Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest PB / Polling Matters podcast asks two big questions

135678

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132
    Barnesian said:

    What percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states? I'm guessing about 30%.
    Partly because you can be in a "coastal state" but still a very long way from the coast!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095
    edited June 2019
    eristdoof said:

    This is nowhere near evidence that PBers "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs". It might be duboius evidence that PBers are basically LDs. The original claim is blatantly anti-democratic.
    The median PBer dislikes Corbyn and dislikes Boris, the 2 candidates for the 2 main parties who also happen and happened to be furthest away from the LDs
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,518
    IanB2 said:

    Given the dramatic age profile, I suspect you are wrong. There aren't many "rich" young people.
    The top 10% constituencies heavily backed Remain. Support for Remain/Leave didn't vary much among the other 90%.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,463
    To summarise.........

    Corbyn is NOT an anti semite Boris is NOT a racist.

    Corbyn has integrity Boris has none.

    Corbyn would destroy the economy. Boris wouldn't.

    Corbyn would side with the Angels. Boris with the Devil

    Who would you prefer as PM?

    Unfortunately there can only be one answer.........
  • argyllrsargyllrs Posts: 155
    HYUFD said:

    The only non coastal state Hillary won was Illinois
    Also if votes rather than states mattered then both parties would have adopted different campaign strategies. Under a simple vote count, Hilary may have one by a landslide, equally Trump may still have just scraped in.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,518
    Foxy said:

    It depends on what you mean by rich. Retired homeowners were strongly Leave, and have secured their wealth. Millenials may well have higher incomes, but also higher outgoings and often little capital, and strongly Remain.

    Age and assets are quite heavily correlated in the UK.
    Rich is living in Aldenham East, whereas comfortably off is living in Bushey Park.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095
    Barnesian said:

    What percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states? I'm guessing about 30%.
    Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, came 3rd and under AV or 3nd ballot more of his voters may well have gone for Trump than Hillary
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    IanB2 said:

    Presiding over a TV show with a silenced audience is hardly the comparison, though, is it? I'd expect someone as you describe to revel in the chance to take on his (or her) opponents and demonstrate their grip and ability. Like Mrs T, Blair, or his hero Churchill. Yet Boris spent his mayoralty trying to dodge and avoid any scrutiny and is now doing the same with the media and his colleagues.

    It is surely weaknesses that he is trying to hide - not strengths?
    I take your point about hiding in this campaign. I think he'll do fine at PMQs, esp against Corbyn, and no PM ever suffered very much from being bad at PMQs anyway - look at Brown and May.

  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329

    That is setting the bar for being a racist way too high: basically if you're not Enoch Powell or a member of Combat-18 it's just bantz.
    You are what you do. If you consistently disparage people on the grounds of race as Johnson has then you are a racist.
    But I would go beyond that. If you are not part of Johnson's gilded world - if you are black, a Muslim, a woman, a Liverpudlian, then you are fair game. Sadly it is a common, albeit by no means universal, affliction among people from his background.
    Aside from Women the other groups hardly vote for the Tories in any case so I don’t see it as a vote loser for Johnson. Priti Patel (remember her?) was on the Today programme this morning arguing that Boris’s letterboxes were out of context and he was arguing that Women should wear what they want and that made him a feminist!

    My personal view on racism is that we are in a difficult position. Sometimes we may make comments about something we don’t fully understand, and may offend in the course of normal discourse. I find it hard to believe that is racism. Boris approaches my next line which is where something is said to deliberately provoke, and in a social media age this is breached all the time. Obviously by degree direct abuse, violence and discrimination seem to be the worst things and are clearly racist.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132
    Sean_F said:

    The top 10% constituencies heavily backed Remain. Support for Remain/Leave didn't vary much among the other 90%.
    Nevertheless it's a fact that the elderly mostly have the wealth and mostly voted leave.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    An explanation which is hard to square with how Streatham voted last time:
    Labour 38,000
    Conservative 12,000
    LibDems 3,500

    The LibDems barely got more votes than Plaid Cymru and they don't stand in South London.

    You could argue that Chuka joined the LibDems to make it easier to get a winnable seat in the future but that would imply a greater degree of foresight than the former TIGger and CUKer has shown so far.

    Lib Dems have a team behind their candidates that Chuk lacked.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591

    An explanation which is hard to square with how Streatham voted last time:
    Labour 38,000
    Conservative 12,000
    LibDems 3,500

    The LibDems barely got more votes than Plaid Cymru and they don't stand in South London.

    You could argue that Chuka joined the LibDems to make it easier to get a winnable seat in the future but that would imply a greater degree of foresight than the former TIGger and CUKer has shown so far.

    But in 2010 the Lib Dems came close to beating Chuka, they have held a large number of council seats in Streatham in the past (though none now) and Lambeth showed one of the biggest swings to the Lib Dems at the European elections. I live in Chuka's constituency and I think he would have a pretty good chance as a Lib Dem, especially if Labour choose a candidate who supports Corbyn's fence sitting on Brexit. However he has a poor reputation as a constituency MP, in the past his office was notoriously disorganised and his erratic political journey will count against him.

    He is a leader in search of a party, perhaps the Lib Dems will prove to be that party but I somehow doubt it.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329
    Roger said:

    To summarise.........

    Corbyn is NOT an anti semite Boris is NOT a racist.

    Corbyn has integrity Boris has none.

    Corbyn would destroy the economy. Boris wouldn't.

    Corbyn would side with the Angels. Boris with the Devil

    Who would you prefer as PM?

    Unfortunately there can only be one answer.........

    Rather fittingly this puts to my mind those adverts with the angel and devil on the shoulder.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,017

    In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.

    Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!

    Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.

    Of course - Trump won fair and square, there's no way round that. My only argument is with the notion that he was the president most Americans wanted. He clearly wasn't. And even if most Americans want to change the constitution, they can't - the hurdle for doing it is way higher than a simple majority. That is probably a good thing, though.

  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329

    I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
    That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095
    HYUFD said:

    Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, came 3rd and under AV or 2nd ballot more of his voters may well have gone for Trump than Hillary
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,898
    I'm hoping that the final vote is between Boris and Sajid.

    The headline writers will portray Boris as the Goliath figure and we will have

    "Javid v Goliath"
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,079
    HYUFD said:

    Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, came 3rd and under AV or 3nd ballot more of his voters may well have gone for Trump than Hillary
    I'm just curious about what percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states. "Coastal States" is a commonly used phrase. I guess a non-coastal state is a fly-over or out in the sticks. I'm trying to educate myself in things American.
  • booksellerbookseller Posts: 508

    The Rich usually means people richer than you are and can hope to be.
    Anecdote warning: One of my extended family has a very jaundiced view of politics, voted leave, and 'just wants it done', etc. He is originally from 'The North' (Yorkshire), identifies very strongly that he is a salt-of-the-earth type, not like those "rich bastards", etc.

    When I pointed out the other day that he has what most people consider a privileged lifestyle (job for life in local government, decent pension, loads of holiday, owns his own house, two children who have been able to get on the property ladder) he got extremely shirty with me.

    I think a lot of people in their 40s, 50s and 60s are similar to him. To use the vernacular, they don't know they are born, they have no clue how much they owe to a society that allowed them to amass wealth in the late 20th / early 21st century - but somehow they see themselves as 'victims' and have somehow been 'left behind'. Not sure whether that's insidious nature of late-stage capitalism where we are constantly being told 'you need more' and thus are kept in a permanent state of FOMO and unsatisfaction, but the reality gap is staggering.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132
    edited June 2019

    That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
    You might have a point, had any of these leading politicians actually been "caught", and taken the consequences - and then advocated zero tolerance for the rest of us.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Roger said:

    To summarise.........

    Corbyn is NOT an anti semite Boris is NOT a racist.

    Corbyn has integrity Boris has none.

    Corbyn would destroy the economy. Boris wouldn't.

    Corbyn would side with the Angels. Boris with the Devil

    Who would you prefer as PM?

    Unfortunately there can only be one answer.........

    Iran, Venezuela, Hamas and Russia are the Angels?

    Who knew......
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    @Sean_F,

    Wealthy in a British upper middle class way is not worrying about driving an aged Subaru Outback held together with baler twine and with spaniels destroying the inside. Wealthy in, say, new money Cheshire, means owning a box fresh never seen (or will see mud) Range Rover Evoque, being orange and advertising one’s wealth at every opportunity.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    nichomar said:

    I think when Rp says if x is elected by y then x is fit for the job is really missing the words “is fit in the eyes of those electing him/her”
    I think it’s also geographically difference

    We have no right to say that a democratically elected leader of another country isn’t a proper leader. The voters have chosen them.

    You have the right to criticise your own democratically elected leader as you have standing in the situation
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132

    Of course - Trump won fair and square, there's no way round that. My only argument is with the notion that he was the president most Americans wanted. He clearly wasn't. And even if most Americans want to change the constitution, they can't - the hurdle for doing it is way higher than a simple majority. That is probably a good thing, though.

    The bottom line is that the Americans got their idiot by voting for him (if through a flawed system) whereas ours looks like he will be thrust upon us.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Boris will crash and burn like May during a GE, but unlike May his denouement will come pre-GE. He won’t survive PMQs or the most rudimentary journalist quizzing without the truth being revealed.

    What on earth are Conservative MPs thinking?
    Yes, that's right, he will wilt under the forensic questioning of the Leader of the Opposition... Oh.

    For all May's faults Corbyn hasn't managed to cause her too much difficulty at PMQs. I'm confident that a few, well-delivered, in-jokes from Johnson will cheer his backbenches sufficiently to see him safely through PMQs.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132

    Anecdote warning: One of my extended family has a very jaundiced view of politics, voted leave, and 'just wants it done', etc. He is originally from 'The North' (Yorkshire), identifies very strongly that he is a salt-of-the-earth type, not like those "rich bastards", etc.

    When I pointed out the other day that he has what most people consider a privileged lifestyle (job for life in local government, decent pension, loads of holiday, owns his own house, two children who have been able to get on the property ladder) he got extremely shirty with me.

    I think a lot of people in their 40s, 50s and 60s are similar to him. To use the vernacular, they don't know they are born, they have no clue how much they owe to a society that allowed them to amass wealth in the late 20th / early 21st century - but somehow they see themselves as 'victims' and have somehow been 'left behind'. Not sure whether that's insidious nature of late-stage capitalism where we are constantly being told 'you need more' and thus are kept in a permanent state of FOMO and unsatisfaction, but the reality gap is staggering.
    Yep. It is the denial of the same opportunity to those following in our footsteps that is the scandal of our age. And yet we fail to understand why people back Corbyn.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,518
    matt said:


    @Sean_F,

    Wealthy in a British upper middle class way is not worrying about driving an aged Subaru Outback held together with baler twine and with spaniels destroying the inside. Wealthy in, say, new money Cheshire, means owning a box fresh never seen (or will see mud) Range Rover Evoque, being orange and advertising one’s wealth at every opportunity.

    13% of households now have £1m + assets (including pensions ) so that probably £1m doesn't count as rich. Perhaps £2m?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095
    Barnesian said:

    I'm just curious about what percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states. "Coastal States" is a commonly used phrase. I guess a non-coastal state is a fly-over or out in the sticks. I'm trying to educate myself in things American.
    About 48%

    https://www.livescience.com/18997-population-coastal-areas-infographic.html
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Barnesian said:

    I'm just curious about what percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states. "Coastal States" is a commonly used phrase. I guess a non-coastal state is a fly-over or out in the sticks. I'm trying to educate myself in things American.
    DoTexas or Mississippi count as a coastal states for this tally or is it only east and west coasts which matter? As somebody else implied, Illinois or Michigan? They’d have longer coastlines than, say, Belgium.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    With BBC leading on "Hancock may pull out" surely he has to now? How is he going to find 13 more backers (or more if Stewart finds more) to continue?

    Stewart will not pull out as he wants to be in the debate. But his campaign should end on Tuesday hopefully.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095
    edited June 2019
    matt said:

    DoTexas or Mississippi count as a coastal states for this tally or is it only east and west coasts which matter? As somebody else implied, Illinois or Michigan? They’d have longer coastlines than, say, Belgium.
    Only if you include lakes but I was focused on bordering the oceans.

    If you say Illinois is coastal Hillary only won Vermont, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico in the non coastal US
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132
    Barnesian said:

    I'm just curious about what percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states. "Coastal States" is a commonly used phrase. I guess a non-coastal state is a fly-over or out in the sticks. I'm trying to educate myself in things American.
    From the map you could argue that Illinois is as much a coastal state as is Bulgaria.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,189

    Nothing more tedious than the phrase "virtue signalling".
    A fair point.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132
    Ishmael_Z said:

    I take your point about hiding in this campaign. I think he'll do fine at PMQs, esp against Corbyn, and no PM ever suffered very much from being bad at PMQs anyway - look at Brown and May.

    Being good at PMQs did Hague no good, for sure.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
    No idea but leaving aside the merits of the issue, Michael Gove is 51 so 20 years ago he was 31. This is not like David Cameron having the odd smoke at school, at half that age, when the term youthful indiscretion might have been appropriate.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    IanB2 said:

    You might have a point, had any of these leading politicians actually been "caught", and taken the consequences - and then advocated zero tolerance for the rest of us.
    But the two happened as times changed and as they changed.

    Are you the same person you were 20 years ago?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,849
    isam said:

    Leave beat Remain in 2016 under any measure you care to use, yet we are still in the EU, and people who moan about the unfairness of Trumps victory are not moaning about that

    The referendum bound/advised the 2015 parliament. There was an election in 2017 - basic rule of our system is that no parliament can bind its successor. The 2017 parliament has proven incapable of agreeing any method of leaving the EU. The only solution to this is either to hold another referendum to instruct this parliament or hold a new election.

    Where the "leave is democracy" argument falls down is that we've had an election since then.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    I've been an open advocate for STV and multi-member constituencies for 25 years. I am not arguing at all that FPTP is a good system. But democracy IS, even if sometimes we get interesting people elected.

    An example. In the next town to me a man got elected to council who when he previously ran for UKIP declared that storms were God's response to Gay Marriage. As a recently out member of the LGBTetc community I find his comments to be stupid and pig ignorant.

    But he won. Thats what local voters wanted. Are his pig ignorant views getting him elected his fault? Or the voters? People get what they vote for.
    Did they get more rain?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:

    It’s British people buying European goods and British manufacturers not selling enough British goods to Europeans who cause a trade deficit not the Sir Humphrey’s of this world.

    Still, with a load of tariffs on our goods and no FTA, that should help matters, no?
    An FTA would be economically beneficial

    But it’s not the be all and end all
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,530
    Sean_F said:

    13% of households now have £1m + assets (including pensions ) so that probably £1m doesn't count as rich. Perhaps £2m?
    How about having enough income generating assets (ie not the house lived in) to fund an upper middle class lifestyle ?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    IanB2 said:

    Being good at PMQs did Hague no good, for sure.
    Being bad at PMQs destroyed IDS. Brown was OK. Theresa May was recently ranked the most evasive prime minister at PMQs since Pitt the Elder or the last few the researcher had to hand, and doubtless Boris would try to beat her record.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Them’s the rules for a Tory party leadership contest.

    But they’re proposing to impose him on us as PM. If he (and they) had any sense of honour and really meant what they say about wanting to unite the nation, blah, blah, he would take his case to the country and debate with the others and show us - not have his minions tell us - that he’s the right leader.

    Instead, he looks entitled, arrogant and contemptuous of voters and those trying to protect him from himself are giving the game away - that under pressure he really may not be as good as they claim. A more confident politician would welcome every chance of a debate.
    It's a no brainer. If it was just for Tory leader, it doesn't matter what process they use or how secretive they want it to be, it's of no concern for the general public. The fact that whatever posh lad they hand the crown to becomes PM is most definitely of concern to us.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    No idea but leaving aside the merits of the issue, Michael Gove is 51 so 20 years ago he was 31. This is not like David Cameron having the odd smoke at school, at half that age, when the term youthful indiscretion might have been appropriate.
    So nobody changes between 30s and 50s?

    How come Labour won the 2017 election as far as those in their 30s voted but those in the 50s voted Tory?

    31 year olds are closer to 18 year olds both numerically and by voting than they are to 51 year olds.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,792
    isam said:

    Leave beat Remain in 2016 under any measure you care to use, yet we are still in the EU, and people who moan about the unfairness of Trumps victory are not moaning about that
    Leave beat remain on a possibly false prospectus that we would leave with a deal. We got a deal and the ERG et al decided that wasn't pure enough. There is no correlation with the situation in the US, a the US electorate have the opportunity to reverse what some would say was a dumb decision in a comparatively short time frame. POTUS is not for life.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Telegraph understands he will back Javid.
    Good morning. The one person I didn't expect him to back was Javid. In fact I thought Javid might pull out as well before Tuesday.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,405
    Blimey, John Major really giving it both barrels on the idea or proroguing parliament. If there is one politician who has consistently gone up in my estimation over time it is him.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/13/john-major-tory-candidates-trying-to-force-brexit-gold-plated-hypocrites

    “I don’t think anybody who proposes that, or even let it flit through their mind for a second, has any understanding of what parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about, or what the UK is about and the sooner the House of Commons stamps on the idea absolutely, comprehensibly and forever, the better.”
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Sean_F said:

    13% of households now have £1m + assets (including pensions ) so that probably £1m doesn't count as rich. Perhaps £2m?
    The top 13% are nearly all in the top 10% you mean? You'd probably need to look at the shape of the graph and see if there is an inflection point near the top.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Leave beat remain on a possibly false prospectus that we would leave with a deal. We got a deal and the ERG et al decided that wasn't pure enough. There is no correlation with the situation in the US, a the US electorate have the opportunity to reverse what some would say was a dumb decision in a comparatively short time frame. POTUS is not for life.
    Leave is not for life either. Even if we leave on Halloween (unlikely according to Betfair) there will be a new General Election no later than May 2022 and a party could be elected then pledging to rejoin.

    As we should still have pretty much the full Acquis Communitaire (and it shouldn't be difficult to reverse any divergence) it is very plausible we could be back in within less than 4 years. If the people vote that way at an election.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,565

    Blimey, John Major really giving it both barrels on the idea or proroguing parliament. If there is one politician who has consistently gone up in my estimation over time it is him.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/13/john-major-tory-candidates-trying-to-force-brexit-gold-plated-hypocrites

    “I don’t think anybody who proposes that, or even let it flit through their mind for a second, has any understanding of what parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about, or what the UK is about and the sooner the House of Commons stamps on the idea absolutely, comprehensibly and forever, the better.”

    Voice from a lost age before politicians became totally deranged about Brexit.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,344
    DavidL said:

    Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.

    Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
    I see like your fellow SCons that you're accommodating the new reality. Disappointing.

    Perhaps the ott eulogising of Boris is directly responsible for the over the top nonsense. I don't think I've seen such top notch arslikhan since the first flowering of Ruthiemania.

    https://twitter.com/Grouse_Beater/status/1139118098290794497
  • eekeek Posts: 29,739
    Charles said:

    An FTA would be economically beneficial

    But it’s not the be all and end all
    It will be more economically beneficial then the consequences of trying to trade tariff free with the EU without a FTA...
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
    How about speeding while he was in his early thirties and writing articles about how speeding laws should be toughened up and implying people who speed have moral failings?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    AndyJS said:

    Good morning. The one person I didn't expect him to back was Javid. In fact I thought Javid might pull out as well before Tuesday.
    I bet yesterday exactly on the principle that Javid might pull out. This is an unwelcome turn of reported events.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2019
    In an odd way Rory Stewart reminds me of the description of Edward Heath in Alan Clark's history of the Tories.

    In that book Heath is described as travelling around meeting voters and saying something like: "As I go round the country it's clear that people want an entirely different type of politics. They're more interested in the way we might do things, rather than what we actually do." That was Heath in about 1970. That sounds very similar to what Rory has been saying as he walks around talking to people.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    This line that Gove at 31 wasn't young compared to Gove at 51 is utterly absurd.

    Even when May had over 20% leads in the polls at the start of the campaign, Corbyn was leading amongst 31 year olds, the tipping point was 34. Even after May's appalling floundering in the campaign threw away her majority she won amongst 51 year olds, the tipping point was 47.

    31 != 51
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132

    Leave is not for life either. Even if we leave on Halloween (unlikely according to Betfair) there will be a new General Election no later than May 2022 and a party could be elected then pledging to rejoin.

    As we should still have pretty much the full Acquis Communitaire (and it shouldn't be difficult to reverse any divergence) it is very plausible we could be back in within less than 4 years. If the people vote that way at an election.
    Seems an awful lot of grief to go through, when we could have the vote now and skip straight to the end.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,342

    The referendum bound/advised the 2015 parliament. There was an election in 2017 - basic rule of our system is that no parliament can bind its successor. The 2017 parliament has proven incapable of agreeing any method of leaving the EU. The only solution to this is either to hold another referendum to instruct this parliament or hold a new election.

    Where the "leave is democracy" argument falls down is that we've had an election since then.
    An election where people like, Soubry, Umunna, Allen & Grieve were elected on a platform of honouring and implementing the referendum result
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132

    Being bad at PMQs destroyed IDS. Brown was OK. Theresa May was recently ranked the most evasive prime minister at PMQs since Pitt the Elder or the last few the researcher had to hand, and doubtless Boris would try to beat her record.
    Indeed. And there were plenty of other reasons why IDS failed.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,920

    I see like your fellow SCons that you're accommodating the new reality. Disappointing.

    Perhaps the ott eulogising of Boris is directly responsible for the over the top nonsense. I don't think I've seen such top notch arslikhan since the first flowering of Ruthiemania.

    https://twitter.com/Grouse_Beater/status/1139118098290794497
    Possibly just flatulence?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,867
    edited June 2019
    isam said:
    But now the questions gotta be asked was Theresa coked up when she did it? :D
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    So nobody changes between 30s and 50s?

    How come Labour won the 2017 election as far as those in their 30s voted but those in the 50s voted Tory?

    31 year olds are closer to 18 year olds both numerically and by voting than they are to 51 year olds.
    Stop knee-jerking and read what I said, which was merely to point out that whatever Gove did get up to, it was hardly a youthful indiscretion as the propagandists would have it.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132

    But the two happened as times changed and as they changed.

    Are you the same person you were 20 years ago?
    I should be in parliament, as I seem to be a rare example of someone who never got anywhere near drugs.

    If I had done so, and been caught and punished, I'd feel it was reasonable to advocate zero tolerance and stiff penalties for others. But if I had done so and got away with it, I'd feel doing the same was pretty shabby.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    That is setting the bar for being a racist way too high: basically if you're not Enoch Powell or a member of Combat-18 it's just bantz.
    You are what you do. If you consistently disparage people on the grounds of race as Johnson has then you are a racist.
    But I would go beyond that. If you are not part of Johnson's gilded world - if you are black, a Muslim, a woman, a Liverpudlian, then you are fair game. Sadly it is a common, albeit by no means universal, affliction among people from his background.
    It’s your last part that’s key

    I think that Johnson just picks on the weakest target in front of him. He doesn’t care whether the target is black, white, fat, thin, Scouse or whatever. That makes him a bully rather than a racist
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,530

    Voice from a lost age before politicians became totally deranged about Brexit.
    The man who put interest rates up to 15% to try to keep the UK in the ERM.

    Plus pissing away billions of the foreign exchange markets in the same cause.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,774
    IanB2 said:

    The median person is now a remainer. (even SeanT is having a go at being a remainer ;) (if not very convincingly)
    A Corbyn fellow traveller, then ? :smile:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,559

    Blimey, John Major really giving it both barrels on the idea or proroguing parliament. If there is one politician who has consistently gone up in my estimation over time it is him.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/13/john-major-tory-candidates-trying-to-force-brexit-gold-plated-hypocrites

    “I don’t think anybody who proposes that, or even let it flit through their mind for a second, has any understanding of what parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about, or what the UK is about and the sooner the House of Commons stamps on the idea absolutely, comprehensibly and forever, the better.”

    Must be tough for Dear John, beaten by the Bastards.....
  • isamisam Posts: 41,342
    Charles said:

    It’s your last part that’s key

    I think that Johnson just picks on the weakest target in front of him. He doesn’t care whether the target is black, white, fat, thin, Scouse or whatever. That makes him a bully rather than a racist
    Sounds like Bernard Manning!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Cyclefree said:

    In response to @Philip_Thompson (fpt)

    “It takes two to tango.

    If the EU refuses to give us a decent deal then what are we supposed to do?

    If the EU says you can Brexit and we can give you a trade deal but you must sign up that you will follow our laws in full, you won't get a say in them and there is no way out of this agreement then are we just supposed to sign that?

    If they said you can exit but instead of paying £9bn per annum we now want you to pay £18bn are we just supposed to sign that?”


    Welcome to the world of power politics where the stronger party imposes its will on the weaker party if it has something which the latter wants. What you describe are known as trade offs. They were pointed out to the Brexiteers both before and after the referendum result. They chose to sack those who did the pointing out and have had a prolonged tantrum ever since at the fact that Britain does not get its way. They have resorted instead to living in a fantasy world and, judging by what the likely candidates for leadership are saying, are still in that fantasy world.

    As a result at some point soon the brutal realities of power politics will be felt by this country.

    We could do without a FTA with the EU but this will likely have serious economic consequences for the country. Is that what people wanted? Or was it for a deal which could be signed in an afternoon?

    It’s too much to expect, I suppose, for a party seemingly intent on electing a habitual liar as leader to be honest with the voters.

    The difference between you and me, between committed Leavers and Remainers is I don't view them as the stronger party. Yes they have something we want. We have something they want. Therefore a reasonable deal should be possible. If both sides acted in good faith a good deal would be rational.

    What is screwing things up and is unreasonable is that on our side we are not saying they have something we want but rather people saying they have something we must get rather than want, meaning they are not acting in good faith.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,342
    Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long

    https://twitter.com/philippullman/status/1139197896530759681?s=21
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    IanB2 said:

    Partly because you can be in a "coastal state" but still a very long way from the coast!
    Don’t be rude about the Inland Empire! Even troglodytes need to live somewhere 😉
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Roger said:

    To summarise.........

    Corbyn is NOT an anti semite Boris is NOT a racist.

    Corbyn has integrity Boris has none.

    Corbyn would destroy the economy. Boris wouldn't.

    Corbyn would side with the Angels. Boris with the Devil

    Who would you prefer as PM?

    Unfortunately there can only be one answer.........

    Corbyn doesn’t have integrity and would also side with the devils as well as being an anti-Semite
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited June 2019
    Alistair said:

    How about speeding while he was in his early thirties and writing articles about how speeding laws should be toughened up and implying people who speed have moral failings?
    Would be reasonable. People can be self-aware that they have moral failings. Do you view yourself or others as morally perfect all the time?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    IanB2 said:

    Seems an awful lot of grief to go through, when we could have the vote now and skip straight to the end.
    You could have said that in January 2017 about bringing forward the Nov 2020 election. Doesn't work that way though.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    IanB2 said:

    Nevertheless it's a fact that the elderly mostly have the wealth and mostly voted leave.
    Over 75 voters were less strongly in favour of Brexit than those slightly younger.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,280
    isam said:

    Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long

    https://twitter.com/philippullman/status/1139197896530759681?s=21

    Leavers don't accept the General Election result either.....they are the ones talking of proroguing parliament.

    Saying the elected leader does not represent them is fine. Proroguing parliament is the real contempt for democracy.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,715
    edited June 2019
    isam said:

    Sounds like Bernard Manning!
    I still vaguely remember him on Parkinson defending the charge that he was a racist. He said (I paraphrase, and use letters to denote one minority or another):

    "Actually I really am not a racist. I love everyone. I wish all the As and Bs and Cs and Ds would come together to be as one big friendly group...[pause]...and beat up the Es."

    Bloody funny, literally unrepeatable now and proved one point or another although I'm not sure what point it was.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,559
    isam said:

    Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long

    https://twitter.com/philippullman/status/1139197896530759681?s=21

    If he's as bad as Gordon Brown who was foisted upon us, he may have a point. Boris might be bad, he might surprise on the upside. We'll find out. Gordon Brown we know - he was a walking shitfest. We are all still paying for his tenure as Chancellor and PM. What say did I have in his appointment?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Stop knee-jerking and read what I said, which was merely to point out that whatever Gove did get up to, it was hardly a youthful indiscretion as the propagandists would have it.

    31 is youthful. Especially relative to 51.

    Where do you draw the line on youthful?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,280

    The difference between you and me, between committed Leavers and Remainers is I don't view them as the stronger party. Yes they have something we want. We have something they want. Therefore a reasonable deal should be possible. If both sides acted in good faith a good deal would be rational.

    What is screwing things up and is unreasonable is that on our side we are not saying they have something we want but rather people saying they have something we must get rather than want, meaning they are not acting in good faith.
    Even if you were right, then given that we are a divided nation with a hung parliament that is not going to negotiate with your faith, surely you can see that our internal disagreement alone makes the EU the stronger party?

    So your side either needs to get more people on board (some clues - dont divide people into leavers/remainers, dont call us citizens of nowhere, side with moderate rather than extreme leave voices), or the EU will be the strong party due to our division and Cylcefree's observations stand.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,856
    isam said:

    Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long

    https://twitter.com/philippullman/status/1139197896530759681?s=21

    What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    OT a calendar-maker rues HMG's late change to next year's bank holiday as 400,000 calendars had already been printed with the original date.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48631198
  • isamisam Posts: 41,342
    TOPPING said:

    I still vaguely remember him on Parkinson defending the charge that he was a racist. He said (I paraphrase, and use letters to denote one minority or another):

    Actually I really am not a racist. I love everyone. I wish all the As and Bs and Cs and Ds would come together to be as one big friendly group...[pause]...and beat up the Es.

    Bloody funny, literally unrepeatable now and proved one point or another although I'm not sure what point it was.
    Unsurprisingly I am quite a big fan of his. He did a bit about Terry Waite and the Archbishop of Canterbury that was hilarious. This is my fav

    https://youtu.be/RhYPVHSMgao
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,079
    HYUFD said:

    About 48%

    https://www.livescience.com/18997-population-coastal-areas-infographic.html
    Thanks. That's an interesting link. But it refers to coastal counties rather than coastal states. So less than 48%. Maybe 40%. Still more than I expected. Good pub quiz night question. Maybe not.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,565
    edited June 2019
    Oborne on Rory:

    "He's shown that he has the credentials to become the leader of the internal Tory opposition to Mr Johnson."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7139833/PETER-OBORNE-dead-cert-rivals-admire-house-trained-Nigel-Farage.html
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    England v Windies about to start in Southampton. England win toss and bowl. You can get 2 with Betfair on Windies getting at least 280.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.159344610
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812
    I liked Bernard Manning too. And yes there is a lot of him in Boris Johnson. Both very funny. Both about equally suitable to be PM.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132
    Time to walk the dog, and leave the hyper-stereotypical leavers on here today to talk to yourselves about Bernard Manning and the rest,
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,280
    edited June 2019
    AndyJS said:

    Over 75 voters were less strongly in favour of Brexit than those slightly younger.
    Household wealth peaks at 65-74. 75+ are closer in wealth to 45-54 than 55-74.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/adhocs/008149distributionofaggregatehouseholdtotalwealthbyageandwealthcomponentgreatbritainjuly2012tojune2016

    So the wealthy age demographics correlate very strongly with the leave vote, neglibible at the 16-24 group, increasing to 65-74 and then decreasing a bit.

    It "feels" like those who already have wealth and those who will probably never have it want to leave. Those who need the economy to work and will earn future wealth want to remain.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,559
    isam said:

    Unsurprisingly I am quite a big fan of his. He did a bit about Terry Waite and the Archbishop of Canterbury that was hilarious. This is my fav

    https://youtu.be/RhYPVHSMgao
    And then there was his take on The Smiths:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5cS0bZiJ1Q
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,795
    Han-cocks out...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    AndyJS said:

    England v Windies about to start in Southampton. England win toss and bowl. You can get 2 with Betfair on Windies getting at least 280.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.159344610

    280 seems about right as par if Archer plays at his best could easily be less.

    What happens if rain interrupts play?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,342
    IanB2 said:

    Time to walk the dog, and leave the hyper-stereotypical leavers on here today to talk to yourselves about Bernard Manning and the rest,

    How dare you talk about @TOPPING that way!
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Being bad at PMQs destroyed IDS. Brown was OK. Theresa May was recently ranked the most evasive prime minister at PMQs since Pitt the Elder or the last few the researcher had to hand, and doubtless Boris would try to beat her record.
    Being IDS destroyed IDS. I don't remember any specifics from PMQs except him being creepily consensual about Iraq, whereas the glorious "quiet man" speeches to conference are etched upon my mind.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,539
    HYUFD said:

    Boris likely will face a membership vote unlike Brown
    I wasn't commenting upon whether I agreed with Boris or not. Just pointing out what he said that some might find a smidge hypocritical.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    If he's as bad as Gordon Brown who was foisted upon us, he may have a point. Boris might be bad, he might surprise on the upside. We'll find out. Gordon Brown we know - he was a walking shitfest. We are all still paying for his tenure as Chancellor and PM. What say did I have in his appointment?
    I recall that you had a lot to say about it at the time on here.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,867

    Han-cocks out...

    He was never "in"
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,774

    In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.

    Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!

    Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
    No sir !
    A large majority of the US public want stricter gun controls:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    Am I correct in saying that the Government currently has a majority of 2 with the DUP?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,280

    That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
    It depends. If he said speeders should face seven year jail terms and be banned from teaching yes that would be hypocritical and low, especially as we know young people are more likely to speed and once he is past that stage of his life he wants to impose far stricter standards on others than he thinks is right for himself.

    He does not think he should have gone to prison for seven years, but is happy for other people to do so for the same offence.

    If he increased a speeding fine from £100 to £150 or changed the limit from 60mph to 55mph those are on a completely different scale and I would not see a hypocrisy problem.
This discussion has been closed.