%, so I reckon Ipsos MORI have picked up a slightly soft Tory sample.
Interestingly Keir Starmer has a better rating than the PM on handling the pandemic.
* Successful vaccine roll-out
* Lockdown easing
* Furlough cushion
* House prices strong
* Triple lock
* Labour not trusted
We are set fair with this for a few months yet. People feel positive, especially the older demographics that vote, so they really don't care that much about whether Johnson said this or did that - and certainly not enough to change the way they vote.
A year later, and the defeat might not have been so bad. Indeed, Clark could have started to share the fruits of his recovery early. As I remember, he decided not to.
At times I felt like I was the only OUT AND PROUD Tory in London.
https://twitter.com/olvrtckr/status/1386576348127371267
On a UNS Major would have had a majority of 77, not 21, and then I think history would have been somewhat different. Sure, Black Wednesday would still have happened, but the splits and weakness of 94-97 would have been less marked and the defeat less severe.
The fact is that, whatever your views on leave or remain, the tories don't have that problem any more. They are essentially united. And that makes them incredibly difficult to shift.
Not a lot of use, TBF.
I don't think I've ever loved a SPAD more! Keep 'em coming Dom!
Does anyone know how such cases typically proceed in Belgium - does it follow pretty much the same course as we'd expect in the US and UK, or is it completely different?
Might as well ask BoJo's soulmate Trumpsky to follow the rules. Two rotten peas in a toxic pod.
and secondly the reporting of it is not attributed to Cummings
And as far as the public are concerned 46% do not believe Boris or Cummings
And
A third of Britons are closely following the story around Dominic Cummings and his allegations about Boris Johnson’s conduct as PM
Following very/fairly closely - 34%
Not following closely - 27%
Aware but not following - 26%
Not aware at all - 12%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/04/26/3548c/1?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1
https://twitter.com/MetroUK/status/1386733764722663424
"Final remedies focus on reparation through performance or restoration. If these remedies are not or no longer possible, the most common remedy is financial compensation.
"Belgian law adheres to the principle of restitutio in integrum, which requires that the injured party be put in the position it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Punitive damages are not allowed. The injured party is entitled to full compensation of its damage, but nothing more.
"When the exact amount of damages is difficult to determine (for example, in cases of reputational damage or violation of moral rights), the judge can award damages on an ex aequo et bono basis (that is, according to the right and good)."
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-013-2762?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true