politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As ICM reports another gigantic CON lead Number 10 moves to sq

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Third World usually being code these days for "Africa".

When one looks at the problems places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria have so much of it comes down to inter-community conflict, war, poor law and order, and atrociously bad Government.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria could all develop very quickly were they to be properly run.

Given the amount of oil it has, Nigeria could be a pretty wealthy country.

Could have been a wealthy country. I rather think it is too late now. South Africa seems to be following the Zimbabwe route as is Kenya.

Tissue_Price said:

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

My original comment on this is that people with £70m (!) could personally do something, become a philanthropist .Set up a business and employ the people in a third world country a la Bournville in the UK, build a village for £50m, these are top of the head thoughts, and wil be no doubt forensically ridiculed by beauraucrats, but rather than give money, do something with it. A mini Bill Gates perhaps.

Yes there's def the teach a man to fish thing, which I agree with (who wouldn't) but it is fraught with difficulties and unintended consequences.

Let's just say I am an Easterly-ite and not a Sachs-ite. (Linda Polman is good on aid also.)

Give a man a fish, and he eats for one day.

Teach a man to fish, and he'll vote UKIP in protest at the EU Common Fisheries Policy.

Give a man a Poisson process, and he'll eat at random yet underlyingly predictable times for ever.

Teach a man to fish and he'll never go hungry

Teach a man to fish for compliments and he becomes vain and insufferable

(Wish there was a like button to let me see how many people that amused)

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:

notme said:

Casino_Royale said:

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

I got my new drivers licence the other day. Super impressed it has a union flag on it. It expires in 2019. Can't wait to get one sans the European Union flag.

I insisted to the dealership that the numberplate for my new Jaguar came without an EU flag on it.

And it didn't.

It did come with customised Union flag wheel badges, which I specifically ordered.

Why would you buy in ahead of the initial depreciation?

Because I wanted a brand new Jaguar customised exactly as I wanted it.

A car is a consumable to me, not an investment.

F1: as feared, the start times for qualifying and the race, respectively, are 6am and 5am. Bloody daft times.

BannedInParis said:

"It would require Labour support or at least abstention to get to the two thirds threshold. "

I think its written that abstentions count as no - i.e. it needs 434 positive votes for an election but humbly submit to someone who has read it more recently.

That is correct. Empty seats (e.g. seats waiting for a by election) also effectively count as no votes. The number of MPs voting in favour must be at least two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons.

SandyRentool said:

Yorkcity said:

SandyRentool said:

@david-herdson

Firstly, it is Teesside!!!

More seriously, Teesside isn't a shoo-in for Labour, there are plenty of Tory voting areas within the boundaries of the mayoral election so it could be lost, just like Stockton South (which swung further blue in 2015).

As for Labour losing all our English councils, if we lose control of Durham, then that would be a total meltdown.

I am expecting us to lose all of our seats on North Yorkshire. Just a hunch, not based on data analysis.

Can not believe you have any in North Yorkshire .The only red dot on the North Yorkshire map is York.

7 out of 72

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yorkshire_County_Council

Cheers Sandy surprised at that .Thought York was the only place .

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Third World usually being code these days for "Africa".

When one looks at the problems places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria have so much of it comes down to inter-community conflict, war, poor law and order, and atrociously bad Government.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria could all develop very quickly were they to be properly run.

Given the amount of oil it has, Nigeria could be a pretty wealthy country.

= the resource curse.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

isam said:

Tissue_Price said:

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

My original comment on this is that people with £70m (!) could personally do something, become a philanthropist .Set up a business and employ the people in a third world country a la Bournville in the UK, build a village for £50m, these are top of the head thoughts, and wil be no doubt forensically ridiculed by beauraucrats, but rather than give money, do something with it. A mini Bill Gates perhaps.

Yes there's def the teach a man to fish thing, which I agree with (who wouldn't) but it is fraught with difficulties and unintended consequences.

Let's just say I am an Easterly-ite and not a Sachs-ite. (Linda Polman is good on aid also.)

Give a man a fish, and he eats for one day.

Teach a man to fish, and he'll vote UKIP in protest at the EU Common Fisheries Policy.

Give a man a Poisson process, and he'll eat at random yet underlyingly predictable times for ever.

Teach a man to fish and he'll never go hungry

Teach a man to fish for compliments and he becomes vain and insufferable

(Wish there was a like button to let me see how many people that amused)

Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat drinking beer all day.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Do you think there is an ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to charity/good causes of some kind?

I tend to think there is... But it's not an obligation i can honestly say i live up to.

One should give what one can afford.

Or, one should buy what one needs to in order to achieve a clear conscience.

I know one individual who (only half-jokingly) subscribes £2-£3 a month to an animal rescue, famine relief, cancer/heart disease, domestic violence/homelessness charity, as well as mental health and the National Trust, on the basis that they've thereby "covered all the bases".

I have to say I am much more likely to give money to a natural disaster like Haiti than something which looks to be man made (whether due to war, dictatorship or overpopulation)

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Do you think there is an ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to charity/good causes of some kind?

I tend to think there is... But it's not an obligation i can honestly say i live up to.

One should give what one can afford.

Or, one should buy what one needs to in order to achieve a clear conscience.

I know one individual who (only half-jokingly) subscribes £2-£3 a month to an animal rescue, famine relief, cancer/heart disease, domestic violence/homelessness charity, as well as mental health and the National Trust, on the basis that they've thereby "covered all the bases".

The absurdity of modern life and "want" culture. Two things that really brought this home to me are the book "Enough" by John Naish, and the story "Those who walk away from Omelas" by Ursula Le Guin

A couple of months ago I was buying a new pair of running shoes.. I decided on a pair of asics that were blue with yellow stripe.. £80.. they had the same pair in blue with an orange stripe for £50, and I almost paid the extra £30 because I slightly preferred the yellow. When you think of what £30 would man to some people that is absurd! It shows what effect our culture has. When faced with choices like that I think we should bu the cheaper option and give the difference to charity (although I don't think I did that)

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MTimT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

To use a well known psephological term, Lab under Corbyn are fucked. The next GE will the electoral equivalent of the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

Jenkins' Ear?

TSE's point is that The Zanzibar war lasted all of 38 minutes

And Zanzibar was required to pay for the shells lobbed at it. That would at least be one way to avoid another election expenses scandal.

MTimT said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Well of course if you fly in and drop $1,000 on some poor unfortunate it works very well. For him. Likewise fair trade works very well for fair trade producers. But an alternative strategy is to make a transfer to government which can then determine the nation's priorities and spend accordingly. Of course this doesn't solve corruption (there is still plenty of it around) and generally foreign aid does best which goes to better run regimes. A further strategy is the one that @isam suggests which is to make direct transfers to (or found) individual private organisations (Water Aid is always a good example).

If you bring money into a place you become a stakeholder in whatever "system" exists there. If it's a bunch of warlords or corrupt officials you have to deal with them. You need to be clear that whatever outcomes you are looking for can be met and be justified.

A further option is not to give the money in direct aid but to seed public private partnerships that have a profit incentive but create sustainable growth and jobs in the target country. The key is to engage the recipient in deciding true priorities and to use trusted partners.

I am trying to recall something I read about a project with the diamond trade in the Congo, which is about as desperate a place as you can get. From what I remember, the aim was to get the local warlords on board with taxation and infrastructure. If they could agree on allowing roads and bridges to be built and to ensure they were kept clear and then take a tax on the trafficeveryone would benefit. There wouldn't be a lot of trust involved but the parties would have some shared objectives.

Further to your point, I know a bit about charity work in China. Local charities walk on eggshells in their relationship with government. But the locals understand how the system works - what you need to do, what you mustn't do and how to get round barriers. Outsiders would never have this knowledge.

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Third World usually being code these days for "Africa".

When one looks at the problems places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria have so much of it comes down to inter-community conflict, war, poor law and order, and atrociously bad Government.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria could all develop very quickly were they to be properly run.

Given the amount of oil it has, Nigeria could be a pretty wealthy country.

I have been to Nigeria as well.
I can understand why so many Nigerians emigrate. It's a country with great potential utterly ruined by incompetence,tribalism and corruption.

AndyJS said:

rkrkrk said:

malcolmg said:

TOPPING said:

rkrkrk said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

Economist article on conditional and unconditional cash transfers:
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-money-directly-poor-people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal

Throwing money (at the right people) surprisingly effective apparently.

There is definitely a debate to be had about how people in rich countries can help those much less fortunate.

But I'm unconvinced by those who say there's nothing i/we can do and that it's really much better to keep our own money/spend it on nice things for me and not give it to some kind of charitable organisation.

.

Money has been thrown at Africa for at least 50 years and it has had little impact, majority gets stolen , wasted or used for fat cat charities.
Only way is to fund and run the actual projects yourself otherwise it si money down the drain as we have seen.

The health gains in particular in Africa have been extraordinary over the last fifty years.
Things like the eradication of smallpox, near eradication of guinea worm, enormous reductions in diseases like polio, maternal mortality, infant mortality etc.

Simply couldn't have been done without foreign aid.

But there's an unsustainable population explosion taking place in Africa at the moment because the gains in heath haven't been matched by the expected reduction in fertility.

Give it time, with greater wealth comes lower population growth. If you're a bit richer you don't have to worry about providing children for your pension, of whom several may die before they can start working so best to over-compensate.

isam said:

One for the Lammyites/Osbrowns

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/843840809954885634

I doubt if the City or rich boroughs will be queuing up to be ruled by the London Labour Party.

Sean_F said:

isam said:

One for the Lammyites/Osbrowns

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/843840809954885634

I doubt if the City or rich boroughs will be queuing up to be ruled by the London Labour Party.

Depends if it was a city state like Sparta.

You could go round kicking emissaries from other city states/countries who annoy/threaten you by saying 'This is London'

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

isam said:

One for the Lammyites/Osbrowns

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/843840809954885634

I doubt if the City or rich boroughs will be queuing up to be ruled by the London Labour Party.

Depends if it was a city state like Sparta.

You could go round kicking emissaries from other city states/countries who annoy/threaten you by saying 'This is London'

Maybe they could extend the Corporation of London's system of enfranchisement across the whole of London.

Oh my

Sir Bill Cash said the government should “tactfully” remind the Germans that Britain helped to pay of half of German debt after the second world war. This was debt dating back to the Treaty of Versailles. He said this one reason why the UK should not have to pay the EU anything when it left. He said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Isam, Lammy's off his ****ing head.

Mr. Eagles, hmm. Possibly, although that's not what the BBC radio time is.

I'm going by Sky's adverts.

Show starts at 4.30am and race starts at 6am

http://www.skysports.com/f1/schedule-results

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

isam said:

One for the Lammyites/Osbrowns

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/843840809954885634

I doubt if the City or rich boroughs will be queuing up to be ruled by the London Labour Party.

Depends if it was a city state like Sparta.

You could go round kicking emissaries from other city states/countries who annoy/threaten you by saying 'This is London'

Lol.

I'm on team Osborne, but I'm deeply uncomfortable about this.

1) A newspaper edited by someone who is from the ruling party/recently the Finance minister is something you'd expect to see in Africa or communist states

2) Imagine if Michael Crick was working for the Standard, would he really bring the expenses story to Osborne?

HurstLlama said:

rkrkrk said:

The health gains in particular in Africa have been extraordinary over the last fifty years.
Things like the eradication of smallpox, near eradication of guinea worm, enormous reductions in diseases like polio, maternal mortality, infant mortality etc.

Simply couldn't have been done without foreign aid.

Who donated the money to achieve similar benefits in Europe/USA in the 19th and early 20th centuries? I am really not sure that saying third world countries cannot do anything for themselves is helpful.

To be sure we can and should help, but only when asked by the local governments. Furthermore, we should demand a price, not in terms of money, that the "ruling class" have to pay (e.g. why the feck should UK taxpayers be giving aid to a state that has nuclear arms is beyond me).

Who said third world countries can't do anything for themselves?

It's very very obvious though that more can be achieved when they are supported with resources and expertise. The pace of progress in poor countries has actually been quite a bit faster than in Europe.

Child mortality in Bangladesh fell from 341/1000 in 1950s to less than 50 today.
That same fall took nearly two hundred years in Sweden.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh my

Sir Bill Cash said the government should “tactfully” remind the Germans that Britain helped to pay of half of German debt after the second world war. This was debt dating back to the Treaty of Versailles. He said this one reason why the UK should not have to pay the EU anything when it left. He said:

We should tactfully pay some of the debt to the Germans with free DVDs of The Colditz Story, The Dambusters, the Great Escape, and the Battle of Britain.

Mr. Royale, at the end of a visit by German exchange students to my high school, the band finished a farewell concert by playing music from The Great Escape.

madasafish said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Third World usually being code these days for "Africa".

When one looks at the problems places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria have so much of it comes down to inter-community conflict, war, poor law and order, and atrociously bad Government.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria could all develop very quickly were they to be properly run.

Given the amount of oil it has, Nigeria could be a pretty wealthy country.

I have been to Nigeria as well.
I can understand why so many Nigerians emigrate. It's a country with great potential utterly ruined by incompetence,tribalism and corruption.

And is all that incompetence, tribalism and corruption some sort of Act of God or might it have something to do with how Nigerians themselves behave?

rkrkrk said:

HurstLlama said:

rkrkrk said:

The health gains in particular in Africa have been extraordinary over the last fifty years.
Things like the eradication of smallpox, near eradication of guinea worm, enormous reductions in diseases like polio, maternal mortality, infant mortality etc.

Simply couldn't have been done without foreign aid.

Who donated the money to achieve similar benefits in Europe/USA in the 19th and early 20th centuries? I am really not sure that saying third world countries cannot do anything for themselves is helpful.

To be sure we can and should help, but only when asked by the local governments. Furthermore, we should demand a price, not in terms of money, that the "ruling class" have to pay (e.g. why the feck should UK taxpayers be giving aid to a state that has nuclear arms is beyond me).

Who said third world countries can't do anything for themselves?

You did.

rkrkrk said:

HurstLlama said:

rkrkrk said:

The health gains in particular in Africa have been extraordinary over the last fifty years.
Things like the eradication of smallpox, near eradication of guinea worm, enormous reductions in diseases like polio, maternal mortality, infant mortality etc.

Simply couldn't have been done without foreign aid.

Who donated the money to achieve similar benefits in Europe/USA in the 19th and early 20th centuries? I am really not sure that saying third world countries cannot do anything for themselves is helpful.

To be sure we can and should help, but only when asked by the local governments. Furthermore, we should demand a price, not in terms of money, that the "ruling class" have to pay (e.g. why the feck should UK taxpayers be giving aid to a state that has nuclear arms is beyond me).

Who said third world countries can't do anything for themselves?

It's very very obvious though that more can be achieved when they are supported with resources and expertise. The pace of progress in poor countries has actually been quite a bit faster than in Europe.

Child mortality in Bangladesh fell from 341/1000 in 1950s to less than 50 today.
That same fall took nearly two hundred years in Sweden.

The fall in Sweden happened in no small part because it took time to develop the technology that facilitated that fall. That technology is already developed now.

HurstLlama said:

rkrkrk said:

HurstLlama said:

rkrkrk said:

The health gains in particular in Africa have been extraordinary over the last fifty years.
Things like the eradication of smallpox, near eradication of guinea worm, enormous reductions in diseases like polio, maternal mortality, infant mortality etc.

Simply couldn't have been done without foreign aid.

Who donated the money to achieve similar benefits in Europe/USA in the 19th and early 20th centuries? I am really not sure that saying third world countries cannot do anything for themselves is helpful.

To be sure we can and should help, but only when asked by the local governments. Furthermore, we should demand a price, not in terms of money, that the "ruling class" have to pay (e.g. why the feck should UK taxpayers be giving aid to a state that has nuclear arms is beyond me).

Who said third world countries can't do anything for themselves?

You did.

Nope.

Saying foreign aid was a necessary condition for enormous improvements in health

Does not mean

Nothing could have been achieved without foreign aid.

MarqueeMark said:

isam said:

One for the Lammyites/Osbrowns

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/843840809954885634

We're building a wall. And all those bankers from the leafy suburbs? Hundred pound a day admittance fee. And no, you can't take food in.

Oh, and we're damning the Thames. For shits and giggles. And so you have to fly everything into City Airport.

They'll need to get past the SAM sites at Barking first.

SandyRentool said:

Yorkcity said:

SandyRentool said:

Yorkcity said:

SandyRentool said:

@david-herdson

Firstly, it is Teesside!!!

More seriously, Teesside isn't a shoo-in for Labour, there are plenty of Tory voting areas within the boundaries of the mayoral election so it could be lost, just like Stockton South (which swung further blue in 2015).

As for Labour losing all our English councils, if we lose control of Durham, then that would be a total meltdown.

I am expecting us to lose all of our seats on North Yorkshire. Just a hunch, not based on data analysis.

Can not believe you have any in North Yorkshire .The only red dot on the North Yorkshire map is York.

7 out of 72

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yorkshire_County_Council

Cheers Sandy surprised at that .Thought York was the only place .

The one that surprises me is the Kipper representing a ward in Harrogate!

Yes very always thought Harrogate was true blue .Was a real shock when it went Lib Dem through the new labour years.

MarqueeMark said:

isam said:

One for the Lammyites/Osbrowns

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/843840809954885634

We're building a wall. And all those bankers from the leafy suburbs? Hundred pound a day admittance fee. And no, you can't take food in.

Oh, and we're damning the Thames. For shits and giggles. And so you have to fly everything into City Airport.

The exclusion zone is our Oyster!

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Tory lead before the spiral of silence adjustment was 21%

Pre spiral of silence adjustment, Scottish sub sample amusement

SNP 47% Con 30% Lab 12% LD 2% UKIP 4% Greens 5%

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_guardian_march17_poll2.pdf

Labour in Scotland on...... 12.

12.

That's terminal, I think. Has any major party ever come back from national polling that low?

Unless the SNP split over a lost referendum, or SLAB suddenly find an incredible, inspirational leader, Labour are finished north of the Border.

Sub sample old bean.

There's enough proper polling from Scotland showing Labour are buggered.

Mr. Mark, ahem. Live ammunition (excepting political figures in the space cannon) would be immoral.

MarqueeMark said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

MarqueeMark said:

isam said:

One for the Lammyites/Osbrowns

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/843840809954885634

We're building a wall. And all those bankers from the leafy suburbs? Hundred pound a day admittance fee. And no, you can't take food in.

Oh, and we're damning the Thames. For shits and giggles. And so you have to fly everything into City Airport.

They'll need to get past the SAM sites at Barking first.

And the trebuchets, lobbing in diseased animals.

I suppose they could re-commission HMS Belfast and shell Scratchwood in retaliation.

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Tory lead before the spiral of silence adjustment was 21%

Pre spiral of silence adjustment, Scottish sub sample amusement

SNP 47% Con 30% Lab 12% LD 2% UKIP 4% Greens 5%

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_guardian_march17_poll2.pdf

Labour in Scotland on...... 12.

12.

That's terminal, I think. Has any major party ever come back from national polling that low?

Unless the SNP split over a lost referendum, or SLAB suddenly find an incredible, inspirational leader, Labour are finished north of the Border.

Scottish Conservatives were once on 12 weren't they? Labour are now in the same position the Scottish Tories used to be.

SeanT said:

Casino_Royale said:

notme said:

Casino_Royale said:

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

I got my new drivers licence the other day. Super impressed it has a union flag on it. It expires in 2019. Can't wait to get one sans the European Union flag.

I insisted to the dealership that the numberplate for my new Jaguar came without an EU flag on it.

And it didn't.

It did come with customised Union flag wheel badges, which I specifically ordered.

I have to renew my passport next year. I am genuinely intrigued to know what it will look like. They surely can't keep printing the old EU passports, which will be obsolete a year later.

I expect they probably will until we are out.

I would expect an announcement on new passports prior to GE2020, however.

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Tory lead before the spiral of silence adjustment was 21%

Pre spiral of silence adjustment, Scottish sub sample amusement

SNP 47% Con 30% Lab 12% LD 2% UKIP 4% Greens 5%

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_guardian_march17_poll2.pdf

Labour in Scotland on...... 12.

12.

That's terminal, I think. Has any major party ever come back from national polling that low?

Unless the SNP split over a lost referendum, or SLAB suddenly find an incredible, inspirational leader, Labour are finished north of the Border.

Sub sample old bean.

There's enough proper polling from Scotland showing Labour are buggered.

Of course. But as you say, proper polling is almost as grim.

Makes you wonder, if Corbyn/Labour is polling that badly in Scotland, where you think Corbynism would be the most popular, just how badly Corbyn is polling in England, especially in the marginals.

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Tory lead before the spiral of silence adjustment was 21%

Pre spiral of silence adjustment, Scottish sub sample amusement

SNP 47% Con 30% Lab 12% LD 2% UKIP 4% Greens 5%

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_guardian_march17_poll2.pdf

Labour in Scotland on...... 12.

12.

That's terminal, I think. Has any major party ever come back from national polling that low?

Unless the SNP split over a lost referendum, or SLAB suddenly find an incredible, inspirational leader, Labour are finished north of the Border.

Sub sample old bean.

There's enough proper polling from Scotland showing Labour are buggered.

Of course. But as you say, proper polling is almost as grim.

Makes you wonder, if Corbyn/Labour is polling that badly in Scotland, where you think Corbynism would be the most popular, just how badly Corbyn is polling in England, especially in the marginals.

Inner London surely is where Corbynism is expected to be most popular?

david_herdson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. T, it's a subsample, though.

Still can't quite believe what an absolute ****ing idiot Lammy is.

It's a subsample which is entirely in line with plenty of other Scottish subsamples. In fact, it's slightly higher than at least one. I've seen an 11 reported for Scot Lab before.

Once SLAB no doubt start kicking out any members who publicly express support for independence (or even another ref !!) - then they will touch their true low point. Even the SCON are going to need to be careful with how they handle their small band of independence supporters.

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

Casino_Royale said:

notme said:

Casino_Royale said:

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

I got my new drivers licence the other day. Super impressed it has a union flag on it. It expires in 2019. Can't wait to get one sans the European Union flag.

I insisted to the dealership that the numberplate for my new Jaguar came without an EU flag on it.

And it didn't.

It did come with customised Union flag wheel badges, which I specifically ordered.

I have to renew my passport next year. I am genuinely intrigued to know what it will look like. They surely can't keep printing the old EU passports, which will be obsolete a year later.

I'd have thought that if we leave the EU on say 29 March 2019 then it is entirely possible that a passport printed on 28 March 2019 would still have the EU flag on it. Until we're out, we remain in.

Our passports don't have the EU flag on them now.

HurstLlama said:

Yorkcity said:

Corbyn is doing a marvellous job.He has moved the overton window.This by getting the conservative government to implement part of the 1983 Labour manifesto , leave the EU , threaten the house of lord's ,nationalise banks national minimum wage, abolish fox hunting.Not bad really.

Mr. City, Nick Palmer posted on here a few years ago that much of Kinnock's manifesto of the 1980s had now been achieved, mostly through or at least with the consent of Conservative MPs.

Yes I would not argue with that.The conservative leadership, maybe not so much supporters ,who just have to follow , are very pragmatic and that is why so successful .

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

SeanT said:

Casino_Royale said:

notme said:

Casino_Royale said:

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

I got my new drivers licence the other day. Super impressed it has a union flag on it. It expires in 2019. Can't wait to get one sans the European Union flag.

I insisted to the dealership that the numberplate for my new Jaguar came without an EU flag on it.

And it didn't.

It did come with customised Union flag wheel badges, which I specifically ordered.

I have to renew my passport next year. I am genuinely intrigued to know what it will look like. They surely can't keep printing the old EU passports, which will be obsolete a year later.

The design of passports (in terms of size, features, layout, RFID) is set internationally, so that will likely not change at all. The European Union is only mentioned in two places: on the front cover in a smaller font than UNITED KINGDOM, and on page three (again in relatively small font). I would expect that your passport will lose those two references to the EU next year.

Now, will it go black? Of course, there is nothing to stop the UK having a black passport now. Croatia, for example, is in the EU and has very dark blue passport. My guess is that by 2020 we'll probably return to black, but otherwise the design (other than losing the words "European Union") will be absolutely the same as it is now.

Perhaps the Government will call it FREE STATE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, with a motif of two dead Frenchmen lying on top of a pile of dead Frenchmen.

"Free State" and "Kingdom" are a bit contradictory.

Michel Barnier prepares the EU to call the government's bluff on hard Brexit.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/843833525652676608

rcs1000 said:

SeanT said:

Casino_Royale said:

notme said:

Casino_Royale said:

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

I got my new drivers licence the other day. Super impressed it has a union flag on it. It expires in 2019. Can't wait to get one sans the European Union flag.

I insisted to the dealership that the numberplate for my new Jaguar came without an EU flag on it.

And it didn't.

It did come with customised Union flag wheel badges, which I specifically ordered.

I have to renew my passport next year. I am genuinely intrigued to know what it will look like. They surely can't keep printing the old EU passports, which will be obsolete a year later.

The design of passports (in terms of size, features, layout, RFID) is set internationally, so that will likely not change at all. The European Union is only mentioned in two places: on the front cover in a smaller font than UNITED KINGDOM, and on page three (again in relatively small font). I would expect that your passport will lose those two references to the EU next year.

Now, will it go black? Of course, there is nothing to stop the UK having a black passport now. Croatia, for example, is in the EU and has very dark blue passport. My guess is that by 2020 we'll probably return to black, but otherwise the design (other than losing the words "European Union") will be absolutely the same as it is now.

That's put a bit of a downer on it really. On PB this very morning, someone was citing the return of the Great British blue passports as one of the great prizes of Brexit.

SouthamObserver said:

This Momentum spokesperson is extraordinary.
https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/843826111242948609

Do you mean because you cant tell if she is a bloke? Looks a bit like the bass player out of the Jimi Hendrix Experience

Mr. 1000, Liechtenstein?

Mr. Eagles, that could well happen in Scotland. If the SNP tide receded, it should help Labour.

Yorkcity said:

Sean_F said:

Yorkcity said:

Corbyn is doing a marvellous job.He has moved the overton window.This by getting the conservative government to implement part of the 1983 Labour manifesto , leave the EU , threaten the house of lord's ,nationalise banks national minimum wage, abolish fox hunting.Not bad really.

Banks are still mostly privately owned, and fox hunting is still going strong.

Yes I know but to think any of this was unimaginable by many in 1983.

I doubt it. The number of industries and services owned and operated by the government in 1983 was huge. For a government - a future Labour one, presumably - to have taken over a bank wouldn't have been outside people's frame of reference.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, Liechtenstein?

Mr. Eagles, that could well happen in Scotland. If the SNP tide receded, it should help Labour.

Good guess, but no.

Re SLab, from a full sized poll.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/843856307815940101