In the unthinkable scenario where Corbyn actually becomes PM, he'd last between two and three years. It would take that long for the initial honeymoon to wear off, the public-sector unions to get over-greedy, public services to be ravaged with strikes, and unemployment to become intolerable.
The screenplay has already been written:
“I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council - hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers".
Except it will be at a national, not council, level.
I know you wouldn't vote for Zacky G, and A N Other based on uni days. But is there something uniquely egregious about C L Leyland that the good voters of Hampstead & Kilburn should be aware of? (I know she stood in West Tyrone in 2015, which is perhaps the sign of a lover of lost causes, or desperate politico-wannabe keen to go anywhere and do anything required so the can start to clamber the greasy steps, but while both of these are bad, and gormless-looking publicity shots do not help either, neither seem disqualifying in their own right. I did wonder if her rather hippyish-sounding career in art therapy/psychotherapy, as I understand it, might hint at a worldview that clashes with your rational distaste for all forms of woo.)
There are exactly three Conservative candidatures I would not vote for: David Treddinick, Zac Goldsmith and Clare Louise Leyland. Of these, the first is because - as you say - he believes in woo. The second is more my general irritation at him for throwing away Richmond Park on a whim, and then having the gall to stand again. The last one is simply personal.
The drivers that helped Brexit to win are helping Labour/Corbyn improve in the polls.
£350 million per week for the NHS?
Motivated people who previously didn't vote are now saying they are going to vote. Pollsters used to downweight them in the polls.
Said voters: They also knew Brexit would cause economic harm but saw it as the only option to change the country.
Now replace Brexit with Corbyn in the previous sentence.
That doesn't make any sense. The pollsters are finding the only significant factor in the increase in the Labour vote is the change in the youth VI and turnout. These are not Brexiteers.
There are a number of Tory MPs that I would vote for, but Tredinnick not only is bonkers, but also has spent his 30 years as an MP for Bosworth living in London and Sussex. He really is a donkey in a blue rosette.
He has some properly weird views according to wiki:
Tredinnick's views have attracted criticism.[12] During the 2010 United Kingdom general election, he was opposed by New Scientist journalist Dr. Michael Brooks who objected to "Tredinnick's outspoken promotion of alternative medicine."[20] During a hustings debate called by Brooks to "highlight the scientific literacy of the UK's elected representatives", Brooks said that Tredinnick regarded homeopathy as a suitable treatment for malaria and HIV, which Tredinnick did not deny.[20] In March 2013, Tredinnick's opinions were described as "nonsensical" by the government's outgoing chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, who said the MP had fallen for the "Galileo fallacy" ("Galileo was laughed at but was right; therefore since I am laughed at I must be right").[21]
Tredinnick's appointment to the Health Committee in June 2010 was criticised in two science reports in The Guardian.[22][23] Martin Robbins said the appointment was "an extremely disturbing development", even though "Tredinnick is a figure unlikely to be taken seriously by policymakers".[22] Nature's Adam Rutherford described Tredinnick as "misinformed about a great many things" and said that "giving [him] influence on medical policy...is a bad move."[23] The Telegraph's writer Ian Douglas described the appointment as "a problem".[12]
Tredinnick's appointment to the Science and Technology Committee also drew criticism. Andy McSmith in The Independent cited Tredinnick's view that homeopathy could cure HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, urinary infections, diarrhoea, skin eruptions, diabetes, epilepsy, eye infections, intestinal parasites, cancer, and gangrene among other conditions, and quoted Imran Khan, former head of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, as saying that "someone with such incredibly odd views is not helpful."[8] Tom Whipple in The Times said his appointment caused despair,[9] whilst Elizabeth Gibney in the Times Higher Education quoted the Skeptical Voter website as saying that Tredinnick is "perhaps the worst example of scientific illiteracy in government."[10] Lord Winston described his beliefs in homeopathy and astrology as "lunatic".[24]
In the unthinkable scenario where Corbyn actually become PM, he'd last between two and three years. It would take that long for the initial honeymoon to wear off, the public-sector unions to get over-greedy, public services to be ravaged with strikes, and unemployment to become intolerable.
The screenplay has already been written:
“I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council - hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers".
Except it will be at a national, not council, level.
I cannot believe Richard's first sentence. Would he have been writing it just two weeks ago ?
The drivers that helped Brexit to win are helping Labour/Corbyn improve in the polls.
£350 million per week for the NHS?
Motivated people who previously didn't vote are now saying they are going to vote. Pollsters used to downweight them in the polls.
Said voters: They also knew Brexit would cause economic harm but saw it as the only option to change the country.
Now replace Brexit with Corbyn in the previous sentence.
That doesn't make any sense. The pollsters are finding the only significant factor in the increase in the Labour vote is the change in the youth VI and turnout. These are not Brexiteers.
Read what I originally wrote. It's people who don't vote in elections or the EURef that are now turning out to vote for Corbyn, or are at least telling the pollsters that's what they are planning on doing
I share Jezzas views in several areas. I left Labour because of the Iraq war and also NHS privatisation, and think Trident a pointless waste of money for an obselete weapons system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago. Who do we even aim them at nowadays!
But his economic policy, nationalisations and finances are bonkers.
Russia still have 8,000 nuclear war heads, Russia - western nation relations have rarely been as bad.
Whether we will have a nuclear war in the future who knows. I sleep better at night knowing we have a Nuclear deterrent and if we were unfortunate enough to get attacked at least we have the option of a counter attack.
I don't think giving up nuclear weapons is an option and the US wants European nations to pay for more defence not less.
Fair enough if you vote for Corbyn but be under no illusion that just because the cold war has ended some countries will still be hostile and want to influence or even attack us.
As I ascend to heaven on a mushroom shaped cloud, I will not feel better for meeting a load of Russians at the pearly gates (not least because Russians are not orderly queuers).
And I did not say I was voting Corbyn. I live in a Tory seat now and will vote LibDem.
There are a number of Tory MPs that I would vote for, but Tredinnick not only is bonkers, but also has spent his 30 years as an MP for Bosworth living in London and Sussex. He really is a donkey in a blue rosette. I am leafletting for LDs there as challengers.
I wouldn't vote for Alan Duncan either, having encountered him socially, while Edward Garnier was charming and helpful, and Nicky Morgan a very good constituency MP.
As a former Leicestershire resident, I never encountered Garnier but would concur with all three of your other judgements.
The drivers that helped Brexit to win are helping Labour/Corbyn improve in the polls.
£350 million per week for the NHS?
Motivated people who previously didn't vote are now saying they are going to vote. Pollsters used to downweight them in the polls.
Said voters: They also knew Brexit would cause economic harm but saw it as the only option to change the country.
Now replace Brexit with Corbyn in the previous sentence.
That doesn't make any sense. The pollsters are finding the only significant factor in the increase in the Labour vote is the change in the youth VI and turnout. These are not Brexiteers.
Read what I originally wrote. It's people who don't vote in elections or the EURef that are now turning out to vote for Corbyn.
Just like what happened in the EURef
You continued "said voters" implying they were the same people.
Well, lets see if these non-voters are on the electoral register.
The drivers that helped Brexit to win are helping Labour/Corbyn improve in the polls.
£350 million per week for the NHS?
Motivated people who previously didn't vote are now saying they are going to vote. Pollsters used to downweight them in the polls.
Said voters: They also knew Brexit would cause economic harm but saw it as the only option to change the country.
Now replace Brexit with Corbyn in the previous sentence.
That doesn't make any sense. The pollsters are finding the only significant factor in the increase in the Labour vote is the change in the youth VI and turnout. These are not Brexiteers.
It is potentially a double wave election of mass youth voting plus the Brexiteers. If that happens, the Labour vote piles will be through the roof in Sheffield Central, Coventry South will stay red whilst Northwest will go blue and Blyth Valley turns blue...
Playing around with Baxter - if Lab keep climbing but Con hold reasonably firm:
Con 42, Lab 41, LD 6, UKIP 2, Green 2 gives:
Con 324, Lab 249, LD 1, Green 1, SNP 56, PC 1, NI 18
(Assuming no special Scotland swing)
Whether that's right or wrong who knows - but it would imply that with both parties scoring very highly Con potentially has a very big votes to seats advantage.
Very interesting. I've had a look and the Tories only need to be ahead by 1.6 points to win an overall majority.
In the unthinkable scenario where Corbyn actually become PM, he'd last between two and three years. It would take that long for the initial honeymoon to wear off, the public-sector unions to get over-greedy, public services to be ravaged with strikes, and unemployment to become intolerable.
The screenplay has already been written:
“I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council - hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers".
Except it will be at a national, not council, level.
I cannot believe Richard's first sentence. Would he have been writing it just two weeks ago ?
I was responding to speculation upthread.
But of course no-one was thinking it a couple of weeks ago. No-one in their right mind, from any part of the sane political spectrum, would have believed that a third or more of voters would say they plan to vote for Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott. The idea of those three being within a million miles of the levers of power is grotesque beyond imagining. But, given the polling, we can no longer be certain that the grotesque won't come to pass, although I think it remains unlikely.
All that happens if Corbyn is elected is that he'll be "found out" to be even worse than May (in the eyes of the electorate) in their wildest dreams, in less than 6 months.
But we could be stuck with him for 5 years, unless all the other parties no confidence him.
Which is unlikely, because the Tories would then take office again.
Corbyn would not last six weeks, let alone six months. Labour MPs would have him out in no time and there'd be nothing anyone could do.
In all honesty, I genuinely do not think the electorate has ever been presented with a worse set of choices than at this election. No-one deserves to win. Both candidates for PM give every impression of not being up to the task and, worse, of being willing to trash the UK economy.
Both candidates are dishonest for somewhat related reasons. We have choices and those choices have consequences. Corbyn promises us everything. In fact you can A or you can have B but you have to decide which you want. In May's case we have made our important choice, which is to leave the European Union and now we have to deal with the consequences. Brexit is a downgrade but she refuses to acknowledge that fact or admit it to the public, which means she is not managing Brexit in any effective way at all.
There are a number of Tory MPs that I would vote for, but Tredinnick not only is bonkers, but also has spent his 30 years as an MP for Bosworth living in London and Sussex. He really is a donkey in a blue rosette. I am leafletting for LDs there as challengers.
I wouldn't vote for Alan Duncan either, having encountered him socially, while Edward Garnier was charming and helpful, and Nicky Morgan a very good constituency MP.
I honestly have never understood how people like Tredinnick obtain and keep such safe seats. Surely the number of people who would want such a seat must be a mile long and the man has been a constant and colossal twat his whole career. Is it things like this that stop impressive people going into politics or is it the lack of good people in politics that leads us to David Tredinnick?
This is PANIC mode. The Tories do not know what to do. I thought telling everyone that he was an IRA terrorist would do it.
PB Tories told us so.
Mind you, if I were a Tory I'd be relieved that the panic was taking this form, as it seems less likely to backfire than some other possibilities, such as trying to intensify the negative campaigning. But maybe there's still time for another panic closer to polling day.
You're the one who wants to protect the inheritances of the rich.
I'm going to not vote, for the first time in a long time. My wife (Conservative voter in 2015) has urged me to vote for anyone by Ms Leyland. But I can't - with all good conscious - vote for any of the options.
Ignoring personal issues about our local Conservative candidate, I dislike Mrs May. I think she is strident where she should be flexible. And weak where she should be strong. I think she spends too long focusing on whether a policy should be popular, and runs at the first sign of opposition.
I dislike Mr Corbyn more. Permanent giveaways may excite the 'progressive alliance', but it is no way to run a country.
I met many people like Mr Farron in student politics. I have no time for them. Were Mr Lamb the LibDem candidate, and were the LibDems campaigning on a "respect the Eu referendum vote, but soft Brexit" platform, I would vote for them. They are not.
While I am personally green in my habits, I loathe the Green party as enemies of progress.
Hi all!, Lurked around for a while but decided to join the party. I have to say this is a pretty decent summary of my own position in this election. Never been more put off by the idea of voting Labour but
Grrrr! Beaten by forum issues already! Original Post:
Hi all! Lurked around for a while but decided to join the party. I have to say this is a pretty decent summary of my own position in this election. Never been more put off by the idea of voting Labour but also never felt worse about the idea of voting Tory. Not having a decent out in the form of the Lib Dems this time kind of puts the cherry on it. I can't believe Clegg would have done worse had he stayed on certainly I would be a lot more likely to vote for them (not that my vote can help anyone in the deepest blue of Safe Seats). Lamb would have excellent as well though the real shame is the absolute wipe out of talent from 2015 (not that the Blues or Reds have any more of it lying around). I a fairly constant optimist but I must say I'm struggling on the to see the good 'possible' outcome of this election rather than just the less awful.
So it seems we're all agreed - alarmed by both May and Corbyn, we'll get Norman Lamb in to reinvent the Lib Dems as a sort of soft-Brexit en marche, at some point in the next week, and we can all vote for them. Failing this, we're down to, in my case, voting May out of fear of Corbyn, or, alternatively, for everyone else I know, voting Corbyn out of loathing of May.
How come there are two YG 50,000-respondent polls in Wikipedia?
I think it's a rolling 7 day, with 7,000 per day.
You therefore need to be careful with ELBOW - to avoid double counting you only want one poll every 7 days - ie include the first one, then ignore the next six and then take the one exactly a week after the first one.
It'll be funny if the Tories win a 150 seat majority after all this.
Michael Moszynski - who predicted IndyRef, GE 2015, and EUref correctly rubbished YouGov today and said that he thinks the Tories will win a majority between 103-108.
The polling industry has been so topsy-turvy in recent years it's unreal.
In the unthinkable scenario where Corbyn actually become PM, he'd last between two and three years. It would take that long for the initial honeymoon to wear off, the public-sector unions to get over-greedy, public services to be ravaged with strikes, and unemployment to become intolerable.
The screenplay has already been written:
“I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council - hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers".
Except it will be at a national, not council, level.
I cannot believe Richard's first sentence. Would he have been writing it just two weeks ago ?
I was responding to speculation upthread.
But of course no-one was thinking it a couple of weeks ago. No-one in their right mind, from any part of the sane political spectrum, would have believed that a third or more of voters would say they plan to vote for Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott. The idea of those three being within a million miles of the levers of power is grotesque beyond imagining. But, given the polling, we can no longer be certain that the grotesque won't come to pass, although I think it remains unlikely.
We've marched in lock step through this GE, Richard.
There are a number of Tory MPs that I would vote for, but Tredinnick not only is bonkers, but also has spent his 30 years as an MP for Bosworth living in London and Sussex. He really is a donkey in a blue rosette. I am leafletting for LDs there as challengers.
I wouldn't vote for Alan Duncan either, having encountered him socially, while Edward Garnier was charming and helpful, and Nicky Morgan a very good constituency MP.
As a former Leicestershire resident, I never encountered Garnier but would concur with all three of your other judgements.
Garnier retires at this election.
I get correspondance from most MPs from time to time on constituency business, where it intersects with the NHS. Their approach gives a lot away about their attitudes.
Some give it lip service, some are just working patronage, but the best take it up as a cause that extends well beyond their immediate constituent to change things for others. Garnier, Morgan and Kendall fall into that final hall of fame.
In the unthinkable scenario where Corbyn actually become PM, he'd last between two and three years. It would take that long for the initial honeymoon to wear off, the public-sector unions to get over-greedy, public services to be ravaged with strikes, and unemployment to become intolerable.
The screenplay has already been written:
“I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council - hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers".
Except it will be at a national, not council, level.
I cannot believe Richard's first sentence. Would he have been writing it just two weeks ago ?
I was responding to speculation upthread.
But of course no-one was thinking it a couple of weeks ago. No-one in their right mind, from any part of the sane political spectrum, would have believed that a third or more of voters would say they plan to vote for Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott. The idea of those three being within a million miles of the levers of power is grotesque beyond imagining. But, given the polling, we can no longer be certain that the grotesque won't come to pass, although I think it remains unlikely.
Quite so. A third, maybe, seemed plausible - I was thinking 30ish, but high 30s is beyond what anyone thought, and we cannot discount it entirely.
Night all. Given the polls are all over the place, it would be nice, for the bedwetters like me, for the direction of travel at least to move away from Labour, even if no one can agree on the actual shares or the state of the tory lead.
Or taking the pressure off might backfire. Also, not sure how it fits with the "coalition of chaos" angle they seemed to have set up for the final week.
On balance, I think she's misunderstood/miscalculated how a PM needs to act when seeking reelection. Let your attack dogs go after the opposition - keep yourself clean and be relentlessly positive.
Dave never went around saying "have you heard about ed's dad?" and other such shite.
Not in public, anyway.
The manifesto was so awful you have to ask what 'positive' things they have to say.
Deliver a million homes by 2020.
Fantasy economics.
Then again, with Corbyn's manifesto....
3 of the top 5 policies were actually in the tory manifesto- I don't know wy they didn't campaign on them.
Labour has a small lead on YouGov in the unweighted sample.
People who say YG just include "everyone who replies to the poll" (which would thus make it more inaccurate) are wrong. YouGov are already adjusting their raw data, based on turnout assumptions, to produce small Tory leads. Though their adjustments aren't as aggressive as ComRes and ICM admittedly.
Grrrr! Beaten by forum issues already! Original Post:
Hi all! Lurked around for a while but decided to join the party. I have to say this is a pretty decent summary of my own position in this election. Never been more put off by the idea of voting Labour but also never felt worse about the idea of voting Tory. Not having a decent out in the form of the Lib Dems this time kind of puts the cherry on it. I can't believe Clegg would have done worse had he stayed on certainly I would be a lot more likely to vote for them (not that my vote can help anyone in the deepest blue of Safe Seats). Lamb would have excellent as well though the real shame is the absolute wipe out of talent from 2015 (not that the Blues or Reds have any more of it lying around). I a fairly constant optimist but I must say I'm struggling on the to see the good 'possible' outcome of this election rather than just the less awful.
So it seems we're all agreed - alarmed by both May and Corbyn, we'll get Norman Lamb in to reinvent the Lib Dems as a sort of soft-Brexit en marche, at some point in the next week, and we can all vote for them. Failing this, we're down to, in my case, voting May out of fear of Corbyn, or, alternatively, for everyone else I know, voting Corbyn out of loathing of May.
Sounds like a plan to me! I'll print out the leaflets. Must say it's times like this I am happy to live in a seat where my vote makes no difference. The only real point for me is signalling and even then it's mostly just signalling to myself.
I wonder to what extent the parties have now seen postal votes - most must have been cast by now.
I know some people post on here that you can't see them but we have had pretty strong evidence in the past (eg the Labour Uncut article in 2015) that some people do manage to see them to some degree - ie enough to draw conclusions.
A majority say Britain was wrong to vote for Brexit!
the unweighted sample is hugely in favour of REMAIN. 910 to 787 to Remain. Suspicious.
However, the composition of the unweighted sample is not very relevant, because the poll results have been weighted to the actual EURef result.
If your sample is full of enthusiastic remainiacs whose views may not be representative of remain voters, weighting them down to the correct quota doesn't stop them being unrepresentative.
My assumption is it's the ex-lab, 2015 ukip, then brexit vote (that was blue a month ago) - which is boosting lab.
Any other theories?
I can't see why anyone fitting that description would vote for Corbyn. I am one of them, maybe not representative though. I live in a very Ukip area and have never heard anyone say one good thing about Corbyn, he is a laughing stock. In fact the only time two of my mates have ever brought up politics was to say 'wtf is that new labour weirdo all about'
I live in Nottingham North, which is overwhelmingly WWC and had an 18.5% UKIP vote in 2015. My ward (Bulwell) voted more than 2-1 to leave. I've helped in several canvasses and it seems quite solidly Labour now - quite a few voters say they went UKIP last time but want to get the Tories out.
My aun and uncle (a miner) lived in Bulwell. If Labour had lost Bulwell, you'd be sub 100 seats!
My assumption is it's the ex-lab, 2015 ukip, then brexit vote (that was blue a month ago) - which is boosting lab.
Any other theories?
I can't see why anyone fitting that description would vote for Corbyn. I am one of them, maybe not representative though. I live in a very Ukip area and have never heard anyone say one good thing about Corbyn, he is a laughing stock. In fact the only time two of my mates have ever brought up politics was to say 'wtf is that new labour weirdo all about'
I live in Nottingham North, which is overwhelmingly WWC and had an 18.5% UKIP vote in 2015. My ward (Bulwell) voted more than 2-1 to leave. I've helped in several canvasses and it seems quite solidly Labour now - quite a few voters say they went UKIP last time but want to get the Tories out.
You do know we all ignore your canvass reports, right?
I don't.
Nick P does tend to be very optimistic (albeit, so can we all be).
My assumption is it's the ex-lab, 2015 ukip, then brexit vote (that was blue a month ago) - which is boosting lab.
Any other theories?
I can't see why anyone fitting that description would vote for Corbyn. I am one of them, maybe not representative though. I live in a very Ukip area and have never heard anyone say one good thing about Corbyn, he is a laughing stock. In fact the only time two of my mates have ever brought up politics was to say 'wtf is that new labour weirdo all about'
I live in Nottingham North, which is overwhelmingly WWC and had an 18.5% UKIP vote in 2015. My ward (Bulwell) voted more than 2-1 to leave. I've helped in several canvasses and it seems quite solidly Labour now - quite a few voters say they went UKIP last time but want to get the Tories out.
You do know we all ignore your canvass reports, right?
I don't.
Nick P does tend to be very optimistic (albeit, so can we all be).
It'll be funny if the Tories win a 150 seat majority after all this.
Michael Moszynski - who predicted IndyRef, GE 2015, and EUref correctly rubbished YouGov today and said that he thinks the Tories will win a majority between 103-108.
The polling industry has been so topsy-turvy in recent years it's unreal.
Dear Apocolypse, saw some of the hassle you got earlier. You have every right to vote how you want, and have no need to justify it to anyone. I know you don't need my validation, but you have it anyway.
There are a number of Tory MPs that I would vote for, but Tredinnick not only is bonkers, but also has spent his 30 years as an MP for Bosworth living in London and Sussex. He really is a donkey in a blue rosette. I am leafletting for LDs there as challengers.
I wouldn't vote for Alan Duncan either, having encountered him socially, while Edward Garnier was charming and helpful, and Nicky Morgan a very good constituency MP.
I honestly have never understood how people like Tredinnick obtain and keep such safe seats. Surely the number of people who would want such a seat must be a mile long and the man has been a constant and colossal twat his whole career. Is it things like this that stop impressive people going into politics or is it the lack of good people in politics that leads us to David Tredinnick?
I reckon I would be a rubbish MP.
But when I look at some people who do make it to the green benches, it does make you wonder whether "could I do a better job than him/her? In fact, how could I possibly do a worse job?"
I'm surprised constituency parties don't tell more of them that they've served their time now, time to look for fresh talent. But perhaps it can suit to have someone abject as the local MP. Someone smart and bright and on the way up may have less time for local affairs, particularly local party affairs.
I wonder to what extent the parties have now seen postal votes - most must have been cast by now.
I know some people post on here that you can't see them but we have had pretty strong evidence in the past (eg the Labour Uncut article in 2015) that some people do manage to see them to some degree - ie enough to draw conclusions.
It'll be funny if the Tories win a 150 seat majority after all this.
Michael Moszynski - who predicted IndyRef, GE 2015, and EUref correctly rubbished YouGov today and said that he thinks the Tories will win a majority between 103-108.
The polling industry has been so topsy-turvy in recent years it's unreal.
Did you see his dust up with Joe Twyman from YouGov on Sky News this afternoon?
So they were 6 an7% out on those occasions. Taking the avreage they could be 6.5% wrong again and the tory lead could actually be 9.5%, which is what the avreage of the polls are showing.
I still suspect as the campaign goes on shy Tories who previously popped their heads above the parapet have gone into quiet head down silence.
But the Tories haven't slipped all that much, it's Labour who have risen.
Read the whole post....
I did, thank you, but I didn't think it adequately disputed that point.
Let me clarify because I didn't put it across well.
In a nutshell, some average punters will just say they will vote Labour just to move on. But they won't on polling day, they'll go Conservative or not vote. And it only has to be 2 or 3 off the top of those Labour figures..or 5 if its You Gov....and its going to look a hell of a lot different
The Conservatives look solid at at least 43% or so. Labour, I suspect, has froth to the tune of several points. Bear in mind, I'm backing on my instinct being better than the average. Its not science because if it was, I'd follow what is apparently scientific, which won't make me money.
I never believed the massive margins, I believed that Conservative vote was frothy at the start and simply wouldn't stack up. and reckoned on a Conservative majority, 35 on an ok day, 50 on a great day over the rest combined because I'm not sure if Conservative votes will stack up quite in the way they hope.
Best estimate Conservatives 43%+, Labour 33% or below.
I'm sticking with Cons on 41-42%, Labour on 34-35%. Differential turnout giving a majority of between 20-40.
A majority say Britain was wrong to vote for Brexit!
the unweighted sample is hugely in favour of REMAIN. 910 to 787 to Remain. Suspicious.
If you look at the top line of the table you can see the numbers after weighting Remain 737 to Leave 801. It's OK unless other under or over represented demographics have a greater tendency to regret their vote.
Edit: The Conservatives still do reasonably well on economic and Brexit competence in those statistics. The killer statistic for them is 51% think the Conservatives are dishonest (up from 44% in the previous survey).
A majority say Britain was wrong to vote for Brexit!
the unweighted sample is hugely in favour of REMAIN. 910 to 787 to Remain. Suspicious.
However, the composition of the unweighted sample is not very relevant, because the poll results have been weighted to the actual EURef result.
If your sample is full of enthusiastic remainiacs whose views may not be representative of remain voters, weighting them down to the correct quota doesn't stop them being unrepresentative.
I agree, a sample that is unrepresentative in one domain is likely to be unrepresentative in others.
In adjusting for bias we can adjust for known variables, but the only way to adjust for unknown variables is an accurate random sample with high participation from contact.
Adjusted polls can show temporal trends, and whether we see ICM or YG, both have the lead shrinking by 10 points over 4 weeks, albeit from diferent baselines. It is getting closer. Not close enough to give a hung parliament though.
A majority say Britain was wrong to vote for Brexit!
the unweighted sample is hugely in favour of REMAIN. 910 to 787 to Remain. Suspicious.
However, the composition of the unweighted sample is not very relevant, because the poll results have been weighted to the actual EURef result.
If your sample is full of enthusiastic remainiacs whose views may not be representative of remain voters, weighting them down to the correct quota doesn't stop them being unrepresentative.
I agree, a sample that is unrepresentative in one domain is likely to be unrepresentative in others.
In adjusting for bias we can adjust for known variables, but the only way to adjust for unknown variables is an accurate random sample with high participation from contact.
Adjusted polls can show temporal trends, and whether we see ICM or YG, both have the lead shrinking by 10 points over 4 weeks, albeit from diferent baselines. It is getting closer. Not close enough to give a hung parliament though.
It'll be funny if the Tories win a 150 seat majority after all this.
Michael Moszynski - who predicted IndyRef, GE 2015, and EUref correctly rubbished YouGov today and said that he thinks the Tories will win a majority between 103-108.
The polling industry has been so topsy-turvy in recent years it's unreal.
Thinking back to 2015 there was a wide divergence between phone and Internal panel polls, which turned out strongly in the phone poll's direction.
So much so that when EuRef came around we were all ready to ignore the Internet polls showing a close result and only really believe the Phone polls with their large Remain lead.
There's an argument to be made that the Internet panels are falling into the same trap as 2015 , and missing a whole swathe of Tory voters who don't have the time to fill in the surveys. Really don't believe for one second that there's only 3 points between the parties.
A majority say Britain was wrong to vote for Brexit!
That makes me question that poll even more tbh. Most polls have shown the public don't regret it.
It's been within the MOE of the actual result pretty much since the referendum. This poll is no different.
Meanwhile, the internals look awful for the Tories. Labour more positive, has better policies for the country, has better policies for my family, running good campaign. Tories the opposite.
It'll be funny if the Tories win a 150 seat majority after all this.
Michael Moszynski - who predicted IndyRef, GE 2015, and EUref correctly rubbished YouGov today and said that he thinks the Tories will win a majority between 103-108.
The polling industry has been so topsy-turvy in recent years it's unreal.
Dear Apocolypse, saw some of the hassle you got earlier. You have every right to vote how you want, and have no need to justify it to anyone. I know you don't need my validation, but you have it anyway.
Thank you. As someone who has been consistent in my anti-Corbyn position on this site, I was rather shocked by the response of some PBers. I had always maintained I wouldn't vote Labour, so I don't know why they were so surprised.
@jonny83 Yes, I did - via YT. I felt sorry for Twyman!
I wonder to what extent the parties have now seen postal votes - most must have been cast by now.
I know some people post on here that you can't see them but we have had pretty strong evidence in the past (eg the Labour Uncut article in 2015) that some people do manage to see them to some degree - ie enough to draw conclusions.
I don't know about else where but here they are only starting to open the postal votes this morning so parties might not of seen very many at all yet.
I'm not entirely sure there are words sufficient to express my contempt for the leadership of the Tory party, from John Major to David Cameron and George Osborne, right down to Theresa May.
The constant frustration of the public's rightful scepticism over the EU, may now result in a quasi-Marxist government of the UK.
Well done, chaps. No, really. Well DONE.
BRAVO.
Plenty of 'Tories' cheering it too
Must say though, the prospect of PM Corbyn gives me some idea of how @AlastairMeeks and @Scott_P must feel about the EU ref. I simply can't believe I might live in a country that could vote this prick and his lunatic posse in as our PM, CoftheE etc but it might happen IF SOME of the polls are accurate
I'm not entirely sure there are words sufficient to express my contempt for the leadership of the Tory party, from John Major to David Cameron and George Osborne, right down to Theresa May.
The constant frustration of the public's rightful scepticism over the EU, may now result in a quasi-Marxist government of the UK.
We need more polls but a healthy Conservative majority now seems out of reach. A week to go but if the surge continues then it doesn't bode well. Goodnight all.
It'll be funny if the Tories win a 150 seat majority after all this.
Michael Moszynski - who predicted IndyRef, GE 2015, and EUref correctly rubbished YouGov today and said that he thinks the Tories will win a majority between 103-108.
The polling industry has been so topsy-turvy in recent years it's unreal.
Dear Apocolypse, saw some of the hassle you got earlier. You have every right to vote how you want, and have no need to justify it to anyone. I know you don't need my validation, but you have it anyway.
Thank you. As someone who has been consistent in my anti-Corbyn position on this site, I was rather shocked by the response of some PBers. I had always maintained I wouldn't vote Labour, so I don't know why they were so surprised.
@jonny83 Yes, I did - via YT. I felt sorry for Twyman!
Labour has a small lead on YouGov in the unweighted sample.
People who say YG just include "everyone who replies to the poll" (which would thus make it more inaccurate) are wrong. YouGov are already adjusting their raw data, based on turnout assumptions, to produce small Tory leads. Though their adjustments aren't as aggressive as ComRes and ICM admittedly.
Also, the two big parties are within a point before netting off.
I'm not entirely sure there are words sufficient to express my contempt for the leadership of the Tory party, from John Major to David Cameron and George Osborne, right down to Theresa May.
The constant frustration of the public's rightful scepticism over the EU, may now result in a quasi-Marxist government of the UK.
Well done, chaps. No, really. Well DONE.
BRAVO.
It's actually worse than that. The SNP would now be dealing with Corbyn and inevitably Scottish independence becomes more likely once again. Remainers will blame Brexit for this mess as some are already taking the opportunity to do. The country will be riven apart.
It'll be funny if the Tories win a 150 seat majority after all this.
Michael Moszynski - who predicted IndyRef, GE 2015, and EUref correctly rubbished YouGov today and said that he thinks the Tories will win a majority between 103-108.
The polling industry has been so topsy-turvy in recent years it's unreal.
Dear Apocolypse, saw some of the hassle you got earlier. You have every right to vote how you want, and have no need to justify it to anyone. I know you don't need my validation, but you have it anyway.
Thank you. As someone who has been consistent in my anti-Corbyn position on this site, I was rather shocked by the response of some PBers. I had always maintained I wouldn't vote Labour, so I don't know why they were so surprised.
@jonny83 Yes, I did - via YT. I felt sorry for Twyman!
No problem.I am anti-Corbyn but will be voting Labour. It is a democratic election.
It'll be funny if the Tories win a 150 seat majority after all this.
Michael Moszynski - who predicted IndyRef, GE 2015, and EUref correctly rubbished YouGov today and said that he thinks the Tories will win a majority between 103-108.
The polling industry has been so topsy-turvy in recent years it's unreal.
Thinking back to 2015 there was a wide divergence between phone and Internal panel polls, which turned out strongly in the phone poll's direction.
So much so that when EuRef came around we were all ready to ignore the Internet polls showing a close result and only really believe the Phone polls with their large Remain lead.
There's an argument to be made that the Internet panels are falling into the same trap as 2015 , and missing a whole swathe of Tory voters who don't have the time to fill in the surveys. Really don't believe for one second that there's only 3 points between the parties.
Thing is with online polls is that there may be issues in capturing the 65+ vote. Easier to get my age group to do these polls, especially with a money incentive. Less easier to get the oldies to do it when many of them are not very tech savvy.
@bobajobPB Yes, I agree. Their campaign has been awful so no surprises there.
There are a number of Tory MPs that I would vote for, but Tredinnick not only is bonkers, but also has spent his 30 years as an MP for Bosworth living in London and Sussex. He really is a donkey in a blue rosette. I am leafletting for LDs there as challengers.
I wouldn't vote for Alan Duncan either, having encountered him socially, while Edward Garnier was charming and helpful, and Nicky Morgan a very good constituency MP.
I honestly have never understood how people like Tredinnick obtain and keep such safe seats. Surely the number of people who would want such a seat must be a mile long and the man has been a constant and colossal twat his whole career. Is it things like this that stop impressive people going into politics or is it the lack of good people in politics that leads us to David Tredinnick?
I reckon I would be a rubbish MP.
But when I look at some people who do make it to the green benches, it does make you wonder whether "could I do a better job than him/her? In fact, how could I possibly do a worse job?"
I'm surprised constituency parties don't tell more of them that they've served their time now, time to look for fresh talent. But perhaps it can suit to have someone abject as the local MP. Someone smart and bright and on the way up may have less time for local affairs, particularly local party affairs.
I agree with that logic but Tredinnick from all reports is a fairly poor local MP as well. It's hard to imagine that him living over a hundred miles from his constituency for the last 3 decades combined with his general ineptitude would could be a good locally or nationally. I do think there is a good argument to say we shouldn't demand all our MPs be far above the average man as it would probably worsen the general disconnect already felt but I don't think he represents the common man either.
Comments
PB Tories told us so.
I'm burning my bet slips on Labour polling sub 20%
The screenplay has already been written:
“I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council - hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers".
Except it will be at a national, not council, level.
Tredinnick's views have attracted criticism.[12] During the 2010 United Kingdom general election, he was opposed by New Scientist journalist Dr. Michael Brooks who objected to "Tredinnick's outspoken promotion of alternative medicine."[20] During a hustings debate called by Brooks to "highlight the scientific literacy of the UK's elected representatives", Brooks said that Tredinnick regarded homeopathy as a suitable treatment for malaria and HIV, which Tredinnick did not deny.[20] In March 2013, Tredinnick's opinions were described as "nonsensical" by the government's outgoing chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, who said the MP had fallen for the "Galileo fallacy" ("Galileo was laughed at but was right; therefore since I am laughed at I must be right").[21]
Tredinnick's appointment to the Health Committee in June 2010 was criticised in two science reports in The Guardian.[22][23] Martin Robbins said the appointment was "an extremely disturbing development", even though "Tredinnick is a figure unlikely to be taken seriously by policymakers".[22] Nature's Adam Rutherford described Tredinnick as "misinformed about a great many things" and said that "giving [him] influence on medical policy...is a bad move."[23] The Telegraph's writer Ian Douglas described the appointment as "a problem".[12]
Tredinnick's appointment to the Science and Technology Committee also drew criticism. Andy McSmith in The Independent cited Tredinnick's view that homeopathy could cure HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, urinary infections, diarrhoea, skin eruptions, diabetes, epilepsy, eye infections, intestinal parasites, cancer, and gangrene among other conditions, and quoted Imran Khan, former head of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, as saying that "someone with such incredibly odd views is not helpful."[8] Tom Whipple in The Times said his appointment caused despair,[9] whilst Elizabeth Gibney in the Times Higher Education quoted the Skeptical Voter website as saying that Tredinnick is "perhaps the worst example of scientific illiteracy in government."[10] Lord Winston described his beliefs in homeopathy and astrology as "lunatic".[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)
Just like what happened in the EURef
And I did not say I was voting Corbyn. I live in a Tory seat now and will vote LibDem.
Well, lets see if these non-voters are on the electoral register.
But of course no-one was thinking it a couple of weeks ago. No-one in their right mind, from any part of the sane political spectrum, would have believed that a third or more of voters would say they plan to vote for Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott. The idea of those three being within a million miles of the levers of power is grotesque beyond imagining. But, given the polling, we can no longer be certain that the grotesque won't come to pass, although I think it remains unlikely.
The London subsample for certain to vote and how interesting have you found the campaign are... Interesting.
Got GE 2015 wrong
Can't imagine what she's done to annoy the oldies
Failing this, we're down to, in my case, voting May out of fear of Corbyn, or, alternatively, for everyone else I know, voting Corbyn out of loathing of May.
You therefore need to be careful with ELBOW - to avoid double counting you only want one poll every 7 days - ie include the first one, then ignore the next six and then take the one exactly a week after the first one.
The polling industry has been so topsy-turvy in recent years it's unreal.
Still with you.
I get correspondance from most MPs from time to time on constituency business, where it intersects with the NHS. Their approach gives a lot away about their attitudes.
Some give it lip service, some are just working patronage, but the best take it up as a cause that extends well beyond their immediate constituent to change things for others. Garnier, Morgan and Kendall fall into that final hall of fame.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/final-eve-poll-poll/
Their final GE 2015 poll:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/08/general-election-opinion-polls-brief-post-mortem/
The Ashcroft Model will be updated and released Friday. Fieldwork being completed. Am looking forward to result at http://lordashcroftpolls.com
Night all. Given the polls are all over the place, it would be nice, for the bedwetters like me, for the direction of travel at least to move away from Labour, even if no one can agree on the actual shares or the state of the tory lead.
People who say YG just include "everyone who replies to the poll" (which would thus make it more inaccurate) are wrong. YouGov are already adjusting their raw data, based on turnout assumptions, to produce small Tory leads. Though their adjustments aren't as aggressive as ComRes and ICM admittedly.
I know some people post on here that you can't see them but we have had pretty strong evidence in the past (eg the Labour Uncut article in 2015) that some people do manage to see them to some degree - ie enough to draw conclusions.
Goodnight!
But when I look at some people who do make it to the green benches, it does make you wonder whether "could I do a better job than him/her? In fact, how could I possibly do a worse job?"
I'm surprised constituency parties don't tell more of them that they've served their time now, time to look for fresh talent. But perhaps it can suit to have someone abject as the local MP. Someone smart and bright and on the way up may have less time for local affairs, particularly local party affairs.
Tonight Mrs May has a 13% lead over Corbyn on the same question
Edit: The Conservatives still do reasonably well on economic and Brexit competence in those statistics. The killer statistic for them is 51% think the Conservatives are dishonest (up from 44% in the previous survey).
In adjusting for bias we can adjust for known variables, but the only way to adjust for unknown variables is an accurate random sample with high participation from contact.
Adjusted polls can show temporal trends, and whether we see ICM or YG, both have the lead shrinking by 10 points over 4 weeks, albeit from diferent baselines. It is getting closer. Not close enough to give a hung parliament though.
WHO DARES WINS!
WE dare! WE will WIN!!!!
So much so that when EuRef came around we were all ready to ignore the Internet polls showing a close result and only really believe the Phone polls with their large Remain lead.
There's an argument to be made that the Internet panels are falling into the same trap as 2015 , and missing a whole swathe of Tory voters who don't have the time to fill in the surveys. Really don't believe for one second that there's only 3 points between the parties.
I caught him under the spare bed and he is now eating some dinner.
Meanwhile, the internals look awful for the Tories. Labour more positive, has better policies for the country, has better policies for my family, running good campaign. Tories the opposite.
Hmm.
@jonny83 Yes, I did - via YT. I felt sorry for Twyman!
"Have faith in me."
Dangerously, dangerously close to "Who governs?"
Must say though, the prospect of PM Corbyn gives me some idea of how @AlastairMeeks and @Scott_P must feel about the EU ref. I simply can't believe I might live in a country that could vote this prick and his lunatic posse in as our PM, CoftheE etc but it might happen IF SOME of the polls are accurate
"Donald Trump is stressed out, isolated and gaining weight, says new report
'I see him emotionally withdrawing. He doesn't have anybody whom he trusts', source says"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-president-stressed-gaining-weight-isolated-report-cnn-white-house-diet-a7764781.html
A chinchilla? WHAT?
Yes, we have two pet chinchilla's.
@bobajobPB Yes, I agree. Their campaign has been awful so no surprises there.