politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?

https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/918038129474441216

Scott_P said:

Elliot said:

The effect of the dementia tax are very clear as have election polls from both the period where May was backing hard Brexit and no dementia tax, and from the period where May was backing hard Brexit and the dementia tax

If the dementia tax cost more votes than Brexit, that does not negate the point that Brexit cost votes.

Which was the point.

It didn't on a net basis, over 50% of 2015 UKIP voters voted Tory in June, just most decided to do it before the campaign

HYUFD said:

It didn't on a net basis

Tell that to Prof Curtice...

Elliot said:

MikeSmithson said:

RoyalBlue said:

If Brexit is betrayed, a Corbyn landslide is guaranteed. Leave voters will sit on their hands in their millions.

If Brexit happens then Tories out of power for generations.

If Corbyn wins in 2022 then Brexit will be a distant memory by the time 2027 rolls round.

Even that'll be blamed on Brexit. Brexit is a scourge and though at the moment it's only understood by those with a measurable IQ by 2027 even those on the East Coast will get it

Scott_P said:

HYUFD said:

It didn't on a net basis

Tell that to Prof Curtice...

What has he disputed? The Tory voteshare rose on 2015 through UKIP voters, the big fall in the Tory poll lead came after the dementia tax

Pretty sure there's not a HUGE rap fan base on here, but I don't think I've seen such genuine anger in a performance for a long time (rap being quite an angry form in any case).

https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/917955545197314048

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, indeed, though his post-war career did resemble that of a pincushion.

All about dat legacy.

rkrkrk said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/918038129474441216

Is he trying to get fired?

All of them are acting like it.

MarqueeMark said:

Elliot said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I was not the one trying to draw unsupported conclusions from the election results. That was the idiotic Anna Soubry. She is the one claiming the loss of the majority was due to people not wanting Brexit. Conveniently ignoring all those UKIP supporters who voted Labour safe in the knowledge they had promised a hard Brexit.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/917876267256569856

So over the campaign Labour gained 8% from non Tory Remain voters and only 5% from Tory Remain voters. The Tories had already gained most of the UKIP Leave voters who voted for them before the campaign. So it was still likely the dementia tax and not Brexit which cost the Tories in the campaign

The effect of the dementia tax are very clear as have election polls from both the period where May was backing hard Brexit and no dementia tax, and from the period where May was backing hard Brexit and the dementia tax

The crazy thing about May's June Brexit election was that there was nothing to talk about on Brexit when Labour and the Tories had not a fag paper between them. So some bright spark thought they should air their half-thought-through ideas on terminal care costs.

The June election was about everything but Brexit.

Anecdotally I think that's right. Campaigning in a safe WWC seat and a marginal suburban seat (Nottingham N and Broxtowe), I rarely found Brexit coming up as an issue - from memory only about four voters mentioned it spontaneously. My impression is that most people felt it was a settled issue and so the election was about something else, such as care home costs or the NHS or May's stable nature or Corbyn's suitability as PM - opinions on all these things evolved during the campaign, as we've discussed. Clearly there were different swings among Remain and Leave voters, but I'm not sure they were all caused by Brexit - rather, a lot of ABC1 Remain voters went off the Tories for other reasons.

MarqueeMark said:

If there are Ministers who aren't prepared to take solving Brexit seriously, Mr. Hammond, there are others would be happy to try.

There is a serious solution to Brexit.

It's also quick, simple and cheap.

but you won't like it...

Mr. Divvie, friend of mine at school was a rapper. Used to have some amusing conversations. One that stood out included the line: "There's no place for swearing in rap."

Ishmael_Z said:

BudG said:

Very good thread header, exploring several explanations to attempt to explain where we are now. I would have liked to have seen Alastair explore one more important avenue in his piece - The media, both MSM and Social.

In the past ten years there have been great changes in both forms of media. Memes and slogans have become king and are used to discourage and close down discussion and objective thinking. Examples being "Corbyn is unelectable", " Fake News", "the one per cent" and more recently, "Venezuela".

Journalists have generally become less objective, more partisan and less subtle about it. Social media, thanks to it's easy and simple "sharing" facility is 99% memes and only 1% sensible and objective discussion.

Both forms of media sow the seeds of hated and discontent like never before. Is it any wonder, therefore that this is reflected when people get their one chance every few years to make their voices heard in an election?

There is also a "meta" level of fake news, which is the fake rebuttal. "Everest is the highest mountain in the world"; "Yebbut Snopes have mythbusted that"; in fact outside the easy cases (9/11, moon landings faked) Snopes seems to phone in easy answers on the lines of "no photographic evidence so can't be true".

The Snopes story is very interesting:
https://www.wired.com/story/snopes-and-the-search-for-facts-in-a-post-fact-world/

PClipp said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Glad people enjoyed the piece. I was worried that it was too long (and was terser than I would have liked to be about some points) so I'm cheered that some wanted it to cover other things as well.
I see that the Conservative Remain-supporting politicians are queuing up today to make themselves unelectable as Conservative leader. This should provide betting opportunities.

But when everybody finally realises that a headbanger Brexit will wreck the economy, maybe the Conservative Party will come to its senses again. In that case, the present crop of Tory MPs who go along with the Exit from Brexit may find themselves well placed to take over the leadership of the Conservative Party.

If any of them think that, it is very optimistic of them. And it would mean Corbyn is in power since the government would fall first, and Corbyn has somehow garnered many remain votes instead of the lds.

Mr. Mark, quite.

The chains are tight.

rkrkrk said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/918038129474441216

Is he trying to get fired?

There is a difference between possible and probable. Any chancellor who ignored the possibility would be grossly irresponsible.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Divvie, friend of mine at school was a rapper. Used to have some amusing conversations. One that stood out included the line: "There's no place for swearing in rap."

Eminem succinctly dealt with that point in The Real Slim Shady.

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/918046185503514624

Nigelb said:

rkrkrk said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/918038129474441216

Is he trying to get fired?

There is a difference between possible and probable. Any chancellor who ignored the possibility would be grossly irresponsible.

Im sure he is right - but why would you risk triggering the brexiteers like that?

Mr. Meeks, I feel I should clarify that I was not a classmate of Eminem.

@Peston: This from former Treasury head https://twitter.com/nickmacpherson2/status/917866567882477568

rkrkrk said:

Nigelb said:

rkrkrk said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/918038129474441216

Is he trying to get fired?

There is a difference between possible and probable. Any chancellor who ignored the possibility would be grossly irresponsible.

Im sure he is right - but why would you risk triggering the brexiteers like that?

Why would you circumscribe your speech to pander to those who don't want to engage with reality ? That way lies Trumpian politics.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've got Stan in my head now.

Dido has an amazing voice.

Is she still in the music biz?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, I feel I should clarify that I was not a classmate of Eminem.

Glad you made that clear, Mr.D. - you prevented my spraining an eyebrow.

As far as rap is concerned, the remarkable Hamilton musical persuaded me of its potential as an art form.

kle4 said:

PClipp said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Glad people enjoyed the piece. I was worried that it was too long (and was terser than I would have liked to be about some points) so I'm cheered that some wanted it to cover other things as well.
I see that the Conservative Remain-supporting politicians are queuing up today to make themselves unelectable as Conservative leader. This should provide betting opportunities.

But when everybody finally realises that a headbanger Brexit will wreck the economy, maybe the Conservative Party will come to its senses again. In that case, the present crop of Tory MPs who go along with the Exit from Brexit may find themselves well placed to take over the leadership of the Conservative Party.

If any of them think that, it is very optimistic of them. And it would mean Corbyn is in power since the government would fall first, and Corbyn has somehow garnered many remain votes instead of the lds.

Only by pretending to be in favour of Remaining. Corbyn this year was all things to all men. He will only get elected if the Conservatives are sufficiently repellent. But Mr Meeks was suggesting, I think, that some Conservatives are starting to see just how stupid their policies are.

OldKingCole - isn't that just a device to give the minority that does very well from the status quo the power to block change? Would you say a political party getting 65.9% of the vote should be allowed to make any changes?

Scott_P said:

@Peston: This from former Treasury head https://twitter.com/nickmacpherson2/status/917866567882477568

Well, yes, because that's where there's room for improvement.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've got Stan in my head now.

Dido has an amazing voice.

She was great - I havw a concert dvd of hers, very good.

PClipp said:

kle4 said:

PClipp said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Glad people enjoyed the piece. I was worried that it was too long (and was terser than I would have liked to be about some points) so I'm cheered that some wanted it to cover other things as well.
I see that the Conservative Remain-supporting politicians are queuing up today to make themselves unelectable as Conservative leader. This should provide betting opportunities.

But when everybody finally realises that a headbanger Brexit will wreck the economy, maybe the Conservative Party will come to its senses again. In that case, the present crop of Tory MPs who go along with the Exit from Brexit may find themselves well placed to take over the leadership of the Conservative Party.

If any of them think that, it is very optimistic of them. And it would mean Corbyn is in power since the government would fall first, and Corbyn has somehow garnered many remain votes instead of the lds.

Only by pretending to be in favour of Remaining. Corbyn this year was all things to all men. He will only get elected if the Conservatives are sufficiently repellent. But Mr Meeks was suggesting, I think, that some Conservatives are starting to see just how stupid their policies are.

Perhaps but that won't save the party from losing to Corbyn, who can then repel any latent remainers all he wants.

Morris_Dancer said:

King Cole, a perhaps legitimate point, but there are two ripostes which must be made. First off, applying a filter like that retrospectively is a good way to infuriate half the country. Secondly, what do you do when 52% want to leave? If you remain as is, you're siding with the minority, which is a democratically courageous thing to do. If you don't actually leave, then you need a third option.

Mr. Divvie, my reply went a little something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpKDvWh2JUQ

Mr. Eagles, but terrible taste in men.

I'd forgotten about that sketch.

'I'm a goodass motherliker', words to live by.

PAW said:

OldKingCole - isn't that just a device to give the minority that does very well from the status quo the power to block change? Would you say a political party getting 65.9% of the vote should be allowed to make any changes?

I didn’t write any changes. I referred to major changes. There’s a difference.

But, taking the point would I say that nationalisation of the railways was a major change? No

Would I say that declaring that the next Monarch will be William V, not Charles IV was major? Yes.

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

RoyalBlue said:

If Brexit is betrayed, a Corbyn landslide is guaranteed. Leave voters will sit on their hands in their millions.

If Brexit happens then Tories out of power for generations.

If Brexit doesn't happen, who do you think will be in power, given that the people will have been cheated out of their clearly stated result in both 2016 and 2017?

A failure to deliver the democratic will is going to turn into MPs expenses, cubed. There will be a wholesale clear-out of MPs, to be replaced by some significantly less savoury characters.

I would say the marginal majority for Brexit is fragile and depends on it being delivered with the promised absence of bad effects. It's in danger of being killed by a thousand problems. The inability to operate an integrated air service, a couple of major car plants closing, farmers seeing their income cut by a half. etc etc etc.. Before too long people will decide Brexit is in the too problematic basket. That's why Leavers and the government can't in my view afford a WTO/no deal Brexit. It guarantees failure for them. Which means we are now totally dependent on the goodwill of the EU, as we never were as members. Who owe us no favours and reckon they have been damaged by our behaviour.

BannedInParis said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Do "top psephologists" fall into the "experts" category?

Well John Curtice (pbuh) and his team got the election spot on in June, nearly right in 2015, largely spot on in 2010, so yes.

Even that 'nearly right' was constantly accompanied by him, somewhat worriedly, going "the results *are* consistent with a Tory majority". I'd give him a lot of credit for 2015.

My claim to fame, I called a Tory majority 3 hours before John Curtice did on GE2015 night.

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought as I prepare, as Secretary, for my local U3a’s AGM. If we want to change the constitution we need at 2/3 majority of those present and voting at the AGM. Slightly over 50% wouldn’t do it.

Why doesn’t something like this apply to changes to our country’s constititution? Especially given that it’s a normal requirment for a charity.

Hat-tip to Bristol for Europe’s Facebook page.

I think it's like that because parliament decided that charities and limited companies must have written rules but the UK as a country needn't! Instead it muddles on with an unwritten constitution including precedents set by Henry VIII, the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and other assorted history.

I can see the advantage of keeping a constitution flexible, a bit like the common law. (Spain could do with more flexibility.) But couldn't we combine the two?

NickPalmer said:

MarqueeMark said:

Elliot said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I was not the one trying to draw unsupported conclusions from the election results. That was the idiotic Anna Soubry. She is the one claiming the loss of the majority was due to people not wanting Brexit. Conveniently ignoring all those UKIP supporters who voted Labour safe in the knowledge they had promised a hard Brexit.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/917876267256569856

So over the campaign Labour gained 8% from non Tory Remain voters and only 5% from Tory Remain voters. The Tories had already gained most of the UKIP Leave voters who voted for them before the campaign. So it was still likely the dementia tax and not Brexit which cost the Tories in the campaign

The effect of the dementia tax are very clear as have election polls from both the period where May was backing hard Brexit and no dementia tax, and from the period where May was backing hard Brexit and the dementia tax

The crazy thing about May's June Brexit election was that there was nothing to talk about on Brexit when Labour and the Tories had not a fag paper between them. So some bright spark thought they should air their half-thought-through ideas on terminal care costs.

The June election was about everything but Brexit.

Anecdotally I think that's right. Campaigning in a safe WWC seat and a marginal suburban seat (Nottingham N and Broxtowe), I rarely found Brexit coming up as an issue - from memory only about four voters mentioned it spontaneously. My impression is that most people felt it was a settled issue and so the election was about something else, such as care home costs or the NHS or May's stable nature or Corbyn's suitability as PM - opinions on all these things evolved during the campaign, as we've discussed. Clearly there were different swings among Remain and Leave voters, but I'm not sure they were all caused by Brexit - rather, a lot of ABC1 Remain voters went off the Tories for other reasons.

I think Brexit was a factor in London - I canvassed in several seats and the first inkling I had that the election would not be the expected Tory walkover was when voters in prosperous-looking houses in Wandsworth told me they were not voting Tory because of Brexit. The fact that Labour policy was not very different from that of the Tories did not put them off - they just wanted to punish the Tories for holding the referendum vote and then losing it. This was a big factor in the exceptionally large swings to Labour in London IMO.

Ishmael_Z said:

OldKingCole said:

PAW said:

OldKingCole - isn't that just a device to give the minority that does very well from the status quo the power to block change? Would you say a political party getting 65.9% of the vote should be allowed to make any changes?

I didn’t write any changes. I referred to major changes. There’s a difference.

But, taking the point would I say that nationalisation of the railways was a major change? No

Would I say that declaring that the next Monarch will be William V, not Charles IV was major? Yes.

Charles IV?

It’s a hat tip to our much missed Jacobite, JackW. Bonnie Prince Charlie would have been Charles III!

BannedInParis said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Do "top psephologists" fall into the "experts" category?

Well John Curtice (pbuh) and his team got the election spot on in June, nearly right in 2015, largely spot on in 2010, so yes.

Even that 'nearly right' was constantly accompanied by him, somewhat worriedly, going "the results *are* consistent with a Tory majority". I'd give him a lot of credit for 2015.

I wonder how much multilevel regression, like the You Gov analysis, we will get in 2022, and how good it will be.

For all those that have already seen it and loved it I agree with you, saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. Enjoyed the storyline a lot and visually such a stunning film, Wow!

bigjohnowls said:

On Topic Re your final Para.

We do have a Sex Pistols Government

Most are Pretty Vacant and we do have Anarchy in UK (Even round the Cabinet table)

No Holidays in the Sun...

jonny83 said:

For all those that have already seen it and loved it I agree with you, saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. Enjoyed the storyline a lot and visually such a stunning film, Wow!

I saw it at the weekend and thought it was excellent. In contention for the best sci-fi film ever in my opinion.

Interesting that Hammond is totally not mincing his words about Brexit. Either he has decided he is not going to be Party Leader and possibly cabinet minister for much longer and wants to lay it out as it is, so he doesn't get the blame for when it goes pear-shaped and maybe he can influence things for the better. Or he believes the public will turn against Brexit as previously sold and he could reap the benefits.

Elliot said:

jonny83 said:

For all those that have already seen it and loved it I agree with you, saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. Enjoyed the storyline a lot and visually such a stunning film, Wow!

I saw it at the weekend and thought it was excellent. In contention for the best sci-fi film ever in my opinion.

I think it will be up there. I'm certain it's going to be revered and be a cult-classic just like the original.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@Peston: This from former Treasury head https://twitter.com/nickmacpherson2/status/917866567882477568

He can be safely ignored.

That's an appalling misuse of an apostrophe.

There are style guides around that would simply have an apostrophe as signifying a missing 'of' without any complex consideration as to whether or not possession is involved. So, I see your 'Goods' exports' and raise you a 'People's Free Movement'.

Mr. Hemmelig, sounds rather unpleasant

Couldn’t ever hang out with tories they are filth, antisemites on the other hand....

https://order-order.com/2017/10/11/pidcock-happy-to-hangs-out-with-naomi-wimbourne/

jonny83 said:

Elliot said:

jonny83 said:

For all those that have already seen it and loved it I agree with you, saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. Enjoyed the storyline a lot and visually such a stunning film, Wow!

I saw it at the weekend and thought it was excellent. In contention for the best sci-fi film ever in my opinion.

I think it will be up there. I'm certain it's going to be revered and be a cult-classic just like the original.

It will have to be given it flopped at the box office.

I liked it better than the original, though I did have some issues, structurally. It was stunning and despite contemplative pace it didn't drag despite being near 3 hours.

FF43 said:

Interesting that Hammond is totally not mincing his words about Brexit. Either he has decided he is not going to be Party Leader and possibly cabinet minister for much longer and wants to lay it out as it is, so he doesn't get the blame for when it goes pear-shaped and maybe he can influence things for the better. Or he believes the public will turn against Brexit as previously sold and he could reap the benefits.

As a Brexit supporter I though Hammond answered the Select Committee questions in a fair, thoughtful and unbiased way. He is very much on top of his brief.

Elliot said:

jonny83 said:

For all those that have already seen it and loved it I agree with you, saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. Enjoyed the storyline a lot and visually such a stunning film, Wow!

I saw it at the weekend and thought it was excellent. In contention for the best sci-fi film ever in my opinion.

My wife and I saw BladeRunner 2049 a few days ago.

I marked it 3 out of 10 and my wife marked it zero out of ten.

The plot was thin and incoherent.

The pace was snail.

Some of the computer generated images were amateur.

Lost time we will never get back.

kle4 said:

Slackbladder said:

AFP news agency‏VERIFIED ACCOUNT @AFP 3 mins3 minutes ago

#BREAKING Spain PM asks Catalan leader to clarify if he declared independence

Great,so the Spainish PM is turning up the heat again.

Sounds like they are confused, which probably means it was a well done statement from catalonia, at least in terms of them batting the ball back and forth.

While the economic consequences of the vote in terms of corporate relocations grows, they are ramping up the pressure to exploit the fissures amongst the independentistas. Seems like a reasonable strategy to me.

Rajoy sounds more desperate for Catalan independence than Puidgemont to me.