Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From loser to leader – and beyond

SystemSystem Posts: 12,677
edited June 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From loser to leader – and beyond

After Jeremy Corbyn’s stunning general election vindication, he must now show real leadership by reaching out to all parts of the Labour party, argues Joff Wild

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    FIRST UNLIKE LABOUR WHO LOST THE ELECTION!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,854
    edited June 2017
    FPT: Richard_Tyndall said:

    "I see Chris Leslie has attacked Corbyn again today as well. The idea that all is well in the Labour Party is simply fantasy."

    We've just had another election where Labour is still out of power, for x years, where x could be 5 until the next election. That's another tranche of their existing MPs heading towards the end of their careers.

    The "one more heave" brigade will say they didn't offer enough sweeties, is all. I still reckon half the Parliamentary party will be deeply worried that will be enough to push their credibility over the edge. And there is no-one left to hoover up. If they want power, they have to persuade Tories of the delights of red-in-tooth-and-claw socialism. Good luck with that.

    The alternative, to attract Tories, is that there has to be a degree of realism on what can be offered in the next Manifesto. But that would mean taking away some of the sweeties from those who just came out to vote for them. Tricky balancing act....
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    Commentators have said that Labour did well and improved their vote, seats and achieved a better platform for the next General Election. One has to wonder though, how much of a drag was Corbyn in reality? Labour might have done even better with another leader, maybe even getting to the largest party status. Corbyn only looks to have done well because the bench mark was so low.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,026
    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    FrankBooth said:

    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.

    Turnout was only up by 2.6%. Was that enough to generate the huge youth turnout? Perhaps, if turnout was down amongst some other groups.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,713
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/873642944934367232
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,854
    MyBurningEars said:

    FPT

    AlastairMeeks said:

    MyBurningEars said:

    MarqueeMark said:


    Post of the week/year/millennium is already bagged by Mr Herdson......

    That, and the reaction to it, was one of the greatest PB moments of all time.

    For drama and tension it was beaten by BJO's heart-rending posts from a Tunisian hotel being attacked by terrorists.

    But for political shock value (that you could have made a lot of money on had you followed it!) nothing could beat it!
    Between that, @RochdalePioneers' precise predictions and the YouGov model we had all the clues we needed. I just didn't follow the right ones.
    Actually although DH was very close to the correct result, it would probably still have been a mistake to read too much into - his instinct was spot on but the data was weakened by how small the sample was. I recall MarqueeMark had a surprisingly good doorstep session for the Tories at the same time - which also turned out to be accurate, though for his seat! And indeed, David had a better session later, which turned out to be the more misleading one.

    Both David and RochdalePioneers were obviously very well-informed about their parties' operations in key seats.

    But the YouGov model should have been the focus of a really serious bout of analysis. It was obvious to most posters that its basic principles seemed correct. If people didn't believe the results, and yet the idea of the model seemed solid, it should have provoked extremely intense curiosity, particularly given the betting opportunities if it was even half-right.

    (If it is the future, it might be time to learn some Python or R, or at least serious Excel wizardry...)
    Our Torbay result was really very good, my reporting of it very accurate - and wasn't remotely representative! (I learnt today that the Conservatives won every council ward - and only lost two polling stations across the whole seat....)

    Some lessons for other MPs to learn from the way Kevin Foster worked his seat these past two years, perhaps? And even more impressive when you consider the LibDems had been pouring poison out to the voters about his supposed "dodgy expenses".
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,713
    https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/873638345733222400
  • TypoTypo Posts: 195
    The_Taxman said:

    Commentators have said that Labour did well and improved their vote, seats and achieved a better platform for the next General Election. One has to wonder though, how much of a drag was Corbyn in reality? Labour might have done even better with another leader, maybe even getting to the largest party status. Corbyn only looks to have done well because the bench mark was so low.

    I think they would have done worse without him actually.

    Corbyn's Labour presented a very clear alternative to May's Conservatives at just the right time to make election gains. I'm not sure somebody from the mainstream of the party could have caught the imagination of so many people in quite the same way.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @annemcelvoy: Theresa May's court via King Lear: "What need you five and twenty, ten, or five.."
    The execution of aides is same as end of the sovereign.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @ShippersUnbound: Five cabinet ministers have urged Boris to oust May. See Sunday Times

    @ShippersUnbound: Boris has decided to prop up May but his allies believe there will be a contest this year. Selling him as a liberal, popular, Brexiteer
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/873645928816803840
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/873646050233417732
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,713
    https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/873646050233417732
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/873646296355274752
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,844
    FPT:

    ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,218
    11:00PM
    Winstanley said:
    » show previous quotes
    I disagree, Brown and May showed that new leaders get honeymoons - as May's experience up to two days ago shows. Smartest thing would be to continue, take all the flack personally, and give way to somebody untainted who will then call an election.


    Would May want to? The temptation to do a Cameron must be enormous. Who wants to limp through as a humiliated zombie PM through horrible brexit negotiations, chained in by her own subordinates, only to be given the boot as thanks at the end of it so that her hated rival can take all the credit and swan to victory. That is exactly what Cameron thought, and I'm sure May will come to think the same thing. She is 60, with diabetes, she has already achieved the pinnacle of her political career, she has zero allies left in the party and they hate her now.

    I don't think she will be challenged, I think she will step down of her own accord.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,713
    Get in

    https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/873646511292391424
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/873646869930553348
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,713
    YouGov finds for the first time, Corbyn has drawn level with Mrs May on who would make the best Prime Minister
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Get in

    https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/873646511292391424

    Brussels is acing this negotiation. They don't even need to open their mouths.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,210
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    YouGov finds for the first time, Corbyn has drawn level with Mrs May on who would make the best Prime Minister

    He really is crap if he's not ahead now!
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    The thing is - he reached out the second he was elected. He stuffed his Shadow Cabinet full of his critics and gave them a higher degree of autonomy than Blair or Brown ever did. But they chose to walk about en masse at a critical moment not only for the Labour Party but for the country as a whole, in line with an anti-Corbyn policy settled before he even won the leadership the first time (there were articles about how they would get rid of him before he even won).

    Labour only dipped below Miliband's percentage in the polls after the coup-attempt. They caused months of constant bad press for the party, expelled thousands of activists on the most spurious grounds (the vast majority of which were soon invited to come back and set up new direct debits to the party by HQ...), changed the rules to ensure thousands more couldn't vote by putting an arbitrary nine month cut-off date on which members could vote (January to the election in September) when previously it had never been more than four weeks before the day the results would be announced (for Blair, Miliband, Corbyn's first time).

    It would be folly to trust any of these people with positions which they could use to damage Labour again, now they've remembered they're supposed to be officers in the army rather than observer-critics - the day after the battle.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I suspect the next shadow Cabinet reshufffle will be much quicker than previous iterations.

    Indeed, the current Cabinet reshuffle is strikingly slow. The lack of comment about that is also striking.
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    My local Momentum group is applying pressure to Chris Leslie to stop talking about Saint Jez in public, the civil war rumbles on unabated.
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/873638345733222400

    This is very likely isn't it? Especially when the polling companies take out their corrections which dampen the Labour score.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    "No, no, that was yesterday...."

    @michaelsavage: On Boris, as I understand it, senior Tories were sounding him out about a leadership as bad results came in. Allies say he's not manoeuvring
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,854
    MyBurningEars said:

    MarqueeMark said:


    Our Torbay result was really very good, my reporting of it very accurate - and wasn't remotely representative! (I learnt today that the Conservatives won every council ward - and only lost two polling stations across the whole seat....)

    Some lessons for other MPs to learn from the way Kevin Foster worked his seat these past two years, perhaps? And even more impressive when you consider the LibDems had been pouring poison out to the voters about his supposed "dodgy expenses".

    I found your anecdotal reportage very useful. You were absolutely vindicated by your result.

    But you could have had an unluckily unrepresentative sample in the particular parts of the constituency you worked.

    Or a representative sample of a part of the constituency that turned out to be unrepresentative of the seat as a whole,

    Or as you did, a representative sample of a representative part of the constituency that was, on the national scale, unrepresentative!

    Ultimately polling data surely contains more information than anecdata. But the more quantitatively minded gamblers on here must be wishing they could apply their own custom weighting and turnout filters to the samples provided!
    Thank you!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    :smiley:

    @jessphillips: I'm watching Pitch Perfect. Where a controlling group leader says they will enter the competition playing same old tired songs.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,932
    FrankBooth said:

    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.

    Corbyn, like Trump, wishes to challenge the accepted wisdom of things. There's a lot to said for that. I like the general concept. However Corbyn fancies himself able to translate this idea into discussions with the bank manager, and the accountants. He's an idiot.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/873647477026631682
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,713
    DanSmith said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/873638345733222400

    This is very likely isn't it? Especially when the polling companies take out their corrections which dampen the Labour score.
    Yup
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/telepolitics/status/873647917134823424
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,638
    Winstanley said:

    The thing is - he reached out the second he was elected. He stuffed his Shadow Cabinet full of his critics and gave them a higher degree of autonomy than Blair or Brown ever did. But they chose to walk about en masse at a critical moment not only for the Labour Party but for the country as a whole, in line with an anti-Corbyn policy settled before he even won the leadership the first time (there were articles about how they would get rid of him before he even won).

    Labour only dipped below Miliband's percentage in the polls after the coup-attempt. They caused months of constant bad press for the party, expelled thousands of activists on the most spurious grounds (the vast majority of which were soon invited to come back and set up new direct debits to the party by HQ...), changed the rules to ensure thousands more couldn't vote by putting an arbitrary nine month cut-off date on which members could vote (January to the election in September) when previously it had never been more than four weeks before the day the results would be announced (for Blair, Miliband, Corbyn's first time).

    It would be folly to trust any of these people with positions which they could use to damage Labour again, now they've remembered they're supposed to be officers in the army rather than observer-critics - the day after the battle.

    The points about the attempted coup from the right of the party, counteracted by what has sometimes appeared like a takeover-like approach from Corbyn's team, are well taken. If the right of the party want him to reach out, there'll somehow have to be much more cast-iron guarantees and obligations built in, and they'll have to work mutually, in both directions.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,334
    I had wondered when this rails were removed.

    https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/873648092322684929/photo/1

    A stop Boris piece?
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    Winstanley said:

    The thing is - he reached out the second he was elected. He stuffed his Shadow Cabinet full of his critics and gave them a higher degree of autonomy than Blair or Brown ever did. But they chose to walk about en masse at a critical moment not only for the Labour Party but for the country as a whole, in line with an anti-Corbyn policy settled before he even won the leadership the first time (there were articles about how they would get rid of him before he even won).

    Labour only dipped below Miliband's percentage in the polls after the coup-attempt. They caused months of constant bad press for the party, expelled thousands of activists on the most spurious grounds (the vast majority of which were soon invited to come back and set up new direct debits to the party by HQ...), changed the rules to ensure thousands more couldn't vote by putting an arbitrary nine month cut-off date on which members could vote (January to the election in September) when previously it had never been more than four weeks before the day the results would be announced (for Blair, Miliband, Corbyn's first time).

    It would be folly to trust any of these people with positions which they could use to damage Labour again, now they've remembered they're supposed to be officers in the army rather than observer-critics - the day after the battle.

    And let's not forget - Labour only dipped below Miliband's percentage after the coup attempt, but even those polls will have been subject to this over-correction. He was probably beating Miliband's score more substantially than the polls showed until the coup.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Get in

    https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/873646511292391424

    Not sure of his point, as a solid Brexit will be good for jobs and the economy.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    AlastairMeeks said:

    I suspect the next shadow Cabinet reshufffle will be much quicker than previous iterations.

    Indeed, the current Cabinet reshuffle is strikingly slow. The lack of comment about that is also striking.

    Talk of bringing Labour into the Brexit team is fanciful if May is having trouble persuading Tories to work for her.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    For once, the Star might have a story that has an impact on the undeclared Tory leadership race:

    https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/873648092322684929
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    GeoffM said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Get in

    https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/873646511292391424

    Not sure of his point, as a solid Brexit will be good for jobs and the economy.
    We all know what this is code for. Restricting immigration is at the back of the queue.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,313
    If my recollection of Conservative procedure is correct, then if a Leader suffers a no confidence vote from Tory MPs (like IDS), then he/she is ineligible to stand for re-election. So talk of a stalking horse running would not apply. What I'm not sure is how often an incumbent leader must seek re-election: I have a feeling it might be at the start of the Parliament, in which case Mrs May could be in serious trouble.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2017
    My favourite essayist responds to the election result:

    "Britain’s Election Disaster
    Theresa May’s political incompetence carries a high price.
    Theodore Dalrymple"

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/britains-election-disaster-15247.html

    "It did not help that she had the charisma of a carrot and the sparkle of a spade. As she presented herself to the public, no one would have wanted her as a dinner guest, except under the deepest social obligation. Technically, she won the election, in the sense that she received more votes than anyone else, but few voted for her with enthusiasm rather than from fear of the alternative."
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    AndyJS said:

    FrankBooth said:

    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.

    Turnout was only up by 2.6%. Was that enough to generate the huge youth turnout? Perhaps, if turnout was down amongst some other groups.
    I was about the post that, the youth vote did surge but other groups fell back.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,334
    Scott_P said:

    :smiley:

    @jessphillips: I'm watching Pitch Perfect. Where a controlling group leader says they will enter the competition playing same old tired songs.

    I guess she is not referring to The Prime Minister.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/873649379676213252
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,844
    I feel sorry for May. There, I said it. She fucked up big time and she knows it, but I can't help but pity her and do not envy her position now. When people start feeling sorry for you it is time to call it a day.
  • FattyBolgerFattyBolger Posts: 299
    Thank you for everyone's excellent, informative and entertaining contributions over recent months and events. Most appreciated

    I will now be taking an extended break from PB and other political sites and restricting my political news fixes and analysis simply to what I pick up in passing from radio and tv news and general conversation. These things can become to rather all-subsuming and obsessive with the details and I am going to disengage and step back. Its healthier.

    Best wishes all

    FattyB
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    FattyBolger said:

    Thank you for everyone's excellent, informative and entertaining contributions over recent months and events. Most appreciated

    I will now be taking an extended break from PB and other political sites and restricting my political news fixes and analysis simply to what I pick up in passing from radio and tv news and general conversation. These things can become to rather all-subsuming and obsessive with the details and I am going to disengage and step back. Its healthier.

    Best wishes all

    FattyB

    We'll look forward to your return. Everyone always comes back... eventually.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,713
    JohnO said:

    If my recollection of Conservative procedure is correct, then if a Leader suffers a no confidence vote from Tory MPs (like IDS), then he/she is ineligible to stand for re-election. So talk of a stalking horse running would not apply. What I'm not sure is how often an incumbent leader must seek re-election: I have a feeling it might be at the start of the Parliament, in which case Mrs May could be in serious trouble.

    Nah, that was the old rules, which said a Tory leader could be challenged within 28 days of a Queen's speech, which saw Thatcher toppled/challenged in Nov 1989/1990.

    Today there are only two triggers for a Tory leadership contest

    1) 15% of Tory MPs write a letter to the Chair of the 1922 asking for a VONC

    2) The Leader resigns
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    WhisperingOracle said:

    Winstanley said:

    The thing is - he reached out the second he was elected. He stuffed his Shadow Cabinet full of his critics and gave them a higher degree of autonomy than Blair or Brown ever did. But they chose to walk about en masse at a critical moment not only for the Labour Party but for the country as a whole, in line with an anti-Corbyn policy settled before he even won the leadership the first time (there were articles about how they would get rid of him before he even won).

    Labour only dipped below Miliband's percentage in the polls after the coup-attempt. They caused months of constant bad press for the party, expelled thousands of activists on the most spurious grounds (the vast majority of which were soon invited to come back and set up new direct debits to the party by HQ...), changed the rules to ensure thousands more couldn't vote by putting an arbitrary nine month cut-off date on which members could vote (January to the election in September) when previously it had never been more than four weeks before the day the results would be announced (for Blair, Miliband, Corbyn's first time).

    It would be folly to trust any of these people with positions which they could use to damage Labour again, now they've remembered they're supposed to be officers in the army rather than observer-critics - the day after the battle.

    The points about the attempted coup from the right of the party, counteracted by what has sometimes appeared like a takeover-like approach from Corbyn's team, are well taken. If the right of the party want him to reach out, there'll somehow have to be much more cast-iron guarantees and obligations built in, and they'll have to work mutually, in both directions.
    To be honest, I don't think it's in Corbyn's gift to bring these people back into the fold. It's the members they have to win back and that will be more difficult.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,630
    Typo said:

    The_Taxman said:

    Commentators have said that Labour did well and improved their vote, seats and achieved a better platform for the next General Election. One has to wonder though, how much of a drag was Corbyn in reality? Labour might have done even better with another leader, maybe even getting to the largest party status. Corbyn only looks to have done well because the bench mark was so low.

    I think they would have done worse without him actually.

    Corbyn's Labour presented a very clear alternative to May's Conservatives at just the right time to make election gains. I'm not sure somebody from the mainstream of the party could have caught the imagination of so many people in quite the same way.
    I agree. I started the election despairing of Corbyn but I found the campaign he has led inspiring, the manifesto was refreshing and he's won me over. Imagine if Miliband had started 20% behind...
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,313
    edited June 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnO said:

    If my recollection of Conservative procedure is correct, then if a Leader suffers a no confidence vote from Tory MPs (like IDS), then he/she is ineligible to stand for re-election. So talk of a stalking horse running would not apply. What I'm not sure is how often an incumbent leader must seek re-election: I have a feeling it might be at the start of the Parliament, in which case Mrs May could be in serious trouble.

    Nah, that was the old rules, which said a Tory leader could be challenged within 28 days of a Queen's speech, which saw Thatcher toppled/challenged in Nov 1989/1990.

    Today there are only two triggers for a Tory leadership contest

    1) 15% of Tory MPs write a letter to the Chair of the 1922 asking for a VONC

    2) The Leader resigns
    OK, so that confirms that there can be no stalking horses.
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    Labour party dynamics have permanently changed now. Corbyn has proved that he isn't going to destroy the Labour party, in fact there are plenty of Labour MPs who have historically unheard of safe seats because of him. He will easily be able to put together a strong shadow cabinet now. The danger of walkouts is minimal, everyone now knows it is impossible to topple him.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,713
    JohnO said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnO said:

    If my recollection of Conservative procedure is correct, then if a Leader suffers a no confidence vote from Tory MPs (like IDS), then he/she is ineligible to stand for re-election. So talk of a stalking horse running would not apply. What I'm not sure is how often an incumbent leader must seek re-election: I have a feeling it might be at the start of the Parliament, in which case Mrs May could be in serious trouble.

    Nah, that was the old rules, which said a Tory leader could be challenged within 28 days of a Queen's speech, which saw Thatcher toppled/challenged in Nov 1989/1990.

    Today there are only two triggers for a Tory leadership contest

    1) 15% of Tory MPs write a letter to the Chair of the 1922 asking for a VONC

    2) The Leader resigns
    OK, but that confirms that there can be no stalking horses.
    Yup, no more Sir Anthony Meyers
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    is there a sort brexit option which allows single market/freedom of labour (not right to live) and also allows us to negotiate our own trade deals around the world ?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    DanSmith said:

    GeoffM said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Get in

    https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/873646511292391424

    Not sure of his point, as a solid Brexit will be good for jobs and the economy.
    We all know what this is code for. Restricting immigration is at the back of the queue.
    Code? Maybe that's the right word, yes, because I don't even understand what your second sentence means in English.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,873
    Even the socially conservative DUP have a female leader! When will the so-called "progressives" in Labour elect a woman as their leader?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,781
    Interesting and fair piece, Joff - thanks.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,271
    Paristonda said:

    I feel sorry for May. There, I said it. She fucked up big time and she knows it, but I can't help but pity her and do not envy her position now. When people start feeling sorry for you it is time to call it a day.

    Yes. Successful politicians need a huge level of vanity, which means you are unaware of the limitations of your competence. I don't think Theresa May is that kind of politician. She clearly isn't happy in the job. Brexit was a chore for her. She never engaged with it in a serious way and always found displacement activity while the narrative and the agenda were being set by others. I think she will go soon.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,313
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnO said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnO said:

    If my recollection of Conservative procedure is correct, then if a Leader suffers a no confidence vote from Tory MPs (like IDS), then he/she is ineligible to stand for re-election. So talk of a stalking horse running would not apply. What I'm not sure is how often an incumbent leader must seek re-election: I have a feeling it might be at the start of the Parliament, in which case Mrs May could be in serious trouble.

    Nah, that was the old rules, which said a Tory leader could be challenged within 28 days of a Queen's speech, which saw Thatcher toppled/challenged in Nov 1989/1990.

    Today there are only two triggers for a Tory leadership contest

    1) 15% of Tory MPs write a letter to the Chair of the 1922 asking for a VONC

    2) The Leader resigns
    OK, but that confirms that there can be no stalking horses.
    Yup, no more Sir Anthony Meyers
    You would think Sunday Times political reporters would know that, wouldn't you? Perhaps not.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,638
    Winstanley said:

    WhisperingOracle said:

    Winstanley said:

    The thing is - he reached out the second he was elected. He stuffed his Shadow Cabinet full of his critics and gave them a higher degree of autonomy than Blair or Brown ever did. But they chose to walk about en masse at a critical moment not only for the Labour Party but for the country as a whole, in line with an anti-Corbyn policy settled before he even won the leadership the first time (there were articles about how they would get rid of him before he even won).

    Labour only dipped below Miliband's percentage in the polls after the coup-attempt. They caused months of constant bad press for the party, expelled thousands of activists on the most spurious grounds (the vast majority of which were soon invited to come back and set up new direct debits to the party by HQ...), changed the rules to ensure thousands more couldn't vote by putting an arbitrary nine month cut-off date on which members could vote (January to the election in September) when previously it had never been more than four weeks before the day the results would be announced (for Blair, Miliband, Corbyn's first time).

    It would be folly to trust any of these people with positions which they could use to damage Labour again, now they've remembered they're supposed to be officers in the army rather than observer-critics - the day after the battle.

    The points about the attempted coup from the right of the party, counteracted by what has sometimes appeared like a takeover-like approach from Corbyn's team, are well taken. If the right of the party want him to reach out, there'll somehow have to be much more cast-iron guarantees and obligations built in, and they'll have to work mutually, in both directions.
    To be honest, I don't think it's in Corbyn's gift to bring these people back into the fold. It's the members they have to win back and that will be more difficult.
    This is where I agree with Southam, though. He needs to find new kinds of interpersonal skills to interact with his critics *in parliament*, which I'm sure isn't beyond him, as he's shown a huge improvement in public performance, during the campaign - otherwise he won't be able to form a properly functioning government and fulfil the potential he has summoned up pretty much all by himself. That doesn't mean some of his critics on the right of the party are at all free of some of the blame.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/labourleft/status/873635844896288769
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Even the socially conservative DUP have a female leader! When will the so-called "progressives" in Labour elect a woman as their leader?

    If you're going to copy/paste spam comments, try better ones than that. I'll repeat my point you didn't reply to while you're just repeating this - Labour members will happily vote for a woman leader, but the particular women who have put themselves forward recently (Cooper, Kendall, Eagle) ran rubbish campaigns.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,741
    Not enough credit to Diane Abbott here. She made sure everyone knew Labour wanted to spend more money on police.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,713
    JohnO said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnO said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnO said:

    If my recollection of Conservative procedure is correct, then if a Leader suffers a no confidence vote from Tory MPs (like IDS), then he/she is ineligible to stand for re-election. So talk of a stalking horse running would not apply. What I'm not sure is how often an incumbent leader must seek re-election: I have a feeling it might be at the start of the Parliament, in which case Mrs May could be in serious trouble.

    Nah, that was the old rules, which said a Tory leader could be challenged within 28 days of a Queen's speech, which saw Thatcher toppled/challenged in Nov 1989/1990.

    Today there are only two triggers for a Tory leadership contest

    1) 15% of Tory MPs write a letter to the Chair of the 1922 asking for a VONC

    2) The Leader resigns
    OK, but that confirms that there can be no stalking horses.
    Yup, no more Sir Anthony Meyers
    You would think Sunday Times political reporters would know that, wouldn't you? Perhaps not.
    Yup
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Corbyn should use this happy moment to deepen and widen the purge of Blairite/New Labour wreckers and backsliders.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,873
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/labourleft/status/873635844896288769

    But Labour have 50 fewer seats than the Tories!
  • LucyJonesLucyJones Posts: 651
    MyBurningEars said:

    FattyBolger said:

    Thank you for everyone's excellent, informative and entertaining contributions over recent months and events. Most appreciated

    I will now be taking an extended break from PB and other political sites and restricting my political news fixes and analysis simply to what I pick up in passing from radio and tv news and general conversation. These things can become to rather all-subsuming and obsessive with the details and I am going to disengage and step back. Its healthier.

    Best wishes all

    FattyB

    I sometimes wonder if when it comes to elections and the mood of the nation, cutting out all the political-obsessive gossip and listening to the same stuff as all the normal folk is actually the better position to be betting from!

    (Far harder in these social media and "personalised" web days, though.)
    Quite probably. Certainly, pb.com is guilty about obsessing over what impact some tiny detail in a speech, say, might have on the electorate where the actual answer is "none at all", because no one other than political obsessives will know anything about it.



  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,245
    AlastairMeeks said:

    FattyBolger said:

    Thank you for everyone's excellent, informative and entertaining contributions over recent months and events. Most appreciated

    I will now be taking an extended break from PB and other political sites and restricting my political news fixes and analysis simply to what I pick up in passing from radio and tv news and general conversation. These things can become to rather all-subsuming and obsessive with the details and I am going to disengage and step back. Its healthier.

    Best wishes all

    FattyB

    We'll look forward to your return. Everyone always comes back... eventually.
    I was hoping I could get away from PB after the election so my plans have been ruined.

    Thanks for all the articles you have written.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,873
    JohnO said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnO said:

    If my recollection of Conservative procedure is correct, then if a Leader suffers a no confidence vote from Tory MPs (like IDS), then he/she is ineligible to stand for re-election. So talk of a stalking horse running would not apply. What I'm not sure is how often an incumbent leader must seek re-election: I have a feeling it might be at the start of the Parliament, in which case Mrs May could be in serious trouble.

    Nah, that was the old rules, which said a Tory leader could be challenged within 28 days of a Queen's speech, which saw Thatcher toppled/challenged in Nov 1989/1990.

    Today there are only two triggers for a Tory leadership contest

    1) 15% of Tory MPs write a letter to the Chair of the 1922 asking for a VONC

    2) The Leader resigns
    OK, so that confirms that there can be no stalking horses.
    Hoarse stalker?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,781
    HaroldO said:

    My local Momentum group is applying pressure to Chris Leslie to stop talking about Saint Jez in public, the civil war rumbles on unabated.

    I don't think I'd call it civil war - constructive pieces like Joff's are what's needed now from the centre. I think it's reasonable to ask Chris to restrain himself for a few months while we see how things work out.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,713
    edited June 2017
    Winstanley said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Even the socially conservative DUP have a female leader! When will the so-called "progressives" in Labour elect a woman as their leader?

    If you're going to copy/paste spam comments, try better ones than that. I'll repeat my point you didn't reply to while you're just repeating this - Labour members will happily vote for a woman leader, but the particular women who have put themselves forward recently (Cooper, Kendall, Eagle) ran rubbish campaigns.
    Plus Tory members have never elected a woman leader.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,271
    edited June 2017
    kjohnw said:

    is there a sort brexit option which allows single market/freedom of labour (not right to live) and also allows us to negotiate our own trade deals around the world ?

    The EEA allows both those things. If we are in a Customs Union with the EU (not necessary for the EEA) , we can still negotiate trade deals with third party countries but the tariffs would have to be the same as the EU ones. Being in a Customs Union makes trade with the EU both easier and cheaper.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,630
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Corbyn should use this happy moment to deepen and widen the purge of Blairite/New Labour wreckers and backsliders.

    Has there been a purge of any sort? I thought they had all tended to self-purge themselves from the shadow cabinet (if you'll pardon the expression).
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,756
    AndyJS said:

    My favourite essayist...Theodore Dalrymple...

    Seriously?

    Right young man, you are getting the collected works of Clive James for Xmas and you are not coming out of your room until you've finished. And then we get on to Hunter S. Thompson and George Orwell...


  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,810
    JohnO said:

    If my recollection of Conservative procedure is correct, then if a Leader suffers a no confidence vote from Tory MPs (like IDS), then he/she is ineligible to stand for re-election. So talk of a stalking horse running would not apply. What I'm not sure is how often an incumbent leader must seek re-election: I have a feeling it might be at the start of the Parliament, in which case Mrs May could be in serious trouble.

    You are right - except incumbent doesn't have to seek re-election.

    It's just a question of 15% of MPs requesting a vote on the incumbent.

    Whenever that happens, there is a vote - on whether current leader survives. There are no challengers at that point.

    The above can happen at any time.

    As you say, if leader loses, they can't stand in the resulting election for a new leader.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    WhisperingOracle said:



    This is where I agree with Southam, though. He needs to find new kinds of interpersonal skills to interact with his critics *in parliament*, which I'm sure isn't beyond him, as he's shown a huge improvement in public performance, during the campaign - otherwise he won't be able to form a properly functioning government and fulfil the potential he has summoned up pretty much all by himself. That doesn't mean some of his critics on the right of the party are at all free of some of the blame.

    I think you underestimate how many of the MPs on the right are truly irreconcilable, and just how much many members dislike their MPs - even while campaigning for them heavily in this election for the good of the wider party. The reputation of the right-wing MPs within the party as a whole is very low indeed. They are not as talented or irreplaceable as they think they are and the members know it.

    Members dislike them. The public doesn't know who they are. They are not the important political characters the kinds of Westminster-watchers we are might think them.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,873
    AndyJS said:

    FrankBooth said:

    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.

    Turnout was only up by 2.6%. Was that enough to generate the huge youth turnout? Perhaps, if turnout was down amongst some other groups.
    Turnout varied by region/nation, for example Scotland was down.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,980
    On topic SO tells Corbyns critics to lay off for the good of the party.

    Wonder if SO will vote Lab under Corbyn next time for the best opportunity to get rid of the Tories?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,475
    edited June 2017
    HaroldO said:

    AndyJS said:

    FrankBooth said:

    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.

    Turnout was only up by 2.6%. Was that enough to generate the huge youth turnout? Perhaps, if turnout was down amongst some other groups.
    I was about the post that, the youth vote did surge but other groups fell back.
    I will be interested to note if YouGov? last poll vote which showed by age, and the Tories were only winning with the oldies was the case.

    Did some oldies sit it out, middle aged did vote more for Labour than Tories, or it was student surge.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,857
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/labourleft/status/873635844896288769

    But Labour have 50 fewer seats than the Tories!
    Corbyn may think he can defy economic theory but even he cannot think he can change maths
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,756
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Even the socially conservative DUP have a female leader! When will the so-called "progressives" in Labour elect a woman as their leader?

    Yes, but the DUP can only tell the difference between men and women by the texture of the sash
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,630
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/labourleft/status/873635844896288769


    Mmmm - not sure how he plans to do that... I doubt even the Jezziah has been able convert enough tory MPs to help him vote down the Queen's speech!
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    EPG said:

    Not enough credit to Diane Abbott here. She made sure everyone knew Labour wanted to spend more money on police.

    A recent "policy" in total reversal to Labour's past policy.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,245
    AndyJS said:

    FrankBooth said:

    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.

    Turnout was only up by 2.6%. Was that enough to generate the huge youth turnout? Perhaps, if turnout was down amongst some other groups.
    It seems to have been up about 5% in the London constituencies.

    I do suspect that turnout was down among older voters.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,857
    EPG said:

    Not enough credit to Diane Abbott here. She made sure everyone knew Labour wanted to spend more money on police.

    yes 300K!
  • juniusjunius Posts: 73
    As a vicar's daughter - Theresa May will no doubt be familiar with this quotation....
    “I Beseech You, in the Bowels of Christ, Think it Possible You May Be Mistaken”
  • TypoTypo Posts: 195
    edited June 2017
    Fact time:

    In 7 years the Liberal Democrats have gone from a 45.2% share in Redcar to 6.7%!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,873
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Winstanley said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Even the socially conservative DUP have a female leader! When will the so-called "progressives" in Labour elect a woman as their leader?

    If you're going to copy/paste spam comments, try better ones than that. I'll repeat my point you didn't reply to while you're just repeating this - Labour members will happily vote for a woman leader, but the particular women who have put themselves forward recently (Cooper, Kendall, Eagle) ran rubbish campaigns.
    Plus Tory members have never elected a woman leader.
    And yet the Tories have had two woman PMs.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,980
    edited June 2017
    Ronan Burtenshaw‏ @ronanburtenshaw 2h2 hours ago

    Hearing that Labour's membership has surged to 800,000. On course to be a million-member party for the first time since the 1950s.

    Its the place to be fancy rejoining SO?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,245
    Winstanley said:

    Winstanley said:

    The thing is - he reached out the second he was elected. He stuffed his Shadow Cabinet full of his critics and gave them a higher degree of autonomy than Blair or Brown ever did. But they chose to walk about en masse at a critical moment not only for the Labour Party but for the country as a whole, in line with an anti-Corbyn policy settled before he even won the leadership the first time (there were articles about how they would get rid of him before he even won).

    Labour only dipped below Miliband's percentage in the polls after the coup-attempt. They caused months of constant bad press for the party, expelled thousands of activists on the most spurious grounds (the vast majority of which were soon invited to come back and set up new direct debits to the party by HQ...), changed the rules to ensure thousands more couldn't vote by putting an arbitrary nine month cut-off date on which members could vote (January to the election in September) when previously it had never been more than four weeks before the day the results would be announced (for Blair, Miliband, Corbyn's first time).

    It would be folly to trust any of these people with positions which they could use to damage Labour again, now they've remembered they're supposed to be officers in the army rather than observer-critics - the day after the battle.

    And let's not forget - Labour only dipped below Miliband's percentage after the coup attempt, but even those polls will have been subject to this over-correction. He was probably beating Miliband's score more substantially than the polls showed until the coup.
    Its worth remembering that Corbyn beat Cameron in the 2016 local elections:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2016
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,791
    edited June 2017
    On topic, surely it is the rest of the party that should be reaching out to him!

    Foxes can rejoice.

    Meanwhile, writing the next Labour manifesto will be an interesting challenge.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Winstanley said:

    WhisperingOracle said:



    This is where I agree with Southam, though. He needs to find new kinds of interpersonal skills to interact with his critics *in parliament*, which I'm sure isn't beyond him, as he's shown a huge improvement in public performance, during the campaign - otherwise he won't be able to form a properly functioning government and fulfil the potential he has summoned up pretty much all by himself. That doesn't mean some of his critics on the right of the party are at all free of some of the blame.

    I think you underestimate how many of the MPs on the right are truly irreconcilable, and just how much many members dislike their MPs - even while campaigning for them heavily in this election for the good of the wider party. The reputation of the right-wing MPs within the party as a whole is very low indeed. They are not as talented or irreplaceable as they think they are and the members know it.

    Members dislike them. The public doesn't know who they are. They are not the important political characters the kinds of Westminster-watchers we are might think them.
    I don't think that is always true. Liz Kendall had lots of youngsters canvassing and seems genuinely popular. I think both ends of political spectrum within the party can see some merit in the other end. The Labour Party is a broad church as even McDonnell said in an interview yesterday.

    One thing Jezza has got right, and by belief, is to not interfere in local parties, to move away from central control. He genuinely believes in localism, even when it disagrees with him.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,713
    edited June 2017
    MyBurningEars said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MyBurningEars said:


    But the YouGov model should have been the focus of a really serious bout of analysis. It was obvious to most posters that its basic principles seemed correct. If people didn't believe the results, and yet the idea of the model seemed solid, it should have provoked extremely intense curiosity, particularly given the betting opportunities if it was even half-right.

    (If it is the future, it might be time to learn some Python or R, or at least serious Excel wizardry...)

    I can use pivot tables, does that count as serious excel wizardry?
    Never knock your skills.

    People pay me for training on pivot tables, even conditional formatting. Very effective tools with many uses. If you know how to use them, you've got a valuable skill.

    (The older versions of Excel didn't come with pivot tables built in, so if I wanted one I had to custom-make one in Basic. Complete PITA. But Excel has lots of goodies so many people don't use - form controls are pretty nifty too.)
    Several years ago, I had a client who wanted to know what his options were in dismissing an employee.

    He had advertised a job via a major recruitment agency, and one of the pre-requisites was to have excellent excel skills.

    Interview a few people, picked one person, within a week, it was clear what the successful candidate considered excellent excel skills, was different to his definition of excellent. His candidate thought using sum and sumif was excellent excel skills.

    I advised him going forward, his interview should include an excel test.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,245
    state_go_away said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/labourleft/status/873635844896288769

    But Labour have 50 fewer seats than the Tories!
    Corbyn may think he can defy economic theory but even he cannot think he can change maths
    He has Diane Abbott for that.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,630
    MyBurningEars said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MyBurningEars said:


    But the YouGov model should have been the focus of a really serious bout of analysis. It was obvious to most posters that its basic principles seemed correct. If people didn't believe the results, and yet the idea of the model seemed solid, it should have provoked extremely intense curiosity, particularly given the betting opportunities if it was even half-right.

    (If it is the future, it might be time to learn some Python or R, or at least serious Excel wizardry...)

    I can use pivot tables, does that count as serious excel wizardry?
    Never knock your skills.

    People pay me for training on pivot tables, even conditional formatting. Very effective tools with many uses. If you know how to use them, you've got a valuable skill.

    (The older versions of Excel didn't come with pivot tables built in, so if I wanted one I had to custom-make one in Basic. Complete PITA. But Excel has lots of goodies so many people don't use - form controls are pretty nifty too.)
    I used to be an Excel whizz formulas, VB, charts, formatting, I could do it all - then they brought out pivot tables and they completely flumoxed me. Since then I have had to defer to the 'bright young things' in the office on matters Excel :-(
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    MyBurningEars said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MyBurningEars said:


    But the YouGov model should have been the focus of a really serious bout of analysis. It was obvious to most posters that its basic principles seemed correct. If people didn't believe the results, and yet the idea of the model seemed solid, it should have provoked extremely intense curiosity, particularly given the betting opportunities if it was even half-right.

    (If it is the future, it might be time to learn some Python or R, or at least serious Excel wizardry...)

    I can use pivot tables, does that count as serious excel wizardry?
    Never knock your skills.

    People pay me for training on pivot tables, even conditional formatting. Very effective tools with many uses. If you know how to use them, you've got a valuable skill.

    (The older versions of Excel didn't come with pivot tables built in, so if I wanted one I had to custom-make one in Basic. Complete PITA. But Excel has lots of goodies so many people don't use - form controls are pretty nifty too.)
    Excel nerd right here.....slicers are the future.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    edited June 2017
    bigjohnowls said:

    Ronan Burtenshaw‏ @ronanburtenshaw 2h2 hours ago

    Hearing that Labour's membership has surged to 800,000. On course to be a million-member party for the first time since the 1950s.

    Its the place to be fancy rejoining SO?

    Wow. That is a real movement. Labour are on course to win the next election now, and tories won't be able to use the SNP threat because a small swing in Scotland will see labour gain back many seats from the SNP making a majority much easier.

    Thanks May you complete idiot you have made it likely we will have a full blown socialist government in 5 years (if that).
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    another_richard said:

    Winstanley said:

    Winstanley said:

    The thing is - he reached out the second he was elected. He stuffed his Shadow Cabinet full of his critics and gave them a higher degree of autonomy than Blair or Brown ever did. But they chose to walk about en masse at a critical moment not only for the Labour Party but for the country as a whole, in line with an anti-Corbyn policy settled before he even won the leadership the first time (there were articles about how they would get rid of him before he even won).

    Labour only dipped below Miliband's percentage in the polls after the coup-attempt. They caused months of constant bad press for the party, expelled thousands of activists on the most spurious grounds (the vast majority of which were soon invited to come back and set up new direct debits to the party by HQ...), changed the rules to ensure thousands more couldn't vote by putting an arbitrary nine month cut-off date on which members could vote (January to the election in September) when previously it had never been more than four weeks before the day the results would be announced (for Blair, Miliband, Corbyn's first time).

    It would be folly to trust any of these people with positions which they could use to damage Labour again, now they've remembered they're supposed to be officers in the army rather than observer-critics - the day after the battle.

    And let's not forget - Labour only dipped below Miliband's percentage after the coup attempt, but even those polls will have been subject to this over-correction. He was probably beating Miliband's score more substantially than the polls showed until the coup.
    Its worth remembering that Corbyn beat Cameron in the 2016 local elections:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2016
    That seems very long ago! I struggle to interpret council elections to be honest, there's so much more to try and account for. People were saying Labour should have won by more, but also that it was difficult because those seats had been fought previously at a spectacular time for Miliband? I dunno.

    Reminds me: met someone on polling day who didn't know the locals had happens yet and thought they were on the same day as the general!
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    bigjohnowls said:

    Ronan Burtenshaw‏ @ronanburtenshaw 2h2 hours ago

    Hearing that Labour's membership has surged to 800,000. On course to be a million-member party for the first time since the 1950s.

    Its the place to be fancy rejoining SO?

    Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing. Corbyn's brought the moral crusade back after the emptiness of New Labour. In a different age he'd have been an Archbishop of Canterbury.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,756
    MarqueeMark said:

    But the YouGov model should have been the focus of a really serious bout of analysis. It was obvious to most posters that its basic principles seemed correct. If people didn't believe the results, and yet the idea of the model seemed solid, it should have provoked extremely intense curiosity, particularly given the betting opportunities if it was even half-right.

    (If it is the future, it might be time to learn some Python or R, or at least serious Excel wizardry...)

    1) The YouGov model was subject to very serious analysis...unfortunately for purposes of discrediting it. The technique of examining every aspect of something, identifying its imperfections, characterising them as flaws, and then dismissing it, was applied most assiduously here, and even somebody as smart as BlackRook was caught up by it (although he had the sense to row back). PB is clever and quick and hard working, but it is not objective nor curious in the childlike sense.

    2) Learn R. It's opensource and the defacto industry standard for data scientists. I've got over a decade of SAS and I can only just get thru the door for interviews. Say "Excel" and they'll laugh at you, tho if you learn Visual Basic enough to write Excel macros they might be more sympathetic.

This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025