How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
The political parties became like multiple cheeks of the same arse and the UK became incredibly affluent.
I do wonder if it takes that political disconnect to create the polarisation we see today. Students and others blithering about transgender micro-politics and safe spaces vs gritty day-to-day life in Rochdale.
It's Berkeley vs Harlan County, Kentucky. I thought Harlan was a made-up place in Justified. It isn't.
Believe it or not you can care about 'transgender micro' politics and day to say issues as well. I'm sure that Gay Rights wasn't top of the agenda in terms of people's concerns in the 1980s or 1990s, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't worth caring about.
Mr. Nunu, there was a piece for the Sunday Politics from a Remain campaigner who said that, early on, they wanted a list of five good things about the EU. And they couldn't think of any.
Without intending to be unkind to anyone I'm about to cite - these were the impressions they left me with.
@foxinsoxuk - my NHS paperwork will be harder if we Brexit.
@SouthamObserver - my sales conferences will be a bit more difficult to organise if we Brexit, but I manage fine outside the EU
@TOPPING - my City investments may be adversely effected and I'm really well off BTW
@Richard_Nabavi - I'm far too clever for all this and agree with Topping
@felix - I'm an expat living in Spain and you should do what suits me personally - and you're all stupid if you don't
@edmundintokyo - I've lived in Tokyo for a very long time, and talk a lot about ideal theoretical models re immigration and liberal politics. I have no idea what living in the UK is like bar a flying visit home.
I didn't see many convincing reasons to Remain in the EU in their posts.
Miss P. you forgot Mr. Meeks', "I was open to persuasion but the people who support leave are all ghastly oiks and I can't bear to be associated with them"
Leaving personalities aside, there was no positive case made as to why we should stay in. Nobody from the PM downwards came up with positive arguments, it was nearly all how we would be worse off financially and how we would lose influence (backed up by some very dodgy statistics). As most people have got not much in the first place and don't see the Uk as having much influence anyway (not least because politicians like Cameron have spent decades telling us we can't do X because the EU won't let us), it was not campaign that would change minds.
HMtQ got it right, again. When she asked the great and the good for three good reasons to stay in what she got back was, "Er...". The same answer she got when she asked after the financial crash, "Why didn't anyone see this coming?"
What struck me the most about the vote, and I have mentioned this on here before, were the people I saw at the polling station. People from the council estate who I know never normally vote ("what's the point the tories always get in around here") were turning out to have their say for once. A clever political party would be working out how to keep those folk engaged, none are of course.
and who cares what Debra Messing has to say about it? She hasn't registered on many radars since the end of Will and Grace. And certainly has no track record of being a reputable political commentator...
And yet people keep posting pieces by Scott Adams despite him having a tack record of getting the last two elections wrong.
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
The political parties became like multiple cheeks of the same arse and the UK became incredibly affluent.
I do wonder if it takes that political disconnect to create the polarisation we see today. Students and others blithering about transgender micro-politics and safe spaces vs gritty day-to-day life in Rochdale.
It's Berkeley vs Harlan County, Kentucky. I thought Harlan was a made-up place in Justified. It isn't. "And more recent history hasn't been too far removed from some Justified plot lines, local fans pointed out.
In the early 1980s, for instance, then-Sheriff Paul L. Browning Jr. was convicted of plotting to kill political enemies.
When Browning tried to regain the office in 2002, a deputy who was taking payoffs from a drug dealer provided a gun and a $1,000 payment to have Browning murdered.
The deputy, Roger D. Hall — son of a longtime county magistrate — apparently was afraid that if Browning won, he would fire Hall, cutting off his access to drug bribes. Hall pleaded guilty and is serving 30 years in prison."
It's fallen out of fashion, but do you remember 'affluenza'? The UK has never, ever been richer. We have excellent workers rights (there was a BBC fact check: we're weak on unemployment benefits, world leading in p/maternity leave), high levels of employment, yet people are apparently more fearful and worried than ever before.
We're constantly being asked to be alarmed or concerned or outraged about something. In reality, we are collectively the most cosseted generations in history. We have the luxury of discontent about small issues.
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
According BES the big drop was the between the '92 and '97 election.
Numan J. Hussain is calling for a total and complete shutdown of nuclear energy projects entering the United Kingdom until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on!
Mr. P, perversely, might be better if she tops the first ballot. If she's second, tactical switchers will be fewer. If she's top, it'll encourage more tactical voting.
Edited extra bit: think it's a few months out, but right now the Austrian rightwing presidential candidate is narrowly leading in the polls.
The ex-Green chap may need some more 150% turnout to help him over the line...
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
The political parties became like multiple cheeks of the same arse and the UK became incredibly affluent.
I do wonder if it takes that political disconnect to create the polarisation we see today. Students and others blithering about transgender micro-politics and safe spaces vs gritty day-to-day life in Rochdale.
It's Berkeley vs Harlan County, Kentucky. I thought Harlan was a made-up place in Justified. It isn't.
Believe it or not you can care about 'transgender micro' politics and day to say issues as well. I'm sure that Gay Rights wasn't top of the agenda in terms of people's concerns in the 1980s or 1990s, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't worth caring about.
Dear Me. I forgot I could multitask. I just don't think the issues of 0.0001 of the population is that crucial to our national coherence.
If you want to play to the Venn diagram of Identity Politics with me - do feel free.
Really? What a very silly comment. For a student of politics - you're disappointing me greatly. I'm not seeing anything but partisan bias in your analysis of issues.
@John_M Maybe we are being asked to be outraged by something because issues relating to discrimination and social mobility still exist in society, even if much of society does not experience that reality because of their affluence. Just because the UK is a rich country doesn't mean that everyone is accessing that wealth.
What struck me the most about the vote, and I have mentioned this on here before, were the people I saw at the polling station. People from the council estate who I know never normally vote ("what's the point the tories always get in around here") were turning out to have their say for once. A clever political party would be working out how to keep those folk engaged, none are of course.
Sums up in a few sentences why there will never be another referendum on a financial issue in our lifetimes. Those who never usually vote, who don't understand how it would impact them and who wanted to give the government "a good kicking" voted "Leave" causing the rest of us to suffer the consequences.
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
According BES the big drop was the between the '92 and '97 election.
Curious - after 18 years of Tory rule, and Labour winning a landslide, I'd have thought that was prime territory for the young to want to vote.
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
The political parties became like multiple cheeks of the same arse and the UK became incredibly affluent.
I do wonder if it takes that political disconnect to create the polarisation we see today. Students and others blithering about transgender micro-politics and safe spaces vs gritty day-to-day life in Rochdale.
It's Berkeley vs Harlan County, Kentucky. I thought Harlan was a made-up place in Justified. It isn't.
Believe it or not you can care about 'transgender micro' politics and day to say issues as well. I'm sure that Gay Rights wasn't top of the agenda in terms of people's concerns in the 1980s or 1990s, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't worth caring about.
Dear Me. I forgot I could multitask. I just don't think the issues of 0.0001 of the population is that crucial to our national coherence.
If you want to play to the Venn diagram of Identity Politics with me - do feel free.
Really? What a very silly comment. For a student of politics - you're disappointing me greatly. I'm not seeing anything but partisan bias in your analysis of issues.
That student politics is dominated by a small number of people able to create a strong, insular student politics where there is only a narrow range of views expressed, is I think a symptom and not the cause of political disillusionment.
In response to TA, I have no confidence that the NUS clique are capable of producing real change or results on any issue, or advancing any cause, should they hit upon something worthwhile.
Mr. P, perversely, might be better if she tops the first ballot. If she's second, tactical switchers will be fewer. If she's top, it'll encourage more tactical voting.
Edited extra bit: think it's a few months out, but right now the Austrian rightwing presidential candidate is narrowly leading in the polls.
The ex-Green chap may need some more 150% turnout to help him over the line...
In the second round of Juppe - Le Pen, she moves from 28% to 30%, and Juppe gets 70%.
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
They remained children for much longer?
If you don't work, don't pay income taxes, don't own a home, don't pay rent or a mortgage, don't get married, don't have children - how much of it really affects you?
It is paying bills, spending your life working, having children and developing proper relationships that drives up the motivation to vote and switches our key interests away from utopian policies.
Corbyn is much beloved by those who extend puberty - and avoid employment - into their mid 20s.
It's fallen out of fashion, but do you remember 'affluenza'? The UK has never, ever been richer. We have excellent workers rights (there was a BBC fact check: we're weak on unemployment benefits, world leading in p/maternity leave), high levels of employment, yet people are apparently more fearful and worried than ever before.
We're constantly being asked to be alarmed or concerned or outraged about something. In reality, we are collectively the most cosseted generations in history. We have the luxury of discontent about small issues.
I suspect that the inevitable financial collapse of twitter will increase general net happiness as a whole bunch of this stuff suddenly becomes harder to find and to hear about.
Mr. P, perversely, might be better if she tops the first ballot. If she's second, tactical switchers will be fewer. If she's top, it'll encourage more tactical voting.
Edited extra bit: think it's a few months out, but right now the Austrian rightwing presidential candidate is narrowly leading in the polls.
The ex-Green chap may need some more 150% turnout to help him over the line...
In the second round of Juppe - Le Pen, she moves from 28% to 30%, and Juppe gets 70%.
I'm hoping that Le Pen will get a bit further in the polls, so that the foolish think her 10% lead in the first round will be sufficient and we can profit.
@PlatoSaid So because transgender people facing discrimination only effects a small part of the population we shouldn't care about it? Racism may well only affect a minority of the population too, but we should still care about it. And tbh Plato, I couldn't care less whether I impress you or not. And you are one to talk when it comes to being partisan and biased, I have to say.
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
The political parties became like multiple cheeks of the same arse and the UK became incredibly affluent.
I do wonder if it takes that political disconnect to create the polarisation we see today. Students and others blithering about transgender micro-politics and safe spaces vs gritty day-to-day life in Rochdale.
It's Berkeley vs Harlan County, Kentucky. I thought Harlan was a made-up place in Justified. It isn't.
Believe it or not you can care about 'transgender micro' politics and day to say issues as well. I'm sure that Gay Rights wasn't top of the agenda in terms of people's concerns in the 1980s or 1990s, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't worth caring about.
I doubt anyone is dismissing transgender rights. From my own experience, it's the Internet that has changed things, and in an incredibly positive way.
It was balm to my soul to realise that I wasn't a pervert or freak, that others felt the same way - and that there was help available.
The Internet wasn't invented to make me feel better, it was simply a beneficial side effect. It's almost impossible to conceive how isolated and ignorant it was possible to be in pre-Web days. However, as an older TG, I do find the debate over 'zie' and so on incomprehensible. Of course, the generation gap has always existed - this is just its latest manifestation.
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
Tbh I think my generation just don't see the relevance of politics in their lives right now. They don't see how political decisions will impact their lives. Politics is also something which seems fairly dull and boring to them and all politicians 'sound the same.'
They will get what is coming to them then - if they don't care about such things, they are ceding the ground to those who do care (and that is in itself a reason they should care) and can hardly then ask 'Why don't people care about what I think?' Politicians have to play the numbers, they certainly bang on about young people, but if the youth won't turn out for an EU referendum for instance, its no wonder the politicians chase the grey vote with more persistence.
Disclosure, I am 29, and have become sharply grumpy with some of the 18-24 demographic.
Mr. Nunu, there was a piece for the Sunday Politics from a Remain campaigner who said that, early on, they wanted a list of five good things about the EU. And they couldn't think of any.
Without intending to be unkind to anyone I'm about to cite - these were the impressions they left me with.
@foxinsoxuk - my NHS paperwork will be harder if we Brexit.
@SouthamObserver - my sales conferences will be a bit more difficult to organise if we Brexit, but I manage fine outside the EU
@TOPPING - my City investments may be adversely effected and I'm really well off BTW
@Richard_Nabavi - I'm far too clever for all this and agree with Topping
@felix - I'm an expat living in Spain and you should do what suits me personally - and you're all stupid if you don't
@edmundintokyo - I've lived in Tokyo for a very long time, and talk a lot about ideal theoretical models re immigration and liberal politics. I have no idea what living in the UK is like bar a flying visit home.
I didn't see many convincing reasons to Remain in the EU in their posts.
Miss P. you forgot Mr. Meeks', "I was open to persuasion but the people who support leave are all ghastly oiks and I can't bear to be associated with them"
Leaving personalities aside, there was no positive case made as to why we should stay in. Nobody from the PM downwards came up with positive arguments, it was nearly all how we would be worse off financially and how we would lose influence (backed up by some very dodgy statistics). As most people have got not much in the first place and don't see the Uk as having much influence anyway (not least because politicians like Cameron have spent decades telling us we can't do X because the EU won't let us), it was not campaign that would change minds.
HMtQ got it right, again. When she asked the great and the good for three good reasons to stay in what she got back was, "Er...". The same answer she got when she asked after the financial crash, "Why didn't anyone see this coming?"
What struck me the most about the vote, and I have mentioned this on here before, were the people I saw at the polling station. People from the council estate who I know never normally vote ("what's the point the tories always get in around here") were turning out to have their say for once. A clever political party would be working out how to keep those folk engaged, none are of course.
Here is where I totally agree with @Danny565 - he's spot on re Brexit vs PLP attitudes. When most of your actual constituents voted Brexit - and you want Remain, and are backing Let's Stay In The EU Owen?
It's something I simply can't compute. It's wilful blindness - and deserves all it gets.
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
Tbh I think my generation just don't see the relevance of politics in their lives right now. They don't see how political decisions will impact their lives. Politics is also something which seems fairly dull and boring to them and all politicians 'sound the same.'
They will get what is coming to them then - if they don't care about such things, they are ceding the ground to those who do care (and that is in itself a reason they should care) and can hardly then ask 'Why don't people care about what I think?' Politicians have to play the numbers, they certainly bang on about young people, but if the youth won't turn out for an EU referendum for instance, its no wonder the politicians chase the grey vote with more persistence.
Disclosure, I am 29, and have become sharply grumpy with some of the 18-24 demographic.
I'm 22, and I totally agree with you. I actually thought you were a lot older than 29 for some reason!
Mr. 1000, sadly, I think there'll be more terrorism in France before the election, and that may alter things.
There's been an awful lot of terrorism in France in the last year, and Marine Le Pen has been marooned at 28-30% for the entire period.
That being said: I think Le Pen could beat Hollande in a match up. I just can't see how Hollande could end up in the last two.
I think she had a non-zero chance of beating Sarkozy too. He was the first French President who really didn't incarnate any sense of regal grandeur like his predecessors. He speaks with grammatical mistakes and is a weak candidate as evidenced by his loss to Hollande.
It's fallen out of fashion, but do you remember 'affluenza'? The UK has never, ever been richer. We have excellent workers rights (there was a BBC fact check: we're weak on unemployment benefits, world leading in p/maternity leave), high levels of employment, yet people are apparently more fearful and worried than ever before.
We're constantly being asked to be alarmed or concerned or outraged about something. In reality, we are collectively the most cosseted generations in history. We have the luxury of discontent about small issues.
Quite right, Mr. M, and my capacity for alarm, concern or outrage is not what it once was, especially not for trivial things.
However, where I do get a bit grumpy is when I am asked to be alarmed/concerned/outraged over small matters whilst fecking great elephants are stamping around the room and being ignored by those in charge.
P.S. I finished reading that paper on nuclear power you put up and once upon a time I would have been jolly cross. The spineless tossers in government over the decades have royally cocked up on every level. Maybe the SMR scheme might rescue us but I expect the wankers in the Department of Energy (or whatever it is called this week) will manage to make a pigs' breakfast of it.
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
Tbh I think my generation just don't see the relevance of politics in their lives right now. They don't see how political decisions will impact their lives. Politics is also something which seems fairly dull and boring to them and all politicians 'sound the same.'
They will get what is coming to them then - if they don't care about such things, they are ceding the ground to those who do care (and that is in itself a reason they should care) and can hardly then ask 'Why don't people care about what I think?' Politicians have to play the numbers, they certainly bang on about young people, but if the youth won't turn out for an EU referendum for instance, its no wonder the politicians chase the grey vote with more persistence.
Disclosure, I am 29, and have become sharply grumpy with some of the 18-24 demographic.
I'm 22, and I totally agree with you. I actually thought you were a lot older than 29 for some reason!
Being obsessed with the most boring bits of politics is, admittedly, more of a 45-64 demographic thing (sorry folks).
Without intending to be unkind to anyone I'm about to cite - these were the impressions they left me with.
@foxinsoxuk - my NHS paperwork will be harder if we Brexit.
@SouthamObserver - my sales conferences will be a bit more difficult to organise if we Brexit, but I manage fine outside the EU
@TOPPING - my City investments may be adversely effected and I'm really well off BTW
@Richard_Nabavi - I'm far too clever for all this and agree with Topping
@felix - I'm an expat living in Spain and you should do what suits me personally - and you're all stupid if you don't
@edmundintokyo - I've lived in Tokyo for a very long time, and talk a lot about ideal theoretical models re immigration and liberal politics. I have no idea what living in the UK is like bar a flying visit home.
I didn't see many convincing reasons to Remain in the EU in their posts.
Miss P. you forgot Mr. Meeks', "I was open to persuasion but the people who support leave are all ghastly oiks and I can't bear to be associated with them"
-------------------------------------------
The Prime Minister himself was reduced to the pathetic expedient of going round to his MPs arguing for remain on the basis that 'leave would be such a faff' (a feeble argument echoed on here as well).
Mr. Nunu, there was a piece for the Sunday Politics from a Remain campaigner who said that, early on, they wanted a list of five good things about the EU. And they couldn't think of any.
Without intending to be unkind to anyone I'm about to cite - these were the impressions they left me with.
@foxinsoxuk - my NHS paperwork will be harder if we Brexit.
@SouthamObserver - my sales conferences will be a bit more difficult to organise if we Brexit, but I manage fine outside the EU
@TOPPING - my City investments may be adversely effected and I'm really well off BTW
@Richard_Nabavi - I'm far too clever for all this and agree with Topping
@felix - I'm an expat living in Spain and you should do what suits me personally - and you're all stupid if you don't
@edmundintokyo - I've lived in Tokyo for a very long time, and talk a lot about ideal theoretical models re immigration and liberal politics. I have no idea what living in the UK is like bar a flying visit home.
I didn't see many convincing reasons to Remain in the EU in their posts.
I see an awful lot of bottled up hate you got there. Great to see you getting rid of it by implying a whole load of us said things we didn't.. Has your application for Britain first gone through yet?
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
The political parties became like multiple cheeks of the same arse and the UK became incredibly affluent.
I do wonder if it takes that political disconnect to create the polarisation we see today. Students and others blithering about transgender micro-politics and safe spaces vs gritty day-to-day life in Rochdale.
It's Berkeley vs Harlan County, Kentucky. I thought Harlan was a made-up place in Justified. It isn't. "And more recent history hasn't been too far removed from some Justified plot lines, local fans pointed out.
In the early 1980s, for instance, then-Sheriff Paul L. Browning Jr. was convicted of plotting to kill political enemies.
When Browning tried to regain the office in 2002, a deputy who was taking payoffs from a drug dealer provided a gun and a $1,000 payment to have Browning murdered.
The deputy, Roger D. Hall — son of a longtime county magistrate — apparently was afraid that if Browning won, he would fire Hall, cutting off his access to drug bribes. Hall pleaded guilty and is serving 30 years in prison."
It's fallen out of fashion, but do you remember 'affluenza'? The UK has never, ever been richer. We have excellent workers rights (there was a BBC fact check: we're weak on unemployment benefits, world leading in p/maternity leave), high levels of employment, yet people are apparently more fearful and worried than ever before.
We're constantly being asked to be alarmed or concerned or outraged about something. In reality, we are collectively the most cosseted generations in history. We have the luxury of discontent about small issues.
I couldn't agree more. When you've nothing much to fret about - you pick something of almost zero interest to outrage over instead. The giant fuss about 'swarms' of migrants is one such example. Or Fireman Sam and the Koran.
This is my main reason for scepticism re Labour's future. What are they for? Harking back to WW2 era fossils and the 70s is just bizarre. They've tried being Tories and now that's *spit*.
Until they decide what their purpose is beyond crying for handouts and identity politics - I can't see the point.
I can't for a moment give any credence to what the political lobby hacks or commentators say about Trump.
They've been beyond wrong at every turn. Most come from the liberal left which doesn't help either. I suspect this election has a Brexit surprise in store.
I could feel CNN smiling during their Hillary speech analysis. The enormous sneering at Trump is very misplaced given who he's demolished along way.
They think he is bonkers, and they are right. the very idea of Trump as President is unimaginable
So you agree with them, and you would be horrified at a Trump victory.
That's irrelevant. What is relevant is determining through sober fact based analysis whether he's going to win or not and whether the current odds are value or not.
I think that a sober analysis of Trump's manifesto means that Americans are all bonkers if Trump gets the White House and it would be very dangerous for the World too. Neither candidate is attractive, HRC is the least worst option.
Once again, you are repeating your opinion as a non US citizen of who you'd prefer to win and why.
Totally irrelevant. But it does show why he's still betting value.
But surely many Americans are bonkers? So all bets are off.
After all how many self respecting European politicians and political activists would spent four days in a hall waving dumb placards and chanting dumb slogans as instructed by their party bosses? I remember in the 1990s when there were some half hearted attempts to make British conferences more like the American ones, and it just didn't work.
@John_M Thanks for the reply. I'm really glad to hear if your positive experiences. I have to say I've not talked to an older TG before, most of those who I've talked to are around my age (I've talked to them via tumblr). While the Internet can be great in making them feel that they are not alone, they tell me they still face a lot of discrimination and demonisation throughout their lives, sadly. While I do feel that some people got OTT in regard to safe spaces and the like, I do feel its very important to talk about issues regard to discrimination. It may not be relevant to most people, but to minorities these are issues that are relevant in their lives.
Ms. Apocalypse, about a decade (and more...) ago I was a frequent visitor to a certain part of the interweb where estimates of my age were typically 40s and 50s (twice and more how old I was at the time). It can be hard to tell how old people are online.
Mr. Eagles, for example, has a grasp of classical history not unlike a seven year old [in need of private tuition].
Yes. Which is why all the polls with Juppe as the LR candidate don't have Bayrou in there.
What is the internal process for determining the LR candidate?
There is an open primary for 'supporters'. Juppe leads Sarkozy 65:35 in the polls, and his lead has been growing.
Indeed, it's very likely the next french president is an out of touch geriatric convicted fraudster, which is typical of french presidents.
Every president of France since 1981 has been investigated by the authorities. And yet you can't say that the french as a people are more corrupt than their southern neighbours, and we wonder why europe is going down the tubes for a long time now.
What struck me the most about the vote, and I have mentioned this on here before, were the people I saw at the polling station. People from the council estate who I know never normally vote ("what's the point the tories always get in around here") were turning out to have their say for once. A clever political party would be working out how to keep those folk engaged, none are of course.
Sums up in a few sentences why there will never be another referendum on a financial issue in our lifetimes. Those who never usually vote, who don't understand how it would impact them and who wanted to give the government "a good kicking" voted "Leave" causing the rest of us to suffer the consequences.
What colossal arrogance.
If only everyone was like you - everything would be perfect. Jeez.
@John_M Maybe we are being asked to be outraged by something because issues relating to discrimination and social mobility still exist in society, even if much of society does not experience that reality because of their affluence. Just because the UK is a rich country doesn't mean that everyone is accessing that wealth.
I agree in part. One of the issues with PB is that people tend to write with a very broad brush (we should be thankful, too many essays in one day is bad for the digestion).
Relatively speaking, we _are_ all accessing that wealth. Some have certainly done better than others, but the GINI coefficient has been broadly neutral for the last twenty years and we are collectively far more wealthy than in the sixties and seventies (which for obvious reasons forms my personal baseline).
Sometimes its just worth looking back a few years to see how far we've come. Where we agree is that there's more to be done.
Returning to transgender topics, Wales has no formal GIC. Referrals were always to Charing Cross. That's so overstretched that someone my age would have no reasonable expectation of getting any treatment at all.
Fortunately, a couple of medical folk in Newport have created a quasi-GIC and now the waiting list for treatment is less than a year. In the mean time, 48% of adolescent TGs attempt suicide and more than half are treated for depression and associated disorders. Not a great picture.
BTW the BBC has given up reporting real business news and instead as gone full on Project talk down the economy because Brexit.
To be fair this morning the business reporter on 5 Live was pointing out that the Lloyd's news from the day before was not due to Brexit, which was how it was spun on Thursday, but due to a strategic review driven by the need to change how the bank operates now that many customers can no longer be arsed to visit a branch in person.
The prime purpose of a bank branch is to locally recruit new personal and business customers and sell loans and deposits to existing customers.
A branch is normally the cheapest way to acquire new business, cheaper than using the internet which costs about £300 to recruit each new current account customer.
Recruiting customers via newspapers or the internet tends only to work in areas where that bank has a branch.
A secondary purpose of a bank is for people to pay in cash and draw out cash although the later can be done via ATMs for smaller amounts.
So it is in a bank's interest to have a big network of branches. But banks only need the same coverage as competitors to maintain market share. So if the biggest bank reduces its network, others are tempted to do the same.
It's not really in the interest of a bank to have a big network, though - you need to have a carefully targeted one to attract the most profitable business (Metro is a good example of how to build a branch network selectively - Coutts used to do the same with their on;y branch outside of London being in Eton)
If the high street banks could get away with reducing their footprint by 50% they would jump at the chance.
I read somewhere that a post referendum poll showed support for Brexit has increased since the referendum.
Anyone seen the source?
No, but I suggest that is entirely normal; people like to be identified with the winning side. Indeed one of the problems the pollsters have in balancing samples is that, after an election, more people recollect voting for the winning party than actually did.
Lol if Clinton wins Missouri and Georgia, unlikely I know but, ha!
Last poll a few days ago had Trump 48-38 in Missouri before the RNC.
Since it's very unlikely that in the period Trump went up and was leading nationally that he slumped 10 points in any particular state, i'm calling Mason Dixon a severe outlier.
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I think the point is that it's the middle aged 40-something and 50-something WWC who had given up voting in elections ("because they're all the same") who turned out decisively for Leave.
IIRC polls had always showed that age demographic as trending towards Leave as well.
Yes, but under the assumption that they actually wouldn't vote. It was obvious that if they did vote, they'd be heavily Leave.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
The political parties became like multiple cheeks of the same arse and the UK became incredibly affluent.
I do wonder if it takes that political disconnect to create the polarisation we see today. Students and others blithering about transgender micro-politics and safe spaces vs gritty day-to-day life in Rochdale.
It's Berkeley vs Harlan County, Kentucky. I thought Harlan was a made-up place in Justified. It isn't.
Believe it or not you can care about 'transgender micro' politics and day to say issues as well. I'm sure that Gay Rights wasn't top of the agenda in terms of people's concerns in the 1980s or 1990s, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't worth caring about.
Dear Me. I forgot I could multitask. I just don't think the issues of 0.0001 of the population is that crucial to our national coherence.
If you want to play to the Venn diagram of Identity Politics with me - do feel free.
Really? What a very silly comment. For a student of politics - you're disappointing me greatly. I'm not seeing anything but partisan bias in your analysis of issues.
That student politics is dominated by a small number of people able to create a strong, insular student politics where there is only a narrow range of views expressed, is I think a symptom and not the cause of political disillusionment.
In response to TA, I have no confidence that the NUS clique are capable of producing real change or results on any issue, or advancing any cause, should they hit upon something worthwhile.
Has Aaron Thingy been nominated as a PCC yet? He was all over the TV for ages and haven't heard of him in ages.
I'm waiting for Shami to become a peer despite Oh Golly What Little Me? protestations.
Mr. Nunu, there was a piece for the Sunday Politics from a Remain campaigner who said that, early on, they wanted a list of five good things about the EU. And they couldn't think of any.
Without intending to be unkind to anyone I'm about to cite - these were the impressions they left me with.
@foxinsoxuk - my NHS paperwork will be harder if we Brexit.
@SouthamObserver - my sales conferences will be a bit more difficult to organise if we Brexit, but I manage fine outside the EU
@TOPPING - my City investments may be adversely effected and I'm really well off BTW
@Richard_Nabavi - I'm far too clever for all this and agree with Topping
@felix - I'm an expat living in Spain and you should do what suits me personally - and you're all stupid if you don't
@edmundintokyo - I've lived in Tokyo for a very long time, and talk a lot about ideal theoretical models re immigration and liberal politics. I have no idea what living in the UK is like bar a flying visit home.
I didn't see many convincing reasons to Remain in the EU in their posts.
I see an awful lot of bottled up hate you got there. Great to see you getting rid of it by implying a whole load of us said things we didn't.. Has your application for Britain first gone through yet?
Mr. Felix, have a re-read of Miss Plato's post. What she said was "These are the impressions I got". Blaming the receiver for not understanding the message you sent is crackers. Getting feedback is healthy, one can of course choose to ignore it or even lash out at the giver (feedback is a gift), but only a complete knob would do that.
@John_M Thanks for the reply. I'm really glad to hear if your positive experiences. I have to say I've not talked to an older TG before, most of those who I've talked to are around my age (I've talked to them via tumblr). While the Internet can be great in making them feel that they are not alone, they tell me they still face a lot of discrimination and demonisation throughout their lives, sadly. While I do feel that some people got OTT in regard to safe spaces and the like, I do feel its very important to talk about issues regard to discrimination. It may not be relevant to most people, but to minorities these are issues that are relevant in their lives.
People can be complete arseholes. They can also be very kind and supportive. My family split about 50:50, and even that is skewed as I'm not actually transitioning, just LD HT to stop me topping myself.
Just round out my point, before everyone starts rolling their eyes and tapping their feet, transgender issues are important. We do have to bear in mind that there are around 16,000 people in the UK either in, or waiting for, treatment.
I don't doubt that there are more that have yet to pluck up the courage to talk to their GPs, or cope in their own way in some other fashion. However, TG people are relatively uncommon. I would never expect to be prioritised over oncology or ante-natal care. That's why government is hard; you're always trading off against a range of public goods. Here endeth the sermon .
How are unreliable voters the demographic which won it for Leave exactly? It was older voters (a reliable demographic in terms of voting) that won it for leave after all. Surely money spent on getting young people to turn out proves my point. That Remain were relying on unreliable demographics to vote for them which is why they pulled out the stops to get young people to the polls. Young ABC1s are still young voters at the end of the day who are part of a demographic that traditionally don't turn up at the polls.
I wonder when it became traditional for young voters not to vote. Anecdotal I know but I was at school when I first voted in 1983 and I made a point of voting and so did just about everyone I knew. It still felt like a privilege or a sort of rite of passage. I don't think there was any expectation then that younger people were any less likely to vote. So what happened?
According BES the big drop was the between the '92 and '97 election.
Curious - after 18 years of Tory rule, and Labour winning a landslide, I'd have thought that was prime territory for the young to want to vote.
Maybe the result of '92 compared to the polling/expectations had a big psychological effect? Young Labour inclined type person in '92 votes for the first time and votes Labour expecting to kick the Tories out, is told that they will kick the Tories out and gets a Tory government that then immediately messes things up. Next election they are told exactly the same thing and think "Fuck it, can't change anything" then with such a landslide in '97 they think "No need to try next time".
Mr. Nunu, there was a piece for the Sunday Politics from a Remain campaigner who said that, early on, they wanted a list of five good things about the EU. And they couldn't think of any.
Without intending to be unkind to anyone I'm about to cite - these were the impressions they left me with.
@foxinsoxuk - my NHS paperwork will be harder if we Brexit.
@SouthamObserver - my sales conferences will be a bit more difficult to organise if we Brexit, but I manage fine outside the EU
@TOPPING - my City investments may be adversely effected and I'm really well off BTW
@Richard_Nabavi - I'm far too clever for all this and agree with Topping
@felix - I'm an expat living in Spain and you should do what suits me personally - and you're all stupid if you don't
@edmundintokyo - I've lived in Tokyo for a very long time, and talk a lot about ideal theoretical models re immigration and liberal politics. I have no idea what living in the UK is like bar a flying visit home.
I didn't see many convincing reasons to Remain in the EU in their posts.
I see an awful lot of bottled up hate you got there. Great to see you getting rid of it by implying a whole load of us said things we didn't.. Has your application for Britain first gone through yet?
Mr. Felix, have a re-read of Miss Plato's post. What she said was "These are the impressions I got". Blaming the receiver for not understanding the message you sent is crackers. Getting feedback is healthy, one can of course choose to ignore it or even lash out at the giver (feedback is a gift), but only a complete knob would do that.
Oh I understand exactly what she was doing. Ms Plato enjoys being snide and unpleasant about other posters but dislikes intensely responses in kind. Her impressions are of zero interest to me as I have a clear understanding of where she is coming from. But let me thank you for being so charming in your lecture. I hope you find my feedback helpful.
The before-after is missing, Trump got a 13% increase, how much did Hillary get ?
I think the positive impression is fair. But it doesn't record just how positive. Her speech was OK. But having watched most of the key speeches over four days of the DNC, the most striking thing is that almost all of the main warm up acts for Hillary were far more interesting, passionate, persuasive speakers than she managed to be. If anything they just raised expectations that she didn't really meet.
Nevertheless you could argue that US politics is, in this respect only, rather 'old fashioned' in that being able to sway an audience with a passionate emotional speech on the stump is still a key capability for any aspiring candidate, as it was in times long gone for the UK.
I can't for a moment give any credence to what the political lobby hacks or commentators say about Trump.
They've been beyond wrong at every turn. Most come from the liberal left which doesn't help either. I suspect this election has a Brexit surprise in store.
I could feel CNN smiling during their Hillary speech analysis. The enormous sneering at Trump is very misplaced given who he's demolished along way.
They think he is bonkers, and they are right. the very idea of Trump as President is unimaginable
So you agree with them, and you would be horrified at a Trump victory.
That's irrelevant. What is relevant is determining through sober fact based analysis whether he's going to win or not and whether the current odds are value or not.
I think that a sober analysis of Trump's manifesto means that Americans are all bonkers if Trump gets the White House and it would be very dangerous for the World too. Neither candidate is attractive, HRC is the least worst option.
Once again, you are repeating your opinion as a non US citizen of who you'd prefer to win and why.
Totally irrelevant. But it does show why he's still betting value.
But surely many Americans are bonkers? So all bets are off.
After all how many self respecting European politicians and political activists would spent four days in a hall waving dumb placards and chanting dumb slogans as instructed by their party bosses? I remember in the 1990s when there were some half hearted attempts to make British conferences more like the American ones, and it just didn't work.
I wish I could laugh at your comment as ironic. Alas, I think you're displaying the most telling liberal snootery as if Americans were all ignorant dullards who live in trailer parks and live in Jesusland unless they agree with your views. Shame on you.
Perhaps a dose of intellectual liberal objectivity will help to broaden your mind.
Mr. Nunu, there was a piece for the Sunday Politics from a Remain campaigner who said that, early on, they wanted a list of five good things about the EU. And they couldn't think of any.
Without intending to be unkind to anyone I'm about to cite - these were the impressions they left me with.
@foxinsoxuk - my NHS paperwork will be harder if we Brexit.
@SouthamObserver - my sales conferences will be a bit more difficult to organise if we Brexit, but I manage fine outside the EU
@TOPPING - my City investments may be adversely effected and I'm really well off BTW
@Richard_Nabavi - I'm far too clever for all this and agree with Topping
@felix - I'm an expat living in Spain and you should do what suits me personally - and you're all stupid if you don't
@edmundintokyo - I've lived in Tokyo for a very long time, and talk a lot about ideal theoretical models re immigration and liberal politics. I have no idea what living in the UK is like bar a flying visit home.
I didn't see many convincing reasons to Remain in the EU in their posts.
I see an awful lot of bottled up hate you got there. Great to see you getting rid of it by implying a whole load of us said things we didn't.. Has your application for Britain first gone through yet?
Mr. Felix, have a re-read of Miss Plato's post. What she said was "These are the impressions I got". Blaming the receiver for not understanding the message you sent is crackers. Getting feedback is healthy, one can of course choose to ignore it or even lash out at the giver (feedback is a gift), but only a complete knob would do that.
Oh I understand exactly what she was doing. Ms Plato enjoys being snide and unpleasant about other posters but dislikes intensely responses in kind. Her impressions are of zero interest to me as I have a clear understanding of where she is coming from. But let me thank you for being so charming in your lecture. I hope you find my feedback helpful.
I do indeed, Mr. Felix. I always take note of feedback.
Mr. Nunu, there was a piece for the Sunday Politics from a Remain campaigner who said that, early on, they wanted a list of five good things about the EU. And they couldn't think of any.
Without intending to be unkind to anyone I'm about to cite - these were the impressions they left me with.
@foxinsoxuk - my NHS paperwork will be harder if we Brexit.
@SouthamObserver - my sales conferences will be a bit more difficult to organise if we Brexit, but I manage fine outside the EU
@TOPPING - my City investments may be adversely effected and I'm really well off BTW
@Richard_Nabavi - I'm far too clever for all this and agree with Topping
@felix - I'm an expat living in Spain and you should do what suits me personally - and you're all stupid if you don't
@edmundintokyo - I've lived in Tokyo for a very long time, and talk a lot about ideal theoretical models re immigration and liberal politics. I have no idea what living in the UK is like bar a flying visit home.
I didn't see many convincing reasons to Remain in the EU in their posts.
I see an awful lot of bottled up hate you got there. Great to see you getting rid of it by implying a whole load of us said things we didn't.. Has your application for Britain first gone through yet?
Mr. Felix, have a re-read of Miss Plato's post. What she said was "These are the impressions I got". Blaming the receiver for not understanding the message you sent is crackers. Getting feedback is healthy, one can of course choose to ignore it or even lash out at the giver (feedback is a gift), but only a complete knob would do that.
Oh I understand exactly what she was doing. Ms Plato enjoys being snide and unpleasant about other posters but dislikes intensely responses in kind. Her impressions are of zero interest to me as I have a clear understanding of where she is coming from. But let me thank you for being so charming in your lecture. I hope you find my feedback helpful.
I do indeed, Mr. Felix. I always take note of feedback.
Since the start of the DNC Hillary has gained 3 points among democrats, and 1 among all adults. At the same point in time of the RNC Trump had gained 5 among republicans and 2 among all adults.
Hillary's bounce so far is about half the size of Trump's, which should give her a lead of around 1 point or less in the national polls on average.
This muddles point B on my list, I don't know if a 1 point or less lead qualifies as an actual lead or a tie.
The before-after is missing, Trump got a 13% increase, how much did Hillary get ?
I think the positive impression is fair. But it doesn't record just how positive. Her speech was OK. But having watched most of the key speeches over four days of the DNC, the most striking thing is that almost all of the main warm up acts for Hillary were far more interesting, passionate, persuasive speakers than she managed to be. If anything they just raised expectations that she didn't really meet.
Nevertheless you could argue that US politics is, in this respect only, rather 'old fashioned' in that being able to sway an audience with a passionate emotional speech on the stump is still a key capability for any aspiring candidate, as it was in times long gone for the UK.
Hillary Clinton is a mediocre speechmaker. Bill Clinton and Barak Obama are possibly the two best speechmakers of recent times. She is bound to pale in comparison.
The before-after is missing, Trump got a 13% increase, how much did Hillary get ?
I think the positive impression is fair. But it doesn't record just how positive. Her speech was OK. But having watched most of the key speeches over four days of the DNC, the most striking thing is that almost all of the main warm up acts for Hillary were far more interesting, passionate, persuasive speakers than she managed to be. If anything they just raised expectations that she didn't really meet.
Nevertheless you could argue that US politics is, in this respect only, rather 'old fashioned' in that being able to sway an audience with a passionate emotional speech on the stump is still a key capability for any aspiring candidate, as it was in times long gone for the UK.
I don't know. The reason why i'm focusing on the before after numbers is that the convention audience always skews partisan.
For instance 60% of the audience already had a positive impression about Trump before he spoke, then it rose to 73% after he spoke, so his speech provided results.
We don't know the numbers about Hillary before she spoke, thus we don't know it's impact.
But what we do know is that the DNC has so far much less of a positive impact than the RNC. In both tracking polls Hillary has moved up only a single point so far.
We now have a three way fight between No.10 (Larry), the FCO (Palmerston) and HM Treasury (Gladstone). How apposite for the policy battles yet to come.
P.S. Does anyone know TM's attitude to moggies? Churchill was, famously, a great fan. Cameron if he had released that picture of working with Larry on his lap might have saved the Referendum. But what about the current PM?
Mr. Nunu, there was a piece for the Sunday Politics from a Remain campaigner who said that, early on, they wanted a list of five good things about the EU. And they couldn't think of any.
Without intending to be unkind to anyone I'm about to cite - these were the impressions they left me with.
@foxinsoxuk - my NHS paperwork will be harder if we Brexit.
@SouthamObserver - my sales conferences will be a bit more difficult to organise if we Brexit, but I manage fine outside the EU
@TOPPING - my City investments may be adversely effected and I'm really well off BTW
@Richard_Nabavi - I'm far too clever for all this and agree with Topping
@felix - I'm an expat living in Spain and you should do what suits me personally - and you're all stupid if you don't
@edmundintokyo - I've lived in Tokyo for a very long time, and talk a lot about ideal theoretical models re immigration and liberal politics. I have no idea what living in the UK is like bar a flying visit home.
I didn't see many convincing reasons to Remain in the EU in their posts.
I see an awful lot of bottled up hate you got there. Great to see you getting rid of it by implying a whole load of us said things we didn't.. Has your application for Britain first gone through yet?
Mr. Felix, have a re-read of Miss Plato's post. What she said was "These are the impressions I got". Blaming the receiver for not understanding the message you sent is crackers. Getting feedback is healthy, one can of course choose to ignore it or even lash out at the giver (feedback is a gift), but only a complete knob would do that.
Oh I understand exactly what she was doing. Ms Plato enjoys being snide and unpleasant about other posters but dislikes intensely responses in kind. Her impressions are of zero interest to me as I have a clear understanding of where she is coming from. But let me thank you for being so charming in your lecture. I hope you find my feedback helpful.
I do indeed, Mr. Felix. I always take note of feedback.
I do enjoy Mr Felix posts - and his insults. I never return them because I don't think they're interesting enough to bother with. For a man who says he was a Headmaster before retiring, I'm just glad he wasn't mine.
Since the start of the DNC Hillary has gained 3 points among democrats, and 1 among all adults. At the same point in time of the RNC Trump had gained 5 among republicans and 2 among all adults.
Hillary's bounce so far is about half the size of Trump's, which should give her a lead of around 1 point or less in the national polls on average.
This muddles point B on my list, I don't know if a 1 point or less lead qualifies as an actual lead or a tie.
Am I reading this right? That looks like a tiny bump? How are Gallup accuracy wise?
I saw a great summary of Primary pollsters that had WSJ/NBC/Fox as the top rated a month or so back. Many liberals don't like Fox results because of the brand, not because of their accuracy.
A thread on US pollsters would be superb. There's so many. Quinthingy aren't viewed as much from my reading.
The before-after is missing, Trump got a 13% increase, how much did Hillary get ?
I think the positive impression is fair. But it doesn't record just how positive. Her speech was OK. But having watched most of the key speeches over four days of the DNC, the most striking thing is that almost all of the main warm up acts for Hillary were far more interesting, passionate, persuasive speakers than she managed to be. If anything they just raised expectations that she didn't really meet.
Nevertheless you could argue that US politics is, in this respect only, rather 'old fashioned' in that being able to sway an audience with a passionate emotional speech on the stump is still a key capability for any aspiring candidate, as it was in times long gone for the UK.
I don't know. The reason why i'm focusing on the before after numbers is that the convention audience always skews partisan.
For instance 60% of the audience already had a positive impression about Trump before he spoke, then it rose to 73% after he spoke, so his speech provided results.
We don't know the numbers about Hillary before she spoke, thus we don't know it's impact.
But what we do know is that the DNC has so far much less of a positive impact than the RNC. In both tracking polls Hillary has moved up only a single point so far.
They changed the questions, which was very unhelpful. The one that you can assess change is 'how will the speech affect your vote'. now these are partisans so it will always be 'more likely' after the speech but Trump had +46 and Clinton +54.
We now have a three way fight between No.10 (Larry), the FCO (Palmerston) and HM Treasury (Gladstone). How apposite for the policy battles yet to come.
P.S. Does anyone know TM's attitude to moggies? Churchill was, famously, a great fan. Cameron if he had released that picture of working with Larry on his lap might have saved the Referendum. But what about the current PM?
Since the start of the DNC Hillary has gained 3 points among democrats, and 1 among all adults. At the same point in time of the RNC Trump had gained 5 among republicans and 2 among all adults.
Hillary's bounce so far is about half the size of Trump's, which should give her a lead of around 1 point or less in the national polls on average.
This muddles point B on my list, I don't know if a 1 point or less lead qualifies as an actual lead or a tie.
Am I reading this right? That looks like a tiny bump? How are Gallup accuracy wise?
I saw a great summary of Primary pollsters that had WSJ/NBC/Fox as the top rated a month or so back. Many liberals don't like Fox results because of the brand, not because of their accuracy.
A thread on US pollsters would be superb. There's so many. Quinthingy aren't viewed as much from my reading.
Well Gallup is the fastest to record any changes but are releasing only favourable numbers on their daily tracker.
A 2 point bounce for Hillary would actually match the bounce that democrats get since 2004.
Literally on the RCP average every democratic nominee gets a 2-2.5 point bounce since the 2004 election, no more no less. And every republican nominee gets 4-4.5 points since 2004, except Romney who got far less.
So if Trump got a 4 point bounce and Hillary a 2 point bounce it will be a typical post 2000 convention result.
Since the start of the DNC Hillary has gained 3 points among democrats, and 1 among all adults. At the same point in time of the RNC Trump had gained 5 among republicans and 2 among all adults.
Hillary's bounce so far is about half the size of Trump's, which should give her a lead of around 1 point or less in the national polls on average.
This muddles point B on my list, I don't know if a 1 point or less lead qualifies as an actual lead or a tie.
Am I reading this right? That looks like a tiny bump? How are Gallup accuracy wise?
I saw a great summary of Primary pollsters that had WSJ/NBC/Fox as the top rated a month or so back. Many liberals don't like Fox results because of the brand, not because of their accuracy.
A thread on US pollsters would be superb. There's so many. Quinthingy aren't viewed as much from my reading.
Quinnipiac tend to do well when the Dems are doing well - i.e. they overstate the Dems when they are doing badly, but not so much when they are doing well. Likewise, Rasmussen, with the except of a blip after Scott was kicked out, overstate the GOP, except when it is a wave year for them. In 2010 they got pretty close to the result, but were hopeless in 2012.
None, as far as I know, have a consistently good record until you get down to the specialists in the state contests. The lady who forecasts Iowa, Ann Selzer, and the the Las Vegas Review/Journal, for example, have great records for their local races.
They think he is bonkers, and they are right. the very idea of Trump as President is unimaginable
So you agree with them, and you would be horrified at a Trump victory
.
Once again, you are repeating your opinion as a non US citizen of who you'd prefer to win and why.
Totally irrelevant. But it does show why he's still betting value.
But surely many Americans are bonkers? So all bets are off.
After all how many self respecting European politicians and political activists would spent four days in a hall waving dumb placards and chanting dumb slogans as instructed by their party bosses? I remember in the 1990s when there were some half hearted attempts to make British conferences more like the American ones, and it just didn't work.
I wish I could laugh at your comment as ironic. Alas, I think you're displaying the most telling liberal snootery as if Americans were all ignorant dullards who live in trailer parks and live in Jesusland unless they agree with your views. Shame on you.
Perhaps a dose of intellectual liberal objectivity will help to broaden your mind.
I can see that you're on a mission to put many of the regular posters into some kind of box today, but I'm not willing to submit so easily.
The TED was an interesting listen, so thank you for the share.
I don't think that anyone spending four days watching the DNC could possibly conclude that they all come from "trailer parks and Jesusland", (although there were certainly indicators of how different the US is from both the UK and most of Europe). That wasn't my impression at all.
The fact remains - and I assert it as a fact having attended a lot of party conferences over many years - that few British political activists would be willing to accept something run as either the DNC or RNC, and it is interesting to speculate as to why.
One interesting comment I picked up from the US commentary was the suggestion on PBS that many of the Sanders supporters had paid for their own travel and accommodation, offered as an explanation for their willingness to use the convention to advance their viewpoint even at the expense of disrupting proceedings. This observation implied that most of the other delegates were having their expenses paid for. If so, this is a significant difference from UK politics where almost all of the delegates pay their own costs, and therefore perhaps expect a bit more than simply being cheerleaders-on-order for their party?
No guarantee at all Juppe will be the candidate, the LR primary will be determined on a much lower turnout than the presidential election itself mainly by right-wing voters, they may well prefer Sarkozy, especially in the current climate with his tough talking anti terror message. Even if Juppe does win the nomination Sarkozy is enough of a narcissist and egomaniac to run in round one against him anyway
No guarantee at all Juppe will be the candidate, the LR primary will be determined on a much lower turnout than the presidential election itself mainly by right-wing voters, they may well prefer Sarkozy, especially in the current climate with his tough talking anti terror message. Even if Juppe does win the nomination Sarkozy is enough of a narcissist and egomaniac to run in round one against him anyway
HYUFD has spoken: Juppe obviously has it in the bag.
@PlatoSaid So because transgender people facing discrimination only effects a small part of the population we shouldn't care about it? Racism may well only affect a minority of the population too, but we should still care about it. And tbh Plato, I couldn't care less whether I impress you or not. And you are one to talk when it comes to being partisan and biased, I have to say.
It seems everybody and their dog bleats about discrimination nowadays , what happened to the good old world where you had only women and men. Now you seem to have all sorts of halfwits offended about evberything , get on with their lives and leave other people to do the same. Useless name tags and bollox is what I say.
Comments
Leaving personalities aside, there was no positive case made as to why we should stay in. Nobody from the PM downwards came up with positive arguments, it was nearly all how we would be worse off financially and how we would lose influence (backed up by some very dodgy statistics). As most people have got not much in the first place and don't see the Uk as having much influence anyway (not least because politicians like Cameron have spent decades telling us we can't do X because the EU won't let us), it was not campaign that would change minds.
HMtQ got it right, again. When she asked the great and the good for three good reasons to stay in what she got back was, "Er...". The same answer she got when she asked after the financial crash, "Why didn't anyone see this coming?"
What struck me the most about the vote, and I have mentioned this on here before, were the people I saw at the polling station. People from the council estate who I know never normally vote ("what's the point the tories always get in around here") were turning out to have their say for once. A clever political party would be working out how to keep those folk engaged, none are of course.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/mason-dixon-24994
We're constantly being asked to be alarmed or concerned or outraged about something. In reality, we are collectively the most cosseted generations in history. We have the luxury of discontent about small issues.
Edited extra bit: think it's a few months out, but right now the Austrian rightwing presidential candidate is narrowly leading in the polls.
The ex-Green chap may need some more 150% turnout to help him over the line...
If you want to play to the Venn diagram of Identity Politics with me - do feel free.
Really? What a very silly comment. For a student of politics - you're disappointing me greatly. I'm not seeing anything but partisan bias in your analysis of issues.
If Juppe is the Les Republicains candidate (which he will be), then Bayrou will not stand in the French Presidential election. The polls show him have a consistent 6-8% lead over Le Pen in the first round. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
In response to TA, I have no confidence that the NUS clique are capable of producing real change or results on any issue, or advancing any cause, should they hit upon something worthwhile.
If you don't work, don't pay income taxes, don't own a home, don't pay rent or a mortgage, don't get married, don't have children - how much of it really affects you?
It is paying bills, spending your life working, having children and developing proper relationships that drives up the motivation to vote and switches our key interests away from utopian policies.
Corbyn is much beloved by those who extend puberty - and avoid employment - into their mid 20s.
Hint: it won't.
It was balm to my soul to realise that I wasn't a pervert or freak, that others felt the same way - and that there was help available.
The Internet wasn't invented to make me feel better, it was simply a beneficial side effect. It's almost impossible to conceive how isolated and ignorant it was possible to be in pre-Web days. However, as an older TG, I do find the debate over 'zie' and so on incomprehensible. Of course, the generation gap has always existed - this is just its latest manifestation.
That being said: I think Le Pen could beat Hollande in a match up. I just can't see how Hollande could end up in the last two.
Disclosure, I am 29, and have become sharply grumpy with some of the 18-24 demographic.
It's something I simply can't compute. It's wilful blindness - and deserves all it gets.
Same with Japan really.
Even if the eiffel tower is blown up the french will still vote for more of the same.
However, where I do get a bit grumpy is when I am asked to be alarmed/concerned/outraged over small matters whilst fecking great elephants are stamping around the room and being ignored by those in charge.
P.S. I finished reading that paper on nuclear power you put up and once upon a time I would have been jolly cross. The spineless tossers in government over the decades have royally cocked up on every level. Maybe the SMR scheme might rescue us but I expect the wankers in the Department of Energy (or whatever it is called this week) will manage to make a pigs' breakfast of it.
Without intending to be unkind to anyone I'm about to cite - these were the impressions they left me with.
@foxinsoxuk - my NHS paperwork will be harder if we Brexit.
@SouthamObserver - my sales conferences will be a bit more difficult to organise if we Brexit, but I manage fine outside the EU
@TOPPING - my City investments may be adversely effected and I'm really well off BTW
@Richard_Nabavi - I'm far too clever for all this and agree with Topping
@felix - I'm an expat living in Spain and you should do what suits me personally - and you're all stupid if you don't
@edmundintokyo - I've lived in Tokyo for a very long time, and talk a lot about ideal theoretical models re immigration and liberal politics. I have no idea what living in the UK is like bar a flying visit home.
I didn't see many convincing reasons to Remain in the EU in their posts.
Miss P. you forgot Mr. Meeks', "I was open to persuasion but the people who support leave are all ghastly oiks and I can't bear to be associated with them"
-------------------------------------------
The Prime Minister himself was reduced to the pathetic expedient of going round to his MPs arguing for remain on the basis that 'leave would be such a faff' (a feeble argument echoed on here as well).
Hardly likely to inspire.
This is my main reason for scepticism re Labour's future. What are they for? Harking back to WW2 era fossils and the 70s is just bizarre. They've tried being Tories and now that's *spit*.
Until they decide what their purpose is beyond crying for handouts and identity politics - I can't see the point.
After all how many self respecting European politicians and political activists would spent four days in a hall waving dumb placards and chanting dumb slogans as instructed by their party bosses? I remember in the 1990s when there were some half hearted attempts to make British conferences more like the American ones, and it just didn't work.
Mr. Eagles, for example, has a grasp of classical history not unlike a seven year old [in need of private tuition].
Every president of France since 1981 has been investigated by the authorities.
And yet you can't say that the french as a people are more corrupt than their southern neighbours, and we wonder why europe is going down the tubes for a long time now.
If only everyone was like you - everything would be perfect. Jeez.
Relatively speaking, we _are_ all accessing that wealth. Some have certainly done better than others, but the GINI coefficient has been broadly neutral for the last twenty years and we are collectively far more wealthy than in the sixties and seventies (which for obvious reasons forms my personal baseline).
Sometimes its just worth looking back a few years to see how far we've come. Where we agree is that there's more to be done.
Returning to transgender topics, Wales has no formal GIC. Referrals were always to Charing Cross. That's so overstretched that someone my age would have no reasonable expectation of getting any treatment at all.
Fortunately, a couple of medical folk in Newport have created a quasi-GIC and now the waiting list for treatment is less than a year. In the mean time, 48% of adolescent TGs attempt suicide and more than half are treated for depression and associated disorders. Not a great picture.
If the high street banks could get away with reducing their footprint by 50% they would jump at the chance.
Since it's very unlikely that in the period Trump went up and was leading nationally that he slumped 10 points in any particular state, i'm calling Mason Dixon a severe outlier.
I'm waiting for Shami to become a peer despite Oh Golly What Little Me? protestations.
Just round out my point, before everyone starts rolling their eyes and tapping their feet, transgender issues are important. We do have to bear in mind that there are around 16,000 people in the UK either in, or waiting for, treatment.
I don't doubt that there are more that have yet to pluck up the courage to talk to their GPs, or cope in their own way in some other fashion. However, TG people are relatively uncommon. I would never expect to be prioritised over oncology or ante-natal care. That's why government is hard; you're always trading off against a range of public goods. Here endeth the sermon
But it's not my table to correct it.
Meow! Probably the most vicious comment I have seen on this site for many years.
Nevertheless you could argue that US politics is, in this respect only, rather 'old fashioned' in that being able to sway an audience with a passionate emotional speech on the stump is still a key capability for any aspiring candidate, as it was in times long gone for the UK.
Perhaps a dose of intellectual liberal objectivity will help to broaden your mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc
http://www.gallup.com/poll/189299/presidential-election-2016-key-indicators.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles
But she's not moving with all adults.
Since the start of the DNC Hillary has gained 3 points among democrats, and 1 among all adults.
At the same point in time of the RNC Trump had gained 5 among republicans and 2 among all adults.
Hillary's bounce so far is about half the size of Trump's, which should give her a lead of around 1 point or less in the national polls on average.
This muddles point B on my list, I don't know if a 1 point or less lead qualifies as an actual lead or a tie.
The reason why i'm focusing on the before after numbers is that the convention audience always skews partisan.
For instance 60% of the audience already had a positive impression about Trump before he spoke, then it rose to 73% after he spoke, so his speech provided results.
We don't know the numbers about Hillary before she spoke, thus we don't know it's impact.
But what we do know is that the DNC has so far much less of a positive impact than the RNC.
In both tracking polls Hillary has moved up only a single point so far.
Edited extra bit: incidentally, do let me know what you think about the thingummyjig I sent you, when you've got a minute.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/gladstone-the-cat-comes-to-government---but-will-he-get-along-wi/
And a very handsome fellow he is
We now have a three way fight between No.10 (Larry), the FCO (Palmerston) and HM Treasury (Gladstone). How apposite for the policy battles yet to come.
P.S. Does anyone know TM's attitude to moggies? Churchill was, famously, a great fan. Cameron if he had released that picture of working with Larry on his lap might have saved the Referendum. But what about the current PM?
And amazingly he looks younger now than 30 years ago.
I saw a great summary of Primary pollsters that had WSJ/NBC/Fox as the top rated a month or so back. Many liberals don't like Fox results because of the brand, not because of their accuracy.
A thread on US pollsters would be superb. There's so many. Quinthingy aren't viewed as much from my reading.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/londons-tourism-bonanza-after-brexit-vote-a3307491.html
A 2 point bounce for Hillary would actually match the bounce that democrats get since 2004.
Literally on the RCP average every democratic nominee gets a 2-2.5 point bounce since the 2004 election, no more no less.
And every republican nominee gets 4-4.5 points since 2004, except Romney who got far less.
So if Trump got a 4 point bounce and Hillary a 2 point bounce it will be a typical post 2000 convention result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJjMnHoIBI
None, as far as I know, have a consistently good record until you get down to the specialists in the state contests. The lady who forecasts Iowa, Ann Selzer, and the the Las Vegas Review/Journal, for example, have great records for their local races.
The TED was an interesting listen, so thank you for the share.
I don't think that anyone spending four days watching the DNC could possibly conclude that they all come from "trailer parks and Jesusland", (although there were certainly indicators of how different the US is from both the UK and most of Europe). That wasn't my impression at all.
The fact remains - and I assert it as a fact having attended a lot of party conferences over many years - that few British political activists would be willing to accept something run as either the DNC or RNC, and it is interesting to speculate as to why.
One interesting comment I picked up from the US commentary was the suggestion on PBS that many of the Sanders supporters had paid for their own travel and accommodation, offered as an explanation for their willingness to use the convention to advance their viewpoint even at the expense of disrupting proceedings. This observation implied that most of the other delegates were having their expenses paid for. If so, this is a significant difference from UK politics where almost all of the delegates pay their own costs, and therefore perhaps expect a bit more than simply being cheerleaders-on-order for their party?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
Hillary did not get any boost from Kaine, as I predicted he fell flat.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/189299/presidential-election-2016-key-indicators.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles