Why would the people of Kensington vote Stop Brexit Alliance when they already have Stop Brexit Lib Dems? Doesn't make much sense at all.
Stop Brexit But Won't Increase My Taxes Party has more appeal
Only to people who are too stupid to see that any government will shortly be pushing up taxes, spending cuts having run out of road given the pressures on health, social care, defence, etc.
You voters are stupid is rarely a winning argument
I think you misunderstand my point. The point is that in current circumstances and with growing clouds on the horizon, any party putting forward a tax cutting programme (and I don't see any?) would simply not be credible.
I don't think it would be physically possible to shout that.
'STOP TRYING TO LIMIT HOW MUCH TIME I'M SPENDING ON THE DOORSTEP. I'M A DOORSTEP CAMPAIGNER AND FROM NOW ON I WANT TO SPEND PROPER TIME KNOCKING ON DOORS AND SEEING PEOPLE!'
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
Less than 200 seats was an historic nadir for the Tories. He couldn't win an election in 2010 in spite of the economic climate and 37% was his ceiling. I don't think Cameronism will be much of a political guide going forward.
Nevertheless the Tories' current polling success is a combination of:
- personality of the new PM - facing Corbyn and a divided Labour Party - UKIP's post-Brexit irrelevance - LibDems struggling to recover from 2015 collapse
Any other Tory leader would also have had three of these four advantages. How much difference do we think the first is making?
Tories would have struggled had Andrea Leadsom taken over from Cameron.
I don't think it would be physically possible to shout that.
'STOP TRYING TO LIMIT HOW MUCH TIME I'M SPENDING ON THE DOORSTEP. I'M A DOORSTEP CAMPAIGNER AND FROM NOW ON I WANT TO SPEND PROPER TIME KNOCKING ON DOORS AND SEEING PEOPLE!'
There you go.
I'm out of breath just reading that...
That's how I felt when I read your four quotes of @TheScreamingEagles. Was there a typing error or was it deliberate?
Why would the people of Kensington vote Stop Brexit Alliance when they already have Stop Brexit Lib Dems? Doesn't make much sense at all.
Stop Brexit But Won't Increase My Taxes Party has more appeal
Only to people who are too stupid to see that any government will shortly be pushing up taxes, spending cuts having run out of road given the pressures on health, social care, defence, etc.
You voters are stupid is rarely a winning argument
I think you misunderstand my point. The point is that in current circumstances and with growing clouds on the horizon, any party putting forward a tax cutting programme (and I don't see any?) would simply not be credible.
Jeremy Corbyn has said he will pay for free school meals and massively increase the number of school places without raising taxes, which amounts to the same thing.
He may not realise that's what he said because he had a policy to pay for it. It just happens to be completely unworkable.
He's also committed to borrowing £500 billion to invest it in, er, something.
Why would the people of Kensington vote Stop Brexit Alliance when they already have Stop Brexit Lib Dems? Doesn't make much sense at all.
Stop Brexit But Won't Increase My Taxes Party has more appeal
Only to people who are too stupid to see that any government will shortly be pushing up taxes, spending cuts having run out of road given the pressures on health, social care, defence, etc.
You voters are stupid is rarely a winning argument
I think you misunderstand my point. The point is that in current circumstances and with growing clouds on the horizon, any party putting forward a tax cutting programme (and I don't see any?) would simply not be credible.
There's quite of lot of room to manoeuvre in the government budget (e.g. Housing benefit, DfID, EU contributions etc)
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
So May's target to be a Cameron-style mediocrity or better is 464.
Even with the Jezziah, I have to say that looks a tall order.
I don't really understand this desire of some to judge Cameron and May against each other
They'd rather not talk about the polling
Most capable Prime Minister:
2017 May: 61 Corbyn: 23
2015 Cameron: 42 Miliband: 27
Despite Corbyn being only 4 points adrift of Miliband, May is nearly 20 points ahead of Cameron....
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP - the symbolism of them taking control of Glasgow City Council - would carry a lot of weight in Scotland:
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
Less than 200 seats was an historic nadir for the Tories. He couldn't win an election in 2010 in spite of the economic climate and 37% was his ceiling. I don't think Cameronism will be much of a political guide going forward.
Nevertheless the Tories' current polling success is a combination of:
- personality of the new PM - facing Corbyn and a divided Labour Party - UKIP's post-Brexit irrelevance - LibDems struggling to recover from 2015 collapse
Any other Tory leader would also have had three of these four advantages. How much difference do we think the first is making?
Tories would have struggled had Andrea Leadsom taken over from Cameron.
Certainly I agree that's true, if you throw a new negative in the mix. But my point really was the same as kle's - it's the circumstances that favour May rather than the contrast with Cameron per se. Although I do agree that Cameron would have done better with remainers and worse with leavers than May, so maybe ukip wouldn't have collapsed so quickly.
I would add to my four factors a fifth - the strength of the "give me a strong hand" pitch from the Tories which, again, any sensible Tory leader would have had.
So far May has been the beneficiary mostly of luck and good circumstance rather than her own decision-making, IMHO, except that she does appear to be a master of knowing when to keep a low profile.
The polls are plain wrong imho. They are not picking up something, somehow.
"Leaving aside the point that @TSE appears to have a particular personal loathing of May, and that consequently he might be regarded as being vulnerable to confirmation bias, how do we know she's "blowing huge Tory leads"? Is there an actual movement in public opinion towards Corbyn/Labour, or have the pollsters been fiddling their figures so that current surveys are incomparable with those that went before (we know that this is the case for at least one of the three pollsters who reported yesterday?) And how do we know that the pollsters have successfully corrected for their chronic problem with pro-Labour/anti-Tory bias, which has been ongoing, to various degrees, for decades?
As thinking, reasoning human beings, at some point we have to look at a result that looks wrong and say "this is wrong." This is regardless of the fact that some statisticians have interviewed a non-random sample of people, applied arbitrary corrections that they made up to correct for said non-randomness, and another arbitrary set of corrections to account for whether or not they will vote, and yet another arbitrary set of corrections to account for whether or not they are lying, and then made a proclamation from on high at the end. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong about everything, but when we think they are obviously wrong we need not hold back from saying "this is a load of bollocks, isn't it?"
All of these polls showing Labour rolling around 30% of the popular vote are obviously a load of bollocks. Labour managed just shy of 31% last time around, and whatever else was wrong with the party at the time it was not shambolic, hopelessly divided, or burdened with a leader who is both transparently unfit for high office and unwanted by most of his own MPs. There is no reason to suppose that Labour will match its levels of support last time, on this basis alone."
Black_Rook on PT.
Polls are self-selected data, and therefore bollocks. It's like Ptolemy and geocentricity, you can bolt on epicycles to save the phenomena, but it's all still balls. It might have worked in the good old days when spam phone calls were non-existent and everyone was polite and truthful, so if a well-spoken stranger rang you and asked you how you were gonna vote you told them. Nowadays you don't pick up because you don't recognise the number, or you pick up and snarl "Smell my spaniel, muthafucka" and put the phone down, or you say party X when the truth is party Y, to ginger party Y up and make X complacent. And have you ever done a Yougov? Self-selected panel, and you have to spend half an hour saying whether you use Fairy Liquid and how likely are you to recommend it to your family and friends, before you get to the politics. No one normal would do that more than once.
I don't think it would be physically possible to shout that.
'STOP TRYING TO LIMIT HOW MUCH TIME I'M SPENDING ON THE DOORSTEP. I'M A DOORSTEP CAMPAIGNER AND FROM NOW ON I WANT TO SPEND PROPER TIME KNOCKING ON DOORS AND SEEING PEOPLE!'
There you go.
Pre-screened doorsteps !
They can't win.
They don't pre-screen them - no one is in (as happened in Scotland) They do pre-screen them - everyone goes FIX!!!!!
That has got to be the most frightening opinion poll ever. What does Corbyn have to do to convince that one-quarter of the population that he would be the most disastrous and ineffectual leader since Tsar Nicholas II?
I don't think it would be physically possible to shout that.
'STOP TRYING TO LIMIT HOW MUCH TIME I'M SPENDING ON THE DOORSTEP. I'M A DOORSTEP CAMPAIGNER AND FROM NOW ON I WANT TO SPEND PROPER TIME KNOCKING ON DOORS AND SEEING PEOPLE!'
There you go.
Pre-screened doorsteps !
I'm sure the 4 doorsteps Tessy did in Banchory weren't pre-screened. Rumours that the inhabitants were trussed and gagged in their basements to avoid any awkward encounters with 'actual voters' are just vile Nat propaganda.
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
So May's target to be a Cameron-style mediocrity or better is 464.
Even with the Jezziah, I have to say that looks a tall order.
I don't really understand this desire of some to judge Cameron and May against each other
They'd rather not talk about the polling
Most capable Prime Minister:
2017 May: 61 Corbyn: 23
2015 Cameron: 42 Miliband: 27
Despite Corbyn being only 4 points adrift of Miliband, May is nearly 20 points ahead of Cameron....
May being more popular now is still not a fair comparison, she hasn't been PM for 5 years, but in any case I was thinking less of public perception and more of Tories who act like Cameron was pathetic, as though nothing he managed mattered just because May is, for now, taking the party onto even greater things (which, as has been pointed out, is party due to her, she is popular, but also partly circumstance). May might well turn out to be the better PM and politician, and well done her if so, but it's awfully early to make that judgement, and even then it wouldn't make what Cameron achieved meaningless. Nor does May's not matching net gains of Cameron make her worse than him, given the respective starting positions.
That has got to be the most frightening opinion poll ever. What does Corbyn have to do to convince that one-quarter of the population that he would be the most disastrous and ineffectual leader since Tsar Nicholas II?
Why would the people of Kensington vote Stop Brexit Alliance when they already have Stop Brexit Lib Dems? Doesn't make much sense at all.
Stop Brexit But Won't Increase My Taxes Party has more appeal
Only to people who are too stupid to see that any government will shortly be pushing up taxes, spending cuts having run out of road given the pressures on health, social care, defence, etc.
You voters are stupid is rarely a winning argument
I think you misunderstand my point. The point is that in current circumstances and with growing clouds on the horizon, any party putting forward a tax cutting programme (and I don't see any?) would simply not be credible.
There's quite of lot of room to manoeuvre in the government budget (e.g. Housing benefit, DfID, EU contributions etc)
Not really. Despite all the political noise, the latter two are in the rounding. The first is a big spend but very difficult to row back given the current state of the housing and rental market, as the Tories have already found. Health, education, pensions, and social care amount for the vast majority of public spending, and all of them are already under pressure.
The ORB poll has a significant number of "Did Not Vote Last Time" switchers in the Labour number, along with extremely minor party switchers (Greens/TUSC etc).
That vote is not going to materialise in the main, and it will be in London, Brighton and uni towns if it does.
It accounts for more than 1 in 7 of the Labour pledges.
Did you notice that at least Yougov polling is consistently showing ~27% of the Labour VI coming from those who did not vote Con/Lab/Lib/UKIP in 2015. For comparison the same figure in the run up to the 2015 Ge was 10%. There aren't that many Greens to squeeze.
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
They are, and will continue to be, the dominant party in Scotland for many years.
What is true however, is Elsie has passed her peak - and its very unlikely she'll ever regain her previous heights. As goes the leader, so follows the party.
Sturgeon net 'well' (ex-DK)
May 15: +60 May 16: +29 Apr 17: +2
It's been an extraordinary run (and in absolute terms her numbers are still very good) - but its over.
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
They are, and will continue to be, the dominant party in Scotland for many years.
What is true however, is Elsie has passed her peak - and its very unlikely she'll ever regain her previous heights. As goes the leader, so follows the party.
Sturgeon net 'well' (ex-DK)
May 15: +60 May 16: +29 Apr 17: +2
It's been an extraordinary run (and in absolute terms her numbers are still very good) - but its over.
The Lib Dems are not going to stand aside, unless it’s a quid pro qou with the Greens.
Biggest surprise so far has been the less than Stella performance in the polls by the Lib Dems. As the only party standing on a pro EU ticket, I’d have thought they mop up the remainers.
That has got to be the most frightening opinion poll ever. What does Corbyn have to do to convince that one-quarter of the population that he would be the most disastrous and ineffectual leader since Tsar Nicholas II?
First day in office should do the trick.
Can they lay on extra flights to somewhere much safer that morning? Because I don't want to be here if ever those 23% have to face that reality!
Also says Conservatoives have an 11% lead in marginals - How would that compare with 2015?
Even that has Lab at high 20s and LD making zero progress. I just don't get either score, frankly, but unless all the polls are just plain wrong, we're looking at
CON low mid to high mid 40s LAB mid-late 20s to 30 LDs high single figures - 12
Lot of room for varying majority size in there.
The polls are plain wrong imho. They are not picking up something, somehow.
It's turnout, in my opinion.
The Lib Dem and Labour numbers have a lot of the usual tell-tale signs - people who don't normally vote pledging for them, low certainty to vote overall, very low certainty to vote among the most supportive demographics.
Didn't Macron have low 'certainty to vote' figures?
I don't know, but he only polled 24 which is the second worst, primary winning score in over sixty years.
I remember Miliband and Remain both having the same losing demographic characteristics in their marches to victory.
This weekend's polls seem to show Corbyn pulling 30%. No way. No way in a million light years is Corbyn going to get a higher figure than Miliband. It's bonkers.
Sounds crazy doesn't it? I shall be terribly embarrassed if it turns out that Diane Abbott will have been more right than me, in that while maybe he won't win, he isn't offputting to voters.
There's much more enthusiasm for Corbyn among his admirers than there was for Ed, which means the floor is more solid. If the test is "Can you get 30%?" then it doesn't matter if 70% are actively hostile. And in reality they're not. I think the current position is roughly 25% Lab, 5% leaning Lab, 25% unsure whether or how to vote, 45% no way Labour. You may move in a social circle made up of the 45%.
This weekend's polls seem to show Corbyn pulling 30%. No way. No way in a million light years is Corbyn going to get a higher figure than Miliband. It's bonkers.
Sounds crazy doesn't it? I shall be terribly embarrassed if it turns out that Diane Abbott will have been more right than me, in that while maybe he won't win, he isn't offputting to voters.
There's much more enthusiasm for Corbyn among his admirers than there was for Ed, which means the floor is more solid. If the test is "Can you get 30%?" then it doesn't matter if 70% are actively hostile. And in reality they're not. I think the current position is roughly 25% Lab, 5% leaning Lab, 25% unsure whether or how to vote, 45% no way Labour. You may move in a social circle made up of the 45%.
But we'll know a bit more on Friday.
My social circle is much more anti Tory than anti Labour, though a few more have 'come out' as Tories in the past year and I live in Tory territory so assume most of the unspoken ones are Tories. I did come across a Corbyn fan among them the other day. He likes that Corbyn is different and wants to take on a rigged system.
I will say that I believe my local Lab party had an influx of new members after Corbyn's election and there organisation for this set of elections has vastly improved. Whether that is because of them or in spite of them I cannot say
Why would the people of Kensington vote Stop Brexit Alliance when they already have Stop Brexit Lib Dems? Doesn't make much sense at all.
Stop Brexit But Won't Increase My Taxes Party has more appeal
Only to people who are too stupid to see that any government will shortly be pushing up taxes, spending cuts having run out of road given the pressures on health, social care, defence, etc.
You voters are stupid is rarely a winning argument
I think you misunderstand my point. The point is that in current circumstances and with growing clouds on the horizon, any party putting forward a tax cutting programme (and I don't see any?) would simply not be credible.
There's quite of lot of room to manoeuvre in the government budget (e.g. Housing benefit, DfID, EU contributions etc)
Not really. Despite all the political noise, the latter two are in the rounding. The first is a big spend but very difficult to row back given the current state of the housing and rental market, as the Tories have already found. Health, education, pensions, and social care amount for the vast majority of public spending, and all of them are already under pressure.
Ballpark DfID and EU could release about gbp10bn without too much pain. Housing benefit I'd restructure and require landlords to enter into long term contracts with the government (not the tenant) at much lower rates and date them to find someone else in the private market
Why would the people of Kensington vote Stop Brexit Alliance when they already have Stop Brexit Lib Dems? Doesn't make much sense at all.
Stop Brexit But Won't Increase My Taxes Party has more appeal
Only to people who are too stupid to see that any government will shortly be pushing up taxes, spending cuts having run out of road given the pressures on health, social care, defence, etc.
You voters are stupid is rarely a winning argument
Once in power [in Glasgow] the SNP would open up the books on decades of SLAB nepotism and industrial scale corruption.
So not just patriotic dawn at last, but CLEANLINESS at last! The cleanies replace the fiddlers! The property developers and backhander-payers are shown the door. No more percentages for licences. No more corruption in the town hall, as "Nationalism Forever" becomes the city's new slogan.
The Lib Dems are not going to stand aside, unless it’s a quid pro qou with the Greens.
Biggest surprise so far has been the less than Stella performance in the polls by the Lib Dems. As the only party standing on a pro EU ticket, I’d have thought they mop up the remainers.
Some people do scratch their heads over why it is that, as the "party of the 48%," the Liberal Democrats aren't doing much, much better.
My take is as follows:
1. Most people in this election will be deciding on the basis of traditional party loyalties, leadership, economic competence, and (in Scotland and Northern Ireland) on the constitution. Continuity Remain is a niche position. There's no such thing as the 48%. 2. Even amongst the small minority of voters willing to put Remain above all other considerations, a large fraction of those will be leftists who will be happy to sit with the Greens, or to give Labour the benefit of the doubt.
I reckon that any poll which tells you that the Liberal Democrats have made no progress at all since 2015, i.e. which puts them on 7-8%, is wrong; however, by the same token, I doubt if they'll win a vast number of votes in excess of that. I've estimated them at somewhere around 11% for this election; I'd be very surprised indeed if they made 15%.
That has got to be the most frightening opinion poll ever. What does Corbyn have to do to convince that one-quarter of the population that he would be the most disastrous and ineffectual leader since Tsar Nicholas II?
First day in office should do the trick.
If that happens, Justin Trudeau better not reject my asylum claim !!!
NIck's not kidding about those who do like Corbyn really like him, unlike most of the Ed M admiration, Milifandom aside. I hope to christ this comment on LabourList was a good parody (I've done the 'JC is the way the truth the light' before)
7 times we can deny JC ( Peter only denied JC three times) but like the other JC he is being offered up for crucifixion to appease the rulers but unlike the other JC Corbyn is going nowhere, the Labour Party will survive, we will fight till June 8 and then we'll sort out who and how we are going to consolidate our party, fighting the Tories every step of the way, clearing out the definitive traitors and sorting out , via a democratic process, what our party stands for and how we are going to put it into government.
Why would the people of Kensington vote Stop Brexit Alliance when they already have Stop Brexit Lib Dems? Doesn't make much sense at all.
Stop Brexit But Won't Increase My Taxes Party has more appeal
Only to people who are too stupid to see that any government will shortly be pushing up taxes, spending cuts having run out of road given the pressures on health, social care, defence, etc.
You voters are stupid is rarely a winning argument
Has anyone told remainers?
Most of the people outright saying the voters are stupid are not standing for election themselves. Though when Clive Lewis does it it is satire, of course. Which he'd accept if an opponent did it, I have no doubt.
The Lib Dems are not going to stand aside, unless it’s a quid pro qou with the Greens.
Biggest surprise so far has been the less than Stella performance in the polls by the Lib Dems. As the only party standing on a pro EU ticket, I’d have thought they mop up the remainers.
Some people do scratch their heads over why it is that, as the "party of the 48%," the Liberal Democrats aren't doing much, much better.
My take is as follows:
1. Most people in this election will be deciding on the basis of traditional party loyalties, leadership, economic competence, and (in Scotland and Northern Ireland) on the constitution. Continuity Remain is a niche position. There's no such thing as the 48%. 2. Even amongst the small minority of voters willing to put Remain above all other considerations, a large fraction of those will be leftists who will be happy to sit with the Greens, or to give Labour the benefit of the doubt.
I reckon that any poll which tells you that the Liberal Democrats have made no progress at all since 2015, i.e. which puts them on 7-8%, is wrong; however, by the same token, I doubt if they'll win a vast number of votes in excess of that. I've estimated them at somewhere around 11% for this election; I'd be very surprised indeed if they made 15%.
I do think there is a reasonable constituency of remainers and worried 'soft' leavers sufficiently apprehensive about the consequences of Brexit (and with good reason) to make this a salient issue. You are right however that the impact on the electoral geography, beyond a few atypical locations, currently appears limited.
NIck's not kidding about those who do like Corbyn really like him, unlike most of the Ed M admiration, Milifandom aside. I hope to christ this comment on LabourList was a good parody (I've done the 'JC is the way the truth the light' before)
7 times we can deny JC ( Peter only denied JC three times) but like the other JC he is being offered up for crucifixion to appease the rulers but unlike the other JC Corbyn is going nowhere, the Labour Party will survive, we will fight till June 8 and then we'll sort out who and how we are going to consolidate our party, fighting the Tories every step of the way, clearing out the definitive traitors and sorting out , via a democratic process, what our party stands for and how we are going to put it into government.
That's a partial quote (not saying it's misleading) - I thought the last sentence in the full version was "interesting"
You have to wonder whether the "help the posh boys deliver a good kicking to the weak unphotogenic old man who shows insufficient respect for her Majesty" strategy will in fact win the Tories this election.
NIck's not kidding about those who do like Corbyn really like him, unlike most of the Ed M admiration, Milifandom aside. I hope to christ this comment on LabourList was a good parody (I've done the 'JC is the way the truth the light' before)
7 times we can deny JC ( Peter only denied JC three times) but like the other JC he is being offered up for crucifixion to appease the rulers but unlike the other JC Corbyn is going nowhere, the Labour Party will survive, we will fight till June 8 and then we'll sort out who and how we are going to consolidate our party, fighting the Tories every step of the way, clearing out the definitive traitors and sorting out , via a democratic process, what our party stands for and how we are going to put it into government.
That's a partial quote (not saying it's misleading) - I thought the last sentence in the full version was "interesting"
Well I had to trim for length. I honestly cannot tell if it is a parody or not. It does end
Now we're here we're going nowhere and neither is Corbyn. Anyone who is known to jeopardise our election campaign, Mr Blair, will be dealt with appropriately.
This weekend's polls seem to show Corbyn pulling 30%. No way. No way in a million light years is Corbyn going to get a higher figure than Miliband. It's bonkers.
Sounds crazy doesn't it? I shall be terribly embarrassed if it turns out that Diane Abbott will have been more right than me, in that while maybe he won't win, he isn't offputting to voters.
There's much more enthusiasm for Corbyn among his admirers than there was for Ed, which means the floor is more solid. If the test is "Can you get 30%?" then it doesn't matter if 70% are actively hostile. And in reality they're not. I think the current position is roughly 25% Lab, 5% leaning Lab, 25% unsure whether or how to vote, 45% no way Labour. You may move in a social circle made up of the 45%.
But we'll know a bit more on Friday.
My social circle is much more anti Tory than anti Labour, though a few more have 'come out' as Tories in the past year and I live in Tory territory so assume most of the unspoken ones are Tories. I did come across a Corbyn fan among them the other day. He likes that Corbyn is different and wants to take on a rigged system.
I will say that I believe my local Lab party had an influx of new members after Corbyn's election and there organisation for this set of elections has vastly improved. Whether that is because of them or in spite of them I cannot say
Many Labour seats are in the same position. Labour will fight a good ground game in many of them - the problem of course is that they did the same last time with their 'millions of conversations', to no avail. To gain any upside their ground game has to be substantially better than last time, and it isn't obvious how this wil be so, particularly since the ground war tends to run into diminshing returns above a certain level of activity?
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
They are, and will continue to be, the dominant party in Scotland for many years.
What is true however, is Elsie has passed her peak - and its very unlikely she'll ever regain her previous heights. As goes the leader, so follows the party.
Sturgeon net 'well' (ex-DK)
May 15: +60 May 16: +29 Apr 17: +2
It's been an extraordinary run (and in absolute terms her numbers are still very good) - but its over.
This is why Salmond is so keen to have indyref2 NOW. As the SNP declines (and that decline has begun, from an amazing peak) they will find it very hard to win enough MSPs at the next Holyrood election, to force a second indyref.
We can hope. Whatever else happens, whether Labour are reduced to 150 or they hold up to closer to 200, let us hope that a recovery for unionists takes hold in Scotland, even recognising that something like 50 seats may well still be SNP (my initial prediction was 54-55, but now looking lower 50s).
Why would the people of Kensington vote Stop Brexit Alliance when they already have Stop Brexit Lib Dems? Doesn't make much sense at all.
Presumably because the latter would not be opposed by Kensington Labour or Kensington Greens. Given her profile and newsworthyness, Ms Johnson is the obvious person to take this on. A former Tory MP is the last person to make it work.
Despite having joined the LibDems she is clearly independently minded and not a party politician - and it would be good if the various local parties in Kensington could get together and sort this out.
But its Kensington. It's an overwhelmingly Tory place and will want a Tory MP. Not a wolf in sheep's clothing . A former Tory MP in a pinstripe suit gives people the chance to still have a solid Tory MP, but a remain one. Anything else won't fly with the local Tory minded electorate.
Its like the flip side of Carswell in Clacton. He was able to beat the Tory, because Tory minded people knew when it came to it on their core issues other than Brexit he was on their side.
I've had me a policy idea for post-Brexit migration from the EU. Forget this visa-by-sector nonsense ("you can be a waiter but not a driver" etc etc).
Instead: offer all 18-30 year old EU citizens a blanket visa. You can come in for two years and do any job you like. But you won't get any benefits. Up to you.
If, at the end of the two years, you have landed yourself a job where we need people, a more highly skilled job, then congrats, you are welcome to stay.
What's not to like? We keep the keen young Europeans coming, but we don't give them benefits, Pret will still find all its staff; it is also a warm and friendly offer to the EU, showing that we would like to remain close allies, and have a genuinely special relationship.
Anything that says a theoretically unlimited number (of a set demographic) can come would cause Double Hard Brexiters heads to explode, no matter if they couldn't get benefits.
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
So May's target to be a Cameron-style mediocrity or better is 464.
Even with the Jezziah, I have to say that looks a tall order.
I don't really understand this desire of some to judge Cameron and May against each other as though they were facing similar situations. Could May have taken the Tories from where they were to where Cameron took them? I don't know, possibly not. Could Cameron have, assuming the best polls are correct, take the Tories to where it seems May is about to take them? Given the circumstances depend upon Cameron haven't lost the referendum, almost certainly not.
There is no doubt a case for judging which one has the best political skills, leadership skills, and so on, but a direct assessment of MP numbers taking no account of opposition, starting position and circumstances beyond the control of either, as some do, strikes me as not fair to either of them.
Such is the state of political commentary in the Westminster village. You hear these silly simplistic arguments all the time as pundits try to 'push' their own agendas all the time. Of course we do it on here as well but it so often ends in yah boo fights and worse.
I've had me a policy idea for post-Brexit migration from the EU. Forget this visa-by-sector nonsense ("you can be a waiter but not a driver" etc etc).
Instead: offer all 18-30 year old EU citizens a blanket visa. You can come in for two years and do any job you like. But you won't get any benefits. Up to you.
If, at the end of the two years, you have landed yourself a job where we need people, a more highly skilled job, then congrats, you are welcome to stay.
What's not to like? We keep the keen young Europeans coming, but we don't give them benefits, Pret will still find all its staff; it is also a warm and friendly offer to the EU, showing that we would like to remain close allies, and have a genuinely special relationship.
I've had me a policy idea for post-Brexit migration from the EU. Forget this visa-by-sector nonsense ("you can be a waiter but not a driver" etc etc).
Instead: offer all 18-30 year old EU citizens a blanket visa. You can come in for two years and do any job you like. But you won't get any benefits. Up to you.
If, at the end of the two years, you have landed yourself a job where we need people, a more highly skilled job, then congrats, you are welcome to stay.
What's not to like? We keep the keen young Europeans coming, but we don't give them benefits, Pret will still find all its staff; it is also a warm and friendly offer to the EU, showing that we would like to remain close allies, and have a genuinely special relationship.
Anything that says a theoretically unlimited number (of a set demographic) can come would cause Double Hard Brexiters heads to explode, no matter if they couldn't get benefits.
Presumably that would be an added bonus? I actually think it's not a bad proposal, though the age restriction is problematic. 18-50 might be more in line with antipodean practice, and still wouldn't impose undue pressure on the NHS.
So Labour are going to increase spending on the NHS, and schools, unfreeze public sector pay, nationalise the railways, build public housing and not raise VAT or tax on the lowest to medium paid. How are they going to pay for it then? It's the same dance every fucking time, all these wonderful promises and then when it comes down to the crunch the policies to pay for them are unworkable. It's like they want to be Santa Claus without all that tedious balancing the books. If you want to do something, either do it one at a time or gradually. All this being done in one five year term would be unworkable.
I've had me a policy idea for post-Brexit migration from the EU. Forget this visa-by-sector nonsense ("you can be a waiter but not a driver" etc etc).
Instead: offer all 18-30 year old EU citizens a blanket visa. You can come in for two years and do any job you like. But you won't get any benefits. Up to you.
If, at the end of the two years, you have landed yourself a job where we need people, a more highly skilled job, then congrats, you are welcome to stay.
What's not to like? We keep the keen young Europeans coming, but we don't give them benefits, Pret will still find all its staff; it is also a warm and friendly offer to the EU, showing that we would like to remain close allies, and have a genuinely special relationship.
Isn't that what we already have for Australians and New Zealanders ? Youth Mobility visa. Stay for two years and work where you like as long as you are under 30.
So Labour are going to increase spending on the NHS, and schools, unfreeze public sector pay, nationalise the railways, build public housing and not raise VAT or tax on the lowest to medium paid. How are they going to pay for it then? It's the same dance every fucking time, all these wonderful promises and then when it comes down to the crunch the policies to pay for them are unworkable. It's like they want to be Santa Claus without all that tedious balancing the books. If you want to do something, either do it one at a time or gradually. All this being done in one five year term would be unworkable.
Increase in corporation tax, I believe. Fat cat capitalist bastards: if Brexit doesn't drive them out, then this will!
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
Yes - even the most optimistic Tories have not got beyond 12 seats with the SNP still closer to 50 than 40. I suspect the SNP are in full defensive mode as the realities of gravity do tend to hit in when you start at 56/59. In reality the Tories will be lucky to get 5 seats in my view with some good second places. LDs may get 2/3 - Labour may get 0-2.
I've had me a policy idea for post-Brexit migration from the EU. Forget this visa-by-sector nonsense ("you can be a waiter but not a driver" etc etc).
Instead: offer all 18-30 year old EU citizens a blanket visa. You can come in for two years and do any job you like. But you won't get any benefits. Up to you.
If, at the end of the two years, you have landed yourself a job where we need people, a more highly skilled job, then congrats, you are welcome to stay.
What's not to like? We keep the keen young Europeans coming, but we don't give them benefits, Pret will still find all its staff; it is also a warm and friendly offer to the EU, showing that we would like to remain close allies, and have a genuinely special relationship.
Anything that says a theoretically unlimited number (of a set demographic) can come would cause Double Hard Brexiters heads to explode, no matter if they couldn't get benefits.
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
So May's target to be a Cameron-style mediocrity or better is 464.
Even with the Jezziah, I have to say that looks a tall order.
I don't really understand this desire of some to judge Cameron and May against each other
They'd rather not talk about the polling
Most capable Prime Minister:
2017 May: 61 Corbyn: 23
2015 Cameron: 42 Miliband: 27
Despite Corbyn being only 4 points adrift of Miliband, May is nearly 20 points ahead of Cameron....
That's a ludicrous comparison as you well know. May has been PM for less than a year, UKIP are basically defunct and she's against Corbyn.
So Labour are going to increase spending on the NHS, and schools, unfreeze public sector pay, nationalise the railways, build public housing and not raise VAT or tax on the lowest to medium paid. How are they going to pay for it then? It's the same dance every fucking time, all these wonderful promises and then when it comes down to the crunch the policies to pay for them are unworkable. It's like they want to be Santa Claus without all that tedious balancing the books. If you want to do something, either do it one at a time or gradually. All this being done in one five year term would be unworkable.
Increase in corporation tax, I believe. Fat cat capitalist bastards: if Brexit doesn't drive them out, then this will!
Windfall taxes here and there too, on this little group that doesn't vote for us and that little group that doesn't vote for us. When they move abroad or somesuch they will be just bemused. You organise taxes to take as much as possible without startling the wildlife too much, otherwise they just bounce away to another part of the forest. I'm not saying light touch, but neither do you blunder in like a drunk gamekeeper.
It's like the Guardian comments page, when the richest top 100 comes up and a lot live in London there are comments like "then why can't we afford to build hospitals!". Because they are Russian, or Indian, or Saudi!
Also says Conservatoives have an 11% lead in marginals - How would that compare with 2015?
Even that has Lab at high 20s and LD making zero progress. I just don't get either score, frankly, but unless all the polls are just plain wrong, we're looking at
CON low mid to high mid 40s LAB mid-late 20s to 30 LDs high single figures - 12
Lot of room for varying majority size in there.
The polls are plain wrong imho. They are not picking up something, somehow.
Wrong in which way though? Are the Tories really in the high 30s and the LDs mid to late 10s? Are Lab really in the low 20s? I find it hard to believe shy Tories is an issue in an age where Corbyn is the alternate PM being offered, but that's just conjecture on my part, and it leads to trouble as it makes me doubt the Tory high score while simultaneously making me suspicious of the strength of the Labour vote, since shy Labour seems possible, but they are already pretty darn high given Corbyn, to me, seems so terrible.
This weekend's polls seem to show Corbyn pulling 30%. No way. No way in a million light years is Corbyn going to get a higher figure than Miliband. It's bonkers.
Sounds crazy doesn't it? I shall be terribly embarrassed if it turns out that Diane Abbott will have been more right than me, in that while maybe he won't win, he isn't offputting to voters.
Don't pollsters factor in voter intention in the last election? I always thought that was risking a regression towards the previous result in reducing swings.
The worst bets are the ones you mention on here and then don't back.
In a pair of posts here I laid out exactly why Trump was going to win: 1) Incredibly efficient vote distribution 2) Very harsh American Pollster "likely to vote filters" under-counting Trump supporters in key states.
which various people used to justify large Trump positions. I backed Hilary heavily
I've had me a policy idea for post-Brexit migration from the EU. Forget this visa-by-sector nonsense ("you can be a waiter but not a driver" etc etc).
Instead: offer all 18-30 year old EU citizens a blanket visa. You can come in for two years and do any job you like. But you won't get any benefits. Up to you.
If, at the end of the two years, you have landed yourself a job where we need people, a more highly skilled job, then congrats, you are welcome to stay.
What's not to like? We keep the keen young Europeans coming, but we don't give them benefits, Pret will still find all its staff; it is also a warm and friendly offer to the EU, showing that we would like to remain close allies, and have a genuinely special relationship.
Isn't that what we already have for Australians and New Zealanders ? Youth Mobility visa. Stay for two years and work where you like as long as you are under 30.
Pretty similar, but I'd make it even simpler (e.g. no savings requirement). Also it should be explicit that you CAN stay on if you upgrade yourself to a required skill, or you have started a successful business, and so on.
I'll take your word for it. I thought Glasgow more probable than Edinburgh for a number of long and tedious reasons to do with the way each city seems to view itself but I could easily be wrong.
FTPT
Largest to smallest Green votes from 2015 in Scotland
Edinburgh North and Leith 3140 Edinburgh East 2809 Glasgow North 2284 Edinburgh South 2090 Edinburgh South West 1965 Stirling 1606 Glasgow Central 1559 Glasgow South 1431 North East Fife 1387 Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey 1367 Moray 1345 East Lothian 1245 Dundee West 1225 Midlothian 1219 Dunfermline and West Fife 1195 Glasgow North West 1167 Perth and North Perthshire 1146 Edinburgh West 1140 Ross, Skye and Lochaber 1051 Angus 965 Aberdeen South 964 Dundee East 895 West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine 885 Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale 839 East Dunbartonshire 804 Paisley and Renfrewshire North 703 Central Ayrshire 645 Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk 631 Glasgow North East 615 Glasgow South West 507 Glasgow East 381
I've had me a policy idea for post-Brexit migration from the EU. Forget this visa-by-sector nonsense ("you can be a waiter but not a driver" etc etc).
Instead: offer all 18-30 year old EU citizens a blanket visa. You can come in for two years and do any job you like. But you won't get any benefits. Up to you.
If, at the end of the two years, you have landed yourself a job where we need people, a more highly skilled job, then congrats, you are welcome to stay.
What's not to like? We keep the keen young Europeans coming, but we don't give them benefits, Pret will still find all its staff; it is also a warm and friendly offer to the EU, showing that we would like to remain close allies, and have a genuinely special relationship.
Or how about companies which have immigrants as a certain proportion of their workforce have to fund a certain amount of new local housing.
So Labour are going to increase spending on the NHS, and schools, unfreeze public sector pay, nationalise the railways, build public housing and not raise VAT or tax on the lowest to medium paid. How are they going to pay for it then? It's the same dance every fucking time, all these wonderful promises and then when it comes down to the crunch the policies to pay for them are unworkable. It's like they want to be Santa Claus without all that tedious balancing the books. If you want to do something, either do it one at a time or gradually. All this being done in one five year term would be unworkable.
Increase in corporation tax, I believe. Fat cat capitalist bastards: if Brexit doesn't drive them out, then this will!
Windfall taxes here and there too, on this little group that doesn't vote for us and that little group that doesn't vote for us. When they move abroad or somesuch they will be just bemused. You organise taxes to take as much as possible without startling the wildlife too much, otherwise they just bounce away to another part of the forest. I'm not saying light touch, but neither do you blunder in like a drunk gamekeeper.
It's like the Guardian comments page, when the richest top 100 comes up and a lot live in London there are comments like "then why can't we afford to build hospitals!". Because they are Russian, or Indian, or Saudi!
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
So May's target to be a Cameron-style mediocrity or better is 464.
Even with the Jezziah, I have to say that looks a tall order.
I don't really understand this desire of some to judge Cameron and May against each other
They'd rather not talk about the polling
Most capable Prime Minister:
2017 May: 61 Corbyn: 23
2015 Cameron: 42 Miliband: 27
Despite Corbyn being only 4 points adrift of Miliband, May is nearly 20 points ahead of Cameron....
That's a ludicrous comparison as you well know. May has been PM for less than a year, UKIP are basically defunct and she's against Corbyn.
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
Yes - even the most optimistic Tories have not got beyond 12 seats with the SNP still closer to 50 than 40. I suspect the SNP are in full defensive mode as the realities of gravity do tend to hit in when you start at 56/59. In reality the Tories will be lucky to get 5 seats in my view with some good second places. LDs may get 2/3 - Labour may get 0-2.
A fair analysis - with SNP support stuck over 40% and around 2k members per seat - they will defend well in the 10 or so seats where they have realistic challengers - FWIW I think they'll hold Moray surprisingly easily !!
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
So May's target to be a Cameron-style mediocrity or better is 464.
Even with the Jezziah, I have to say that looks a tall order.
I don't really understand this desire of some to judge Cameron and May against each other
They'd rather not talk about the polling
Most capable Prime Minister:
2017 May: 61 Corbyn: 23
2015 Cameron: 42 Miliband: 27
Despite Corbyn being only 4 points adrift of Miliband, May is nearly 20 points ahead of Cameron....
That's a ludicrous comparison as you well know. May has been PM for less than a year, UKIP are basically defunct and she's against Corbyn.
The data is what the data is.
The poll ratings of leaders going into a GE.
That you don't like it is your problem.
I don't like or dislike it, but you're not comparing, er, like for like. 'Leaders going into a GE' is not a set of data without other important variables to consider. Nor are leadership ratings the only measure to go by.
If you're that ridiculous with it, then TSE's 'Cameron gained x seats, can May gain that many if not then she is terrible' is no worse.
Thank you for your comments about in this and the previous thread, which I enjoyed as being convincing, germane and Not Bloody Brexit.
However, there is one thing I need you to do please. Stop referring to "pollsters" as "statisticians". Polling, just like operational research, market research, and data science, is associated with, but not technically part of, statistics. "Pollsters" are not "statisticians" and I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd stop referring to them as such, please
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
So May's target to be a Cameron-style mediocrity or better is 464.
Even with the Jezziah, I have to say that looks a tall order.
I don't really understand this desire of some to judge Cameron and May against each other
They'd rather not talk about the polling
Most capable Prime Minister:
2017 May: 61 Corbyn: 23
2015 Cameron: 42 Miliband: 27
Despite Corbyn being only 4 points adrift of Miliband, May is nearly 20 points ahead of Cameron....
That's a ludicrous comparison as you well know. May has been PM for less than a year, UKIP are basically defunct and she's against Corbyn.
The data is what the data is.
The poll ratings of leaders going into a GE.
That you don't like it is your problem.
That you're incapable of understanding differences between sets of data, the most glaring of which is that Cameron and May are being compared against a different opponent would appear to be your problem.
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
Most of them do not expire for a long time now, the length of the franchises has been raised to improve investment. Also, what would they use for trains? They are all privately owned, or did you not know that? Also whom would run the railways? The transport department is far too small, that would mean creating a new department to run them or making an arms length agency to do so. That will mean set up costs.
I will look into the housing, I assumed that the sell offs were not raising enough to build the pub housing levels that Corbyn was mentioning, he was talking 100,000 wasn't it?
So you are saying we should cut Doctors pay to raise the nurses pay? And this would cost nothing? Do you have figures for that because that sound massively, massively unlikely and it would involve subverting current employment contracts as well as pissing off the most important group of people in the NHS.
Thank you for your comments about in this and the previous thread, which I enjoyed as being convincing, germane and Not Bloody Brexit.
However, there is one thing I need you to do please. Stop referring to "pollsters" as "statisticians". Polling, just like operational research, market research, and data science, is associated with, but not technically part of, statistics. "Pollsters" are not "statisticians" and I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd stop referring to them as such, please
I consider myself rapped across the knuckles! :-)
FWIW, I doubt if I've referred to the pollsters as statisticians around these parts before, so I doubt it'll manifest as an annoying habit in future.
Incidentally, that new ICM, Baxtered, gives the Tories a 142 seat majority, and Labour are left with 178. Not quite extinction. But it will take probably them a decade or more to recover.
Labour probably only need to get to 260 to form a minority non-Tory government.
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
So May's target to be a Cameron-style mediocrity or better is 464.
Even with the Jezziah, I have to say that looks a tall order.
I don't really understand this desire of some to judge Cameron and May against each other
They'd rather not talk about the polling
Most capable Prime Minister:
2017 May: 61 Corbyn: 23
2015 Cameron: 42 Miliband: 27
Despite Corbyn being only 4 points adrift of Miliband, May is nearly 20 points ahead of Cameron....
That's a ludicrous comparison as you well know. May has been PM for less than a year, UKIP are basically defunct and she's against Corbyn.
The data is what the data is.
The poll ratings of leaders going into a GE.
That you don't like it is your problem.
That you're incapable of understanding differences between sets of data, the most glaring of which is that Cameron and May are being compared against a different opponent would appear to be your problem.
What other data would you use to compare leaders ratings ahead of the GE?
I'll take your word for it. I thought Glasgow more probable than Edinburgh for a number of long and tedious reasons to do with the way each city seems to view itself but I could easily be wrong.
FTPT
Largest to smallest Green votes from 2015 in Scotland
Edinburgh North and Leith 3140 Edinburgh East 2809 Glasgow North 2284 Edinburgh South 2090 Edinburgh South West 1965 Stirling 1606 Glasgow Central 1559 Glasgow South 1431 North East Fife 1387 Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey 1367 Moray 1345 East Lothian 1245 Dundee West 1225 Midlothian 1219 Dunfermline and West Fife 1195 Glasgow North West 1167 Perth and North Perthshire 1146 Edinburgh West 1140 Ross, Skye and Lochaber 1051 Angus 965 Aberdeen South 964 Dundee East 895 West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine 885 Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale 839 East Dunbartonshire 804 Paisley and Renfrewshire North 703 Central Ayrshire 645 Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk 631 Glasgow North East 615 Glasgow South West 507 Glasgow East 381
Thank you, so Edwin's Borough clearly has the higher Green vote.
There look to be about five or six target seats with a fairly substantial Green presence - Edinburgh West, North East Fife, INBS, Moray, Perth and RSL. However, on those figures my 5% was clearly a bit of an underestimate to materially affect the result. Maybe 6-7% and it will get tense in some of them.
The young people's working holiday visa is an interesting idea but it surely has to have a two way benefit. Australia has an 18-30 reciprocal holiday visa scheme with 15 EU states including the UK. New Zealand has a similar scheme - although Brits are the only nationals who get access to reciprocal health care.
The problem with a post Brexit EU style working holiday visa scheme is that there is mass youth unemployment in many states - so the pull is one way. How many young Brits are going to go and work in Eastern Europe - they haven't done so so far in big numbers?
I am fine with the idea - but it should be with nations that also have a pull factor for British young people eg Australia and New Zealand as we have now.
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
So May's target to be a Cameron-style mediocrity or better is 464.
Even with the Jezziah, I have to say that looks a tall order.
I don't really understand this desire of some to judge Cameron and May against each other
They'd rather not talk about the polling
Most capable Prime Minister:
2017 May: 61 Corbyn: 23
2015 Cameron: 42 Miliband: 27
Despite Corbyn being only 4 points adrift of Miliband, May is nearly 20 points ahead of Cameron....
That's a ludicrous comparison as you well know. May has been PM for less than a year, UKIP are basically defunct and she's against Corbyn.
The data is what the data is.
The poll ratings of leaders going into a GE.
That you don't like it is your problem.
I don't like or dislike it, but you're not comparing, er, like for like. 'Leaders going into a GE' is not a set of data without other important variables to consider. Nor are leadership ratings the only measure to go by.
If you're that ridiculous with it, then TSE's 'Cameron gained x seats, can May gain that many if not then she is terrible' is no worse.
What other data would you use to compare leaders' ratings going into the GE?
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
Most of them do not expire for a long time now, the length of the franchises has been raised to improve investment. Also, what would they use for trains? They are all privately owned, or did you not know that? Also whom would run the railways? The transport department is far too small, that would mean creating a new department to run them or making an arms length agency to do so. That will mean set up costs.
I will look into the housing, I assumed that the sell offs were not raising enough to build the pub housing levels that Corbyn was mentioning, he was talking 100,000 wasn't it?
So you are saying we should cut Doctors pay to raise the nurses pay? And this would cost nothing? Do you have figures for that because that sound massively, massively unlikely and it would involve subverting current employment contracts as well as pissing off the most important group of people in the NHS.
Well so far you've not done too well.
Depending on the grade doctors real terms pay is down 10 - 20% over the last decade, and is eroding at about 2% per year at present. Pay is not the main reason for medical staffing vacancies, other aspects of the job usually out weigh this. Across most specialities and in GP services 5-10% of posts are vacant, and about 50% of departments have vacancies unfilled for at least 6 months.
Cutting medical pay is not likely to improve the recruitment and retention crisis, which along with similar problems in Nursing and other disciplines probably are a bigger threat to the existance of viable health and social care.than funding per se.
In short, staff are already voting with their feet by leaving, and not just EU staff. Money is always going to be tight, so an astute Minister would work on the other aspects of making work in the health and social care sector attractive.
Thank you, so Edwin's Borough clearly has the higher Green vote.
There look to be about five or six target seats with a fairly substantial Green presence - Edinburgh West, North East Fife, INBS, Moray, Perth and RSL. However, on those figures my 5% was clearly a bit of an underestimate to materially affect the result. Maybe 6-7% and it will get tense in some of them.
The Greens are talking about not running candidates in At Risk Of Tory seats. So expect to see them stand down in Moray, Perthsire, maybe even Stirling and deffo the Border seats.
Don't pollsters factor in voter intention in the last election? I always thought that was risking a regression towards the previous result in reducing swings.
I don't know about all of them, but there was quite a lengthy discussion of this yesterday, specifically in relation to the Opinium numbers:
"This is the first poll where we have included a past vote weight in addition to our party propensity and EU referendum vote weights. For the most part our party propensity weighting helps to ensure the number of voters for each party in 2015 is accurately reflected in our sample. However, we have noticed some varied responses to our 2015 past vote question during the past couple of months, even after taking account of party propensity, so we have included this in our weighting targets to ensure this remains stable over the course of the campaign."
And @rcs1000 had the following to say on the subject:
"Correct me if I'm wrong PBers, but Opinium weights by past vote. Back in 2015, I highlighted how few people pollsters could find who said they voted LD in 2010. This led to them upweighting the LD vote share. ("Hmmm, only found 10% of people who voted LD, and we know the true number was 25%, better upweight what those 10% are doing by 150%.")
"There's now an opposite problem. The pollsters are regularly finding 10 or 11% of people who said they voted LD. This leads to - those who past vote weight - down rating the LD vote share.
"This was one of the things that made me v. bearish on the LDs in 2015, and makes me - while more bearish than the bookies - perhaps slightly more bullish than the PB consensus."
Thus, this pollster may be falsely downrating the Lib Dems' share because it is finding too many people who say they voted for them in the last election - and, conversely, they could also be falsely overestimating Labour because they are struggling to find enough people who admit to having voted Labour before, and are incorrectly compensating for this.
I'll take your word for it. I thought Glasgow more probable than Edinburgh for a number of long and tedious reasons to do with the way each city seems to view itself but I could easily be wrong.
FTPT
Largest to smallest Green votes from 2015 in Scotland
Edinburgh North and Leith 3140 Edinburgh East 2809 Glasgow North 2284 Edinburgh South 2090 Edinburgh South West 1965 Stirling 1606 Glasgow Central 1559 Glasgow South 1431 North East Fife 1387 Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey 1367 Moray 1345 East Lothian 1245 Dundee West 1225 Midlothian 1219 Dunfermline and West Fife 1195 Glasgow North West 1167 Perth and North Perthshire 1146 Edinburgh West 1140 Ross, Skye and Lochaber 1051 Angus 965 Aberdeen South 964 Dundee East 895 West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine 885 Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale 839 East Dunbartonshire 804 Paisley and Renfrewshire North 703 Central Ayrshire 645 Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk 631 Glasgow North East 615 Glasgow South West 507 Glasgow East 381
Thanks.
I think it's likely, if you were to rank Scottish constituencies by % of female voters under 40 with a masters/PHD, the order of the list wouldn't be too different to ^
If the greens ever break through in a FPTP UK GE, the university constituencies will be the first to fall.
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
Most of them do not expire for a long time now, the length of the franchises has been raised to improve investment. Also, what would they use for trains? They are all privately owned, or did you not know that? Also whom would run the railways? The transport department is far too small, that would mean creating a new department to run them or making an arms length agency to do so. That will mean set up costs.
I will look into the housing, I assumed that the sell offs were not raising enough to build the pub housing levels that Corbyn was mentioning, he was talking 100,000 wasn't it?
So you are saying we should cut Doctors pay to raise the nurses pay? And this would cost nothing? Do you have figures for that because that sound massively, massively unlikely and it would involve subverting current employment contracts as well as pissing off the most important group of people in the NHS.
Well so far you've not done too well.
Depending on the grade doctors real terms pay is down 10 - 20% over the last decade, and is eroding at about 2% per year at present. Pay is not the main reason for medical staffing vacancies, other aspects of the job usually out weigh this. Across most specialities and in GP services 5-10% of posts are vacant, and about 50% of departments have vacancies unfilled for at least 6 months.
Cutting medical pay is not likely to improve the recruitment and retention crisis, which along with similar problems in Nursing and other disciplines probably are a bigger threat to the existance of viable health and social care.than funding per se.
In short, staff are already voting with their feet by leaving, and not just EU staff. Money is always going to be tight, so an astute Minister would work on the other aspects of making work in the health and social care sector attractive.
Prevent doctors who have been trained by a UK medical school from emigrating. With guns if necessary. It's a horrible method but it would cure the problem.
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
Yes - even the most optimistic Tories have not got beyond 12 seats with the SNP still closer to 50 than 40. I suspect the SNP are in full defensive mode as the realities of gravity do tend to hit in when you start at 56/59. In reality the Tories will be lucky to get 5 seats in my view with some good second places. LDs may get 2/3 - Labour may get 0-2.
A fair analysis - with SNP support stuck over 40% and around 2k members per seat - they will defend well in the 10 or so seats where they have realistic challengers - FWIW I think they'll hold Moray surprisingly easily !!
I think they will too - despite the Leave & Fisheries issues, voters are fond of having a high profile MP and Robertson has done a good job in Westminster.
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
Most of them do not expire for a long time now, the length of the franchises has been raised to improve investment. Also, what would they use for trains? They are all privately owned, or did you not know that? Also whom would run the railways? The transport department is far too small, that would mean creating a new department to run them or making an arms length agency to do so. That will mean set up costs.
I will look into the housing, I assumed that the sell offs were not raising enough to build the pub housing levels that Corbyn was mentioning, he was talking 100,000 wasn't it?
So you are saying we should cut Doctors pay to raise the nurses pay? And this would cost nothing? Do you have figures for that because that sound massively, massively unlikely and it would involve subverting current employment contracts as well as pissing off the most important group of people in the NHS.
Well so far you've not done too well.
Not *cut* doctors' pay; raise it more slowly than inflation. It vastly increased under the Labour/GPs agreement of 2004 and GPs lost responsibility for out of hours' care. They earn over £100k/y. It's a responsible job but doctors in other EU countries earn significantly less.
The trains post-privatisation were leased at somewhat rip-off rates. Buy them back; it's cheaper for the operator to own them. If it takes 15-20 years to buy back the franchises, so be it. BR was an arms-length agency which took less micro management than the franchisees do.
You return the rail franchises to the public sector when they expire. It costs £0.
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
Most of them do not expire for a long time now, the length of the franchises has been raised to improve investment. Also, what would they use for trains? They are all privately owned, or did you not know that? Also whom would run the railways? The transport department is far too small, that would mean creating a new department to run them or making an arms length agency to do so. That will mean set up costs.
The government recently purchased a fleet of trains for the Thameslink project and rolling stock upgrades to replace the intercity 125s on the east and west coast mainline.
' The standard voting question in this poll found CON 46%; LAB 29%: LD 16.6%: UKIP 1.3%: GRN 6.9%. '
Change on 2015:
Con -6% Lab -2% LD +11% UKIP -4% Grn +2%
It does suggest that there's going to be no big increase (or perhaps any increase) for the Conservatives in Inner London.
Which makes Labour 7/2 to hold Westminster North even better value.
The LibDems getting a good increase in a safe Conservative seat doesn't do them any good either.
That's an easy Con gain, though. Remain London voters are decamping on mass to the LDs.
Not according to the opinion polls.
And Labour's vote in Inner London consists of a lot more than some wish-washy middle class Remainers.
Labour's vote in Inner London is made up of Bobos and rich trendies, poor voters in social housing, Muslims and Afro-Caribbeans. The last three groups will remain solid.
With the MSM and many on this site starting to write off the SNP.
There are some who think they've passed their peak (though we've heard that before) and others getting a little excited by the late blooming Tory surge perhaps showing itself, but 'writing off' would be incredibly hubristic.
Yes - even the most optimistic Tories have not got beyond 12 seats with the SNP still closer to 50 than 40. I suspect the SNP are in full defensive mode as the realities of gravity do tend to hit in when you start at 56/59. In reality the Tories will be lucky to get 5 seats in my view with some good second places. LDs may get 2/3 - Labour may get 0-2.
A fair analysis - with SNP support stuck over 40% and around 2k members per seat - they will defend well in the 10 or so seats where they have realistic challengers - FWIW I think they'll hold Moray surprisingly easily !!
Dunno about Moray - it will certainly be a marginal after the election. The bigger problem for the SNP is their referendum demand looks increasingly dead in the water and they appear to have nothing to fall back upon. Yes they can no doubt get a referendum I just don't see them winning it anytime soon.
I'm not a May fan but don't you think you're being blinded by your admiration of the political mediocrity Cameron. A man who had little talent for reading the political weather other than trying to copy Tony Blair who seemed popular at the time. He benefited from people's fears post-2008 but clearly had little sense of it's wider significance and eventually ran out of luck.
Dave took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
I wish all Tory leaders were that mediocre..
So May's target to be a Cameron-style mediocrity or better is 464.
Even with the Jezziah, I have to say that looks a tall order.
I don't really understand this desire of some to judge Cameron and May against each other
They'd rather not talk about the polling
Most capable Prime Minister:
2017 May: 61 Corbyn: 23
2015 Cameron: 42 Miliband: 27
Despite Corbyn being only 4 points adrift of Miliband, May is nearly 20 points ahead of Cameron....
That's a ludicrous comparison as you well know. May has been PM for less than a year, UKIP are basically defunct and she's against Corbyn.
The data is what the data is.
The poll ratings of leaders going into a GE.
That you don't like it is your problem.
That you're incapable of understanding differences between sets of data, the most glaring of which is that Cameron and May are being compared against a different opponent would appear to be your problem.
What other data would you use to compare leaders ratings ahead of the GE?
It's almost impossible to do. Even if Cameron had been against Corbyn in 2015 the other variables were so different then it renders comparison pointless. But FWIW I doubt Theresa would've won a majority in 2015.
Comments
Requiem for losers?
Efforts to organise mass tactical voting hit a mathematical wall
Brexit may swing voters and a few seats, but formal campaigns to organise the Remain vote face problems
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21721402-brexit-may-swing-voters-and-few-seats-formal-campaigns-organise-remain-vote-face?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/requiemforloserseffortstoorganisemasstacticalvotinghitamathematicalwall
'Requiem for Losers'...
He may not realise that's what he said because he had a policy to pay for it. It just happens to be completely unworkable.
He's also committed to borrowing £500 billion to invest it in, er, something.
Most capable Prime Minister:
2017
May: 61
Corbyn: 23
2015
Cameron: 42
Miliband: 27
Despite Corbyn being only 4 points adrift of Miliband, May is nearly 20 points ahead of Cameron....
I would add to my four factors a fifth - the strength of the "give me a strong hand" pitch from the Tories which, again, any sensible Tory leader would have had.
So far May has been the beneficiary mostly of luck and good circumstance rather than her own decision-making, IMHO, except that she does appear to be a master of knowing when to keep a low profile.
As thinking, reasoning human beings, at some point we have to look at a result that looks wrong and say "this is wrong." This is regardless of the fact that some statisticians have interviewed a non-random sample of people, applied arbitrary corrections that they made up to correct for said non-randomness, and another arbitrary set of corrections to account for whether or not they will vote, and yet another arbitrary set of corrections to account for whether or not they are lying, and then made a proclamation from on high at the end. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong about everything, but when we think they are obviously wrong we need not hold back from saying "this is a load of bollocks, isn't it?"
All of these polls showing Labour rolling around 30% of the popular vote are obviously a load of bollocks. Labour managed just shy of 31% last time around, and whatever else was wrong with the party at the time it was not shambolic, hopelessly divided, or burdened with a leader who is both transparently unfit for high office and unwanted by most of his own MPs. There is no reason to suppose that Labour will match its levels of support last time, on this basis alone."
Black_Rook on PT.
Polls are self-selected data, and therefore bollocks. It's like Ptolemy and geocentricity, you can bolt on epicycles to save the phenomena, but it's all still balls. It might have worked in the good old days when spam phone calls were non-existent and everyone was polite and truthful, so if a well-spoken stranger rang you and asked you how you were gonna vote you told them. Nowadays you don't pick up because you don't recognise the number, or you pick up and snarl "Smell my spaniel, muthafucka" and put the phone down, or you say party X when the truth is party Y, to ginger party Y up and make X complacent. And have you ever done a Yougov? Self-selected panel, and you have to spend half an hour saying whether you use Fairy Liquid and how likely are you to recommend it to your family and friends, before you get to the politics. No one normal would do that more than once.
They don't pre-screen them - no one is in (as happened in Scotland)
They do pre-screen them - everyone goes FIX!!!!!
Rumours that the inhabitants were trussed and gagged in their basements to avoid any awkward encounters with 'actual voters' are just vile Nat propaganda.
They are, and will continue to be, the dominant party in Scotland for many years.
What is true however, is Elsie has passed her peak - and its very unlikely she'll ever regain her previous heights. As goes the leader, so follows the party.
Sturgeon net 'well' (ex-DK)
May 15: +60
May 16: +29
Apr 17: +2
It's been an extraordinary run (and in absolute terms her numbers are still very good) - but its over.
Biggest surprise so far has been the less than Stella performance in the polls by the Lib Dems. As the only party standing on a pro EU ticket, I’d have thought they mop up the remainers.
I remember Miliband and Remain both having the same losing demographic characteristics in their marches to victory.
But we'll know a bit more on Friday.
I will say that I believe my local Lab party had an influx of new members after Corbyn's election and there organisation for this set of elections has vastly improved. Whether that is because of them or in spite of them I cannot say
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN7r0Rr1Qyc
My take is as follows:
1. Most people in this election will be deciding on the basis of traditional party loyalties, leadership, economic competence, and (in Scotland and Northern Ireland) on the constitution. Continuity Remain is a niche position. There's no such thing as the 48%.
2. Even amongst the small minority of voters willing to put Remain above all other considerations, a large fraction of those will be leftists who will be happy to sit with the Greens, or to give Labour the benefit of the doubt.
I reckon that any poll which tells you that the Liberal Democrats have made no progress at all since 2015, i.e. which puts them on 7-8%, is wrong; however, by the same token, I doubt if they'll win a vast number of votes in excess of that. I've estimated them at somewhere around 11% for this election; I'd be very surprised indeed if they made 15%.
7 times we can deny JC ( Peter only denied JC three times) but like the other JC he is being offered up for crucifixion to appease the rulers but unlike the other JC Corbyn is going nowhere, the Labour Party will survive, we will fight till June 8 and then we'll sort out who and how we are going to consolidate our party, fighting the Tories every step of the way, clearing out the definitive traitors and sorting out , via a democratic process, what our party stands for and how we are going to put it into government.
http://labourlist.org/2017/04/luke-akehurst-we-are-fighting-in-this-election-for-the-survival-of-the-labour-party/
Now we're here we're going nowhere and neither is Corbyn. Anyone who is known to jeopardise our election campaign, Mr Blair, will be dealt with appropriately.
http://labourlist.org/2017/04/luke-akehurst-we-are-fighting-in-this-election-for-the-survival-of-the-labour-party/
We cant have the Nanny's wages going up
Power to the right kind of People!
Its like the flip side of Carswell in Clacton. He was able to beat the Tory, because Tory minded people knew when it came to it on their core issues other than Brexit he was on their side.
How are they going to pay for it then? It's the same dance every fucking time, all these wonderful promises and then when it comes down to the crunch the policies to pay for them are unworkable. It's like they want to be Santa Claus without all that tedious balancing the books.
If you want to do something, either do it one at a time or gradually. All this being done in one five year term would be unworkable.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15255963.Secret_recording_leads_to_call_for_Glasgow_Labour_councillors_to_be_suspended/?ref=twtrec
You organise taxes to take as much as possible without startling the wildlife too much, otherwise they just bounce away to another part of the forest. I'm not saying light touch, but neither do you blunder in like a drunk gamekeeper.
It's like the Guardian comments page, when the richest top 100 comes up and a lot live in London there are comments like "then why can't we afford to build hospitals!". Because they are Russian, or Indian, or Saudi!
1) Incredibly efficient vote distribution
2) Very harsh American Pollster "likely to vote filters" under-counting Trump supporters in key states.
which various people used to justify large Trump positions. I backed Hilary heavily
Largest to smallest Green votes from 2015 in Scotland
Edinburgh North and Leith 3140
Edinburgh East 2809
Glasgow North 2284
Edinburgh South 2090
Edinburgh South West 1965
Stirling 1606
Glasgow Central 1559
Glasgow South 1431
North East Fife 1387
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey 1367
Moray 1345
East Lothian 1245
Dundee West 1225
Midlothian 1219
Dunfermline and West Fife 1195
Glasgow North West 1167
Perth and North Perthshire 1146
Edinburgh West 1140
Ross, Skye and Lochaber 1051
Angus 965
Aberdeen South 964
Dundee East 895
West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine 885
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale 839
East Dunbartonshire 804
Paisley and Renfrewshire North 703
Central Ayrshire 645
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk 631
Glasgow North East 615
Glasgow South West 507
Glasgow East 381
You build public housing by using the New Towns Corporation model. It made many £1,000,000,000s for the Treasury, though sadly not for the local authorities affected who weren't allowed to keep a penny.
You could raise lower level NHS pay by not raising the pay of doctors in line with inflation. The Labour 'settlement' of 2004 with GPs cost the NHS an arm and a leg, if you'll forgive the phrase. Cost £0.
Any more you'd like spelled out at a cost of near £0 or making UK PLC a profit?
The poll ratings of leaders going into a GE.
That you don't like it is your problem.
If you're that ridiculous with it, then TSE's 'Cameron gained x seats, can May gain that many if not then she is terrible' is no worse.
Thank you for your comments about in this and the previous thread, which I enjoyed as being convincing, germane and Not Bloody Brexit.
However, there is one thing I need you to do please. Stop referring to "pollsters" as "statisticians". Polling, just like operational research, market research, and data science, is associated with, but not technically part of, statistics. "Pollsters" are not "statisticians" and I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd stop referring to them as such, please
Www.OnLondon.co.uk
I will look into the housing, I assumed that the sell offs were not raising enough to build the pub housing levels that Corbyn was mentioning, he was talking 100,000 wasn't it?
So you are saying we should cut Doctors pay to raise the nurses pay? And this would cost nothing? Do you have figures for that because that sound massively, massively unlikely and it would involve subverting current employment contracts as well as pissing off the most important group of people in the NHS.
Well so far you've not done too well.
FWIW, I doubt if I've referred to the pollsters as statisticians around these parts before, so I doubt it'll manifest as an annoying habit in future.
There look to be about five or six target seats with a fairly substantial Green presence - Edinburgh West, North East Fife, INBS, Moray, Perth and RSL. However, on those figures my 5% was clearly a bit of an underestimate to materially affect the result. Maybe 6-7% and it will get tense in some of them.
The problem with a post Brexit EU style working holiday visa scheme is that there is mass youth unemployment in many states - so the pull is one way. How many young Brits are going to go and work in Eastern Europe - they haven't done so so far in big numbers?
I am fine with the idea - but it should be with nations that also have a pull factor for British young people eg Australia and New Zealand as we have now.
Cutting medical pay is not likely to improve the recruitment and retention crisis, which along with similar problems in Nursing and other disciplines probably are a bigger threat to the existance of viable health and social care.than funding per se.
In short, staff are already voting with their feet by leaving, and not just EU staff. Money is always going to be tight, so an astute Minister would work on the other aspects of making work in the health and social care sector attractive.
"This is the first poll where we have included a past vote weight in addition to our party propensity and EU referendum vote weights. For the most part our party propensity weighting helps to ensure the number of voters for each party in 2015 is accurately reflected in our sample. However, we have noticed some varied responses to our 2015 past vote question during the past couple of months, even after taking account of party propensity, so we have included this in our weighting targets to ensure this remains stable over the course of the campaign."
http://opinium.co.uk/political-polling-25th-april-2017/
And @rcs1000 had the following to say on the subject:
"Correct me if I'm wrong PBers, but Opinium weights by past vote. Back in 2015, I highlighted how few people pollsters could find who said they voted LD in 2010. This led to them upweighting the LD vote share. ("Hmmm, only found 10% of people who voted LD, and we know the true number was 25%, better upweight what those 10% are doing by 150%.")
"There's now an opposite problem. The pollsters are regularly finding 10 or 11% of people who said they voted LD. This leads to - those who past vote weight - down rating the LD vote share.
"This was one of the things that made me v. bearish on the LDs in 2015, and makes me - while more bearish than the bookies - perhaps slightly more bullish than the PB consensus."
Thus, this pollster may be falsely downrating the Lib Dems' share because it is finding too many people who say they voted for them in the last election - and, conversely, they could also be falsely overestimating Labour because they are struggling to find enough people who admit to having voted Labour before, and are incorrectly compensating for this.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/alex-salmond-writes-letter-to-the-editor-1-4433486
F1: must admit, not my favourite race of the season. I'll set about writing the post-race analysis.
I think it's likely, if you were to rank Scottish constituencies by % of female voters under 40 with a masters/PHD, the order of the list wouldn't be too different to ^
If the greens ever break through in a FPTP UK GE, the university constituencies will be the first to fall.
It vastly increased under the Labour/GPs agreement of 2004 and GPs lost responsibility for out of hours' care. They earn over £100k/y. It's a responsible job but doctors in other EU countries earn significantly less.
The trains post-privatisation were leased at somewhat rip-off rates. Buy them back; it's cheaper for the operator to own them. If it takes 15-20 years to buy back the franchises, so be it. BR was an arms-length agency which took less micro management than the franchisees do.
Will Hill graciously alloewd me £35.17 on SCon > 9.5 seats @ 15.
I can now take SCon < 9.5 seats @1.28 with which I can lock in a profit of £83 whole pounds (plus change) For an aprox 19% return on total amount bet.
Do it or could the £400 extra quid I'd need to lock up be spent better elsewhere?