politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Prof John Curtice does not make a prediction – Summing up wher

Dipping into the Brexit Party "BIG ANNOUNCEMENT" stream (sad I know)...

...So far, a succession of PPC's for various seats speaking, so presumably Nigel's big announcement is not "we're not standing anywhere" ?

It's all going swimmingly. Not enough Irn Bru and tartan scarves obvs.

https://twitter.com/wavefmnews/status/1194922168766861313?s=20

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Corbyn having a torrid time with a heckler in Dundee

I thought he dealt with it pretty well really. What else could he do?

148grss said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alb1on said:

bigjohnowls said:

#FBPE @LibDems
The only way to prevent a No Deal Brexit is to kick the Tories OUT. The only way to do this is to elect a LAB government.

LAB will ensure a People's Vote.
The Lib Dems are actively preventing this from happening.

Pick a side. https://t.co/u99v3QvGdu

Monumentally stupid to base your vote on a straight Lab/Con choice. Your approach would gift Guildford to the Conservatives.

The choice is a Labour PM or a Conservative PM. Nobody is gifting anyone anything voting with that knowledge. The reason there was a Tory MP in Guildford previously is not because of somebodies "gift" but because over 30k Guildford voters voted for a Tory MP. Do those voters want Corbyn as Prime Minister or Johnson?

I can assure you a majority of voters want neither as PM, yet one of them will be. A sure sign that our democracy is broken...

Boris Johnson has by far the best net favourable rating of any of the parties leaders. So our democracy seems to be working as intended.

ozymandias said:

148grss said:

Right wing: people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the rich are rich because they worked hard and deserve it, don't give handouts to people who don't contribute to society, you should have to work to have money.

Right wing: it is perfectly fine for wealth to accumulate amongst the already richest people in society through inheritance, allowing a class of people who can be unfathomably wealthy just because their parents were wealthy.

If you were talking about the 18th Century and taxing estates and land from the aristocracy I would agree with you.

But we're not. We're talking about things such as ordinary houses, peoples savings, assets earned through hard work which have already been taxed by the government and when you want to pass that on to your loved ones when you pass away the government takes another slice.

We're not talking about "unfathomable wealth". We're talking about normal peoples assets accumulated over a lifetime.

Quite why you think the world is like Downton Abbey is rather strange.

Maybe it's because I come from a working class background, where many members of my friends and family rent and work in precarious circumstances, I have had to claim out of work benefits whilst suffering from mental health problems and been told that I was fit to work at the same time as I was being bussed on a daily basis to a hospital to be kept on day watch due to suicidal tendencies.

Maybe because whilst I come from the affluent suburbs of St Albans, there has been a noticeable increase in rough sleeping in our city over the last 10 years, there has been a noticeable reduction in public services and a noticeable increase in council tax despite this reduction in public services, and even affluent Tories I know think this is going a bit too far.

Maybe because whilst I live in a country where the UN is saying that the way the state deals with disabled people has literally killed thousands of people, Richard Branson can live in a tax haven and make a load of money and buy up assets built by the state for the common good instead of doing anything particularly useful.

Maybe I think people here talking inheritance tax limits of £125k will affect the average person is super out of touch when the average inheritance amount people get is closer to £11k, so this is really still an issue for the really well off.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48213333

148grss said:

Philip_Thompson said:

148grss said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alb1on said:

bigjohnowls said:

#FBPE @LibDems
The only way to prevent a No Deal Brexit is to kick the Tories OUT. The only way to do this is to elect a LAB government.

LAB will ensure a People's Vote.
The Lib Dems are actively preventing this from happening.

Pick a side. https://t.co/u99v3QvGdu

Monumentally stupid to base your vote on a straight Lab/Con choice. Your approach would gift Guildford to the Conservatives.

The choice is a Labour PM or a Conservative PM. Nobody is gifting anyone anything voting with that knowledge. The reason there was a Tory MP in Guildford previously is not because of somebodies "gift" but because over 30k Guildford voters voted for a Tory MP. Do those voters want Corbyn as Prime Minister or Johnson?

I can assure you a majority of voters want neither as PM, yet one of them will be. A sure sign that our democracy is broken...

Boris Johnson has by far the best net favourable rating of any of the parties leaders. So our democracy seems to be working as intended.

Best =/= majority. The least smelly turd is not necessarily liked.

Best candidate wins. Find an alternative who's more popular and they can win.

StuartDickson said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1194906283201191936?s=20

SNP the only party retaining both their Remain voters and their Leave voters. Surely due to SNP voters being far more motivated by Scottish independence than by attitudes to the EU.

Are unionists similarly focused in Scotland? This one is. Not sure about some of those Lib Dems though. They're a bit flaky.

148grss said:

ozymandias said:

148grss said:

Right wing: people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the rich are rich because they worked hard and deserve it, don't give handouts to people who don't contribute to society, you should have to work to have money.

Right wing: it is perfectly fine for wealth to accumulate amongst the already richest people in society through inheritance, allowing a class of people who can be unfathomably wealthy just because their parents were wealthy.

If you were talking about the 18th Century and taxing estates and land from the aristocracy I would agree with you.

But we're not. We're talking about things such as ordinary houses, peoples savings, assets earned through hard work which have already been taxed by the government and when you want to pass that on to your loved ones when you pass away the government takes another slice.

We're not talking about "unfathomable wealth". We're talking about normal peoples assets accumulated over a lifetime.

Quite why you think the world is like Downton Abbey is rather strange.

Maybe it's because I come from a working class background, where many members of my friends and family rent and work in precarious circumstances, I have had to claim out of work benefits whilst suffering from mental health problems and been told that I was fit to work at the same time as I was being bussed on a daily basis to a hospital to be kept on day watch due to suicidal tendencies.

Maybe because whilst I come from the affluent suburbs of St Albans, there has been a noticeable increase in rough sleeping in our city over the last 10 years, there has been a noticeable reduction in public services and a noticeable increase in council tax despite this reduction in public services, and even affluent Tories I know think this is going a bit too far.

Maybe because whilst I live in a country where the UN is saying that the way the state deals with disabled people has literally killed thousands of people, Richard Branson can live in a tax haven and make a load of money and buy up assets built by the state for the common good instead of doing anything particularly useful.

Maybe I think people here talking inheritance tax limits of £125k will affect the average person is super out of touch when the average inheritance amount people get is closer to £11k, so this is really still an issue for the really well off.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48213333

Which "assets" has Richard Branson bought that were built by the State for the "common good"?

If you're talking about the railways - they were originally built by private money and enterprise before being stolen by the State.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1194916654544801793?s=20

Remarkable lack of awareness of how much of the Brexit process remains to be done, and contested.

kinabalu said:

Slackbladder said:

Or on the other hand, people will see it as 'I want to help my son/daughter' out with X/Y/Z and they've got to pay a chunk of it across to the tax man up front..

Some people will. Others will not see why somebody already comfortable receiving a large sum of unearned income in late middle age should be exempt from tax on it. This is a "values" thing. How you view it will depend on how you answer the following question -

What is the single biggest determinant of material life outcome? (i) Talent and Hard Work. (ii) Luck.

Forget all the rest the above question is IMO the fundamental dividing line between left and right. If you answer (i) you will be right of centre, (ii) you will be on the left.

If people try it, I bet it shows I'm right.

Luck defines where you start, talent and hard work can determine where you end up

ozymandias said:

Which "assets" has Richard Branson bought that were built by the State for the "common good"?

If you're talking about the railways - they were originally built by private money and enterprise before being stolen by the State.

If you think that the railway infrastructure and rolling stock as at the early 1990s were all there through private investment, you might need to get yourself a little up to date.
It's true that in the C19th there was a lot of private investment in railways. But a lot changed in the 100-150 years between the beginning and the privatisation in the 90s.

nichomar said:

Luck defines where you start, talent and hard work can determine where you end up

Yes of course. But the question is "biggest single determinant" so one has to think carefully about it and then choose.

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1194916654544801793?s=20

Remarkable lack of awareness of how much of the Brexit process remains to be done, and contested.

Certainly not the overall process with regards trade agreements and negotiations but in terms of the broader picture of settling whether we leave or not then yes. People will be able to pick up a paper or switch on the news without hearing about Brexit every day which will please most on both sides!

kinabalu said:

Slackbladder said:

Or on the other hand, people will see it as 'I want to help my son/daughter' out with X/Y/Z and they've got to pay a chunk of it across to the tax man up front..

Some people will. Others will not see why somebody already comfortable receiving a large sum of unearned income in late middle age should be exempt from tax on it. This is a "values" thing. How you view it will depend on how you answer the following question -

What is the single biggest determinant of material life outcome? (i) Talent and Hard Work. (ii) Luck.

Forget all the rest the above question is IMO the fundamental dividing line between left and right. If you answer (i) you will be right of centre, (ii) you will be on the left.

If people try it, I bet it shows I'm right.

iii) Living in a country with sound institutions and rule of law.
After that, it's a mix of i) and ii)

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1194916654544801793?s=20

Remarkable lack of awareness of how much of the Brexit process remains to be done, and contested.

Difficult to know what this question means. I mean, the LD approach to Brexit would bring the process to a decisive end, though in a way not likely to be universally popular. Does the low score for the Lib Dems reflect people's expectation that they're not likely to be in a position to do anything about it?

Corbyn in Dundee ?
*Checks Scottish polls, checks Dundee results*

Bit optimistic isn't it ?

148grss said:

ozymandias said:

148grss said:

Right wing: people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the rich are rich because they worked hard and deserve it, don't give handouts to people who don't contribute to society, you should have to work to have money.

Right wing: it is perfectly fine for wealth to accumulate amongst the already richest people in society through inheritance, allowing a class of people who can be unfathomably wealthy just because their parents were wealthy.

If you were talking about the 18th Century and taxing estates and land from the aristocracy I would agree with you.

But we're not. We're talking about things such as ordinary houses, peoples savings, assets earned through hard work which have already been taxed by the government and when you want to pass that on to your loved ones when you pass away the government takes another slice.

We're not talking about "unfathomable wealth". We're talking about normal peoples assets accumulated over a lifetime.

Quite why you think the world is like Downton Abbey is rather strange.

Maybe it's because I come from a working class background, where many members of my friends and family rent and work in precarious circumstances, I have had to claim out of work benefits whilst suffering from mental health problems and been told that I was fit to work at the same time as I was being bussed on a daily basis to a hospital to be kept on day watch due to suicidal tendencies.

Maybe because whilst I come from the affluent suburbs of St Albans, there has been a noticeable increase in rough sleeping in our city over the last 10 years, there has been a noticeable reduction in public services and a noticeable increase in council tax despite this reduction in public services, and even affluent Tories I know think this is going a bit too far.

Maybe because whilst I live in a country where the UN is saying that the way the state deals with disabled people has literally killed thousands of people, Richard Branson can live in a tax haven and make a load of money and buy up assets built by the state for the common good instead of doing anything particularly useful.

Maybe I think people here talking inheritance tax limits of £125k will affect the average person is super out of touch when the average inheritance amount people get is closer to £11k, so this is really still an issue for the really well off.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48213333

Median wealth per household is c.£275,000, so I don't know where that £11,000 figure comes from, unless it just includes tiny bequests.

Philip_Thompson said:

LOL Sky just cut away from rambling Farage before he got to his point and BBC aren't on him either.

1.1k of us saddos watching the livestream though.

Er did I miss the big announcement?

kinabalu said:

nichomar said:

Luck defines where you start, talent and hard work can determine where you end up

Yes of course. But the question is "biggest single determinant" so one has to think carefully about it and then choose.

I find that choice really difficult - does that mean I'm a centrist? ;-)

Seriously though, does luck include who your parents are? If so, single biggest determinant (obviously if they are rich, but also what they put into you, even if not. My parents were relatively poor, but their outlook, intelligence - they don't consider themselves intelligent and left education at 14/15, but they are - and putting their children first gave me the motivation and opportunities to be relatively well off). From birth onwards, talent and hard work are more important than luck, I think, although luck also matters. But if you're born in the right circumstances it's very hard to really suffer materially and if you're born in the wrong circumstances you have to be really quite special to succeed.

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1194916654544801793?s=20

Remarkable lack of awareness of how much of the Brexit process remains to be done, and contested.

Stance 1 - Happiness from Conservatives as their party is seen to be bringing the entire saga to an end
Stance 2 - That means there are lots of people who will be sure that this is bringing it to a conclusion who will be very pissed off if we go through 2020 with saga plot elements like "will we extend the transition period?" "Will we end up on No Deal terms?" "Will we have to accept huge swathes of EU legislation?" and then into 2021. What could possibly go wrong?

Don't know which stance will be more accurate, to be honest.

bigjohnowls said:

NorthCadboll said:

Tim Walker exposing divisions within Liberal party about opposing remoaner candidates in Labour party on SKY News

I agree with Tim.

Why stand down for Tories Grieve and Soubry who haven't an earthly of winning but not for Duffield.

Asking for a friend who thinks it's because Swinson is a Tory.

The Lib Dems don't see themselves as the rural wing of the Labour Party.

Pulpstar said:

Corbyn in Dundee ?
*Checks Scottish polls, checks Dundee results*

Bit optimistic isn't it ?

I'm kind of getting the feeling Corbyn doesn't want to win. I think he's o.k with the Boris brexit deal. Corbyn 2017 wouldn't have said that thing about the ISIS leader.

If he makes another "gaffe" like that, then I'll be sure he doesn't actually want to be PM.

Sean_F said:

148grss said:

ozymandias said:

148grss said:

Right wing: people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the rich are rich because they worked hard and deserve it, don't give handouts to people who don't contribute to society, you should have to work to have money.

Right wing: it is perfectly fine for wealth to accumulate amongst the already richest people in society through inheritance, allowing a class of people who can be unfathomably wealthy just because their parents were wealthy.

If you were talking about the 18th Century and taxing estates and land from the aristocracy I would agree with you.

But we're not. We're talking about things such as ordinary houses, peoples savings, assets earned through hard work which have already been taxed by the government and when you want to pass that on to your loved ones when you pass away the government takes another slice.

We're not talking about "unfathomable wealth". We're talking about normal peoples assets accumulated over a lifetime.

Quite why you think the world is like Downton Abbey is rather strange.

Maybe it's because I come from a working class background, where many members of my friends and family rent and work in precarious circumstances, I have had to claim out of work benefits whilst suffering from mental health problems and been told that I was fit to work at the same time as I was being bussed on a daily basis to a hospital to be kept on day watch due to suicidal tendencies.

Maybe because whilst I come from the affluent suburbs of St Albans, there has been a noticeable increase in rough sleeping in our city over the last 10 years, there has been a noticeable reduction in public services and a noticeable increase in council tax despite this reduction in public services, and even affluent Tories I know think this is going a bit too far.

Maybe because whilst I live in a country where the UN is saying that the way the state deals with disabled people has literally killed thousands of people, Richard Branson can live in a tax haven and make a load of money and buy up assets built by the state for the common good instead of doing anything particularly useful.

Maybe I think people here talking inheritance tax limits of £125k will affect the average person is super out of touch when the average inheritance amount people get is closer to £11k, so this is really still an issue for the really well off.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48213333

Median wealth per household is c.£275,000, so I don't know where that £11,000 figure comes from, unless it just includes tiny bequests.

The c.£275k figure includes personal pension savings, most of which will be used up in retirement.

Noo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.

Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong.
But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.

I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.

If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?

As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.

Gabs2 said:

Stereotomy said:

BannedInParis said:

Theuniondivvie said:

It's all going swimmingly. Not enough Irn Bru and tartan scarves obvs.

https://twitter.com/wavefmnews/status/1194922168766861313?s=20

but I thought Jeremy Corbyn was good at these things.

One of the 50 cent crew told me so just yesterday.

Did you watch the video? He handled it very well.

No, he didn't. He cut the guy off time and time again in a patronising manner and appealed to the pro-Corbyn minority in the room to shut him up.

It's eye of the beholder stuff.

Gabs2 said:

Stereotomy said:

BannedInParis said:

Theuniondivvie said:

It's all going swimmingly. Not enough Irn Bru and tartan scarves obvs.

https://twitter.com/wavefmnews/status/1194922168766861313?s=20

but I thought Jeremy Corbyn was good at these things.

One of the 50 cent crew told me so just yesterday.

Did you watch the video? He handled it very well.

No, he didn't. He cut the guy off time and time again in a patronising manner and appealed to the pro-Corbyn minority in the room to shut him up.

Let me get this straight, you think the right response to a heckler is not to cut them off?

Sean_F said:

bigjohnowls said:

NorthCadboll said:

Tim Walker exposing divisions within Liberal party about opposing remoaner candidates in Labour party on SKY News

I agree with Tim.

Why stand down for Tories Grieve and Soubry who haven't an earthly of winning but not for Duffield.

Asking for a friend who thinks it's because Swinson is a Tory.

The Lib Dems don't see themselves as the rural wing of the Labour Party.

The Lib Dems don't buy into the demonization of everyone who is seen as against the left (Conservatives, the centre-left, the media, Jews etc) so that makes them Tories.

Stereotomy said:

Gabs2 said:

Stereotomy said:

BannedInParis said:

Theuniondivvie said:

It's all going swimmingly. Not enough Irn Bru and tartan scarves obvs.

https://twitter.com/wavefmnews/status/1194922168766861313?s=20

but I thought Jeremy Corbyn was good at these things.

One of the 50 cent crew told me so just yesterday.

Did you watch the video? He handled it very well.

No, he didn't. He cut the guy off time and time again in a patronising manner and appealed to the pro-Corbyn minority in the room to shut him up.

Let me get this straight, you think the right response to a heckler is not to cut them off?

It depends whether you are a stand up comedian or a politician.

148grss said:

BannedInParis said:

Theuniondivvie said:

It's all going swimmingly. Not enough Irn Bru and tartan scarves obvs.

https://twitter.com/wavefmnews/status/1194922168766861313?s=20

but I thought Jeremy Corbyn was good at these things.

One of the 50 cent crew told me so just yesterday.

I mean, I said yesterday I thought Corbyn was better than Johnson at these things, as Johnson tends to just seem confused, whereas Corbyn actually seems to engage. I said a good response can be sympathy, or disagreeing.

Yes, Corbyn is disagreeing with this man, but he at least seems willing to say something. As it goes on he gives out applause lines for supporters; Johnson can't even manage those in similar scenarios. Maybe it comes across better because Corbyn has a "friendly" audience whereas Johnson doesn't, but I see that encounter as better for Corbyn than the ones Johnson had yesterday.

Two completely different scenarios.

This one is someone heckling Corbyn who tries to shut him up and say that he can ask a question later.
Yesterday we had videos of people speaking to Johnson and Johnson listening sympathetically then replying.

Somehow I think if Johnson had acted like Corbyn and said basically "shut up, I'm talking now, listen to me and you can talk later" that would not have gone down well!

Philip_Thompson said:

Noo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.

Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong.
But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.

I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.

If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?

As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.

FPTP is fine if you're mostly electing individuals, with their own consciences and the freedom to act on that conscience. We've seen now, with Johnson's ruthless enforcement of party discipline that we do not have such a system. People vote for parties, and they elect representatives of those parties, rather than representatives of their constituency.

Therefore we should use a voting system that is suitable for electing parties rather than individuals. British Proportional Representation is my favourite version, but there are others.

Philip_Thompson said:

Noo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.

Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong.
But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.

I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.

If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?

As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.

So if, say, 6 parties stood in every seat, and in all those seats party x got 16.6% and won every one by 1 vote, despite the fact 83% of the population voted against that party, you'd say it is fine they got 100% of the representation? I understand that is the way the current system works, but are you saying you think that is a healthy, well functioning, democratic system?

148grss said:

BannedInParis said:

Theuniondivvie said:

It's all going swimmingly. Not enough Irn Bru and tartan scarves obvs.

https://twitter.com/wavefmnews/status/1194922168766861313?s=20

but I thought Jeremy Corbyn was good at these things.

One of the 50 cent crew told me so just yesterday.

I mean, I said yesterday I thought Corbyn was better than Johnson at these things, as Johnson tends to just seem confused, whereas Corbyn actually seems to engage. I said a good response can be sympathy, or disagreeing.

Yes, Corbyn is disagreeing with this man, but he at least seems willing to say something. As it goes on he gives out applause lines for supporters; Johnson can't even manage those in similar scenarios. Maybe it comes across better because Corbyn has a "friendly" audience whereas Johnson doesn't, but I see that encounter as better for Corbyn than the ones Johnson had yesterday.

I actually agree with you.

Corbyn's issue is that he very rarely, if at all, addresses audiences which are not the usual rent-a-mob devout supporters. He's always preaching to his choir.

May didn't address anyone. Boris is putting himself out there but he inevitably attracts the heckles as he is, well, PM. But he does need to do better.

John Major was excellent. Everyone poo-pooed his "soap box" in 1992, but I doubt there would be any politician now who would dare to do that now - far too much scope for things to go wrong and be on Twatter 30 seconds later.

Stick both of them on soapboxes in the middle of a random High Street (not in their heartlands) on a Saturday afternoon and see how they get on. It wouldn't be pretty for either I think.

148grss said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Noo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.

Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong.
But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.

I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.

If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?

As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.

So if, say, 6 parties stood in every seat, and in all those seats party x got 16.6% and won every one by 1 vote, despite the fact 83% of the population voted against that party, you'd say it is fine they got 100% of the representation? I understand that is the way the current system works, but are you saying you think that is a healthy, well functioning, democratic system?

Yes.

Benpointer said:

Slackbladder said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1194917892527022080

Labour...the party of the 'working classes' no longer.

"Class" - almost as hard to define as the mythical Laffer curve

That is quite stunning

Benpointer said:

9 years of Tory NHS management:

Worst Cancer figures ever since records began too. Every target missed.

Never trust the Tories with the NHS

Dura_Ace said:

kinabalu said:

Slackbladder said:

Or on the other hand, people will see it as 'I want to help my son/daughter' out with X/Y/Z and they've got to pay a chunk of it across to the tax man up front..

Some people will. Others will not see why somebody already comfortable receiving a large sum of unearned income in late middle age should be exempt from tax on it. This is a "values" thing. How you view it will depend on how you answer the following question -

What is the single biggest determinant of material life outcome? (i) Talent and Hard Work. (ii) Luck.

Forget all the rest the above question is IMO the fundamental dividing line between left and right. If you answer (i) you will be right of centre, (ii) you will be on the left.

If people try it, I bet it shows I'm right.

You need any two out of luck, hard work and connections. If you don't have one of them then you need the other two. Brains are bullshit; I've known plenty of geniuses living in penury.

This is self-fulfilling.

If I say I only had hard work (no connections, no luck) but still I was successful, you say I must have been lucky then.

Recidivist said:

Have you been involved in a becoming an MP accident that wasn't your fault?

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1194605315209277440

Problem for him is all bar a handful seem to understand Farage's decision.

Noo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Noo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.

Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong.
But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.

I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.

If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?

As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.

You'll note I addressed the point in my original reply. But I'll say it again. All votes are equal at a constituency level. At a constituency level, them not winning owt was fair. At an aggregate level the number of votes cast for a particular party do not give a fair result in parliament.
You are choosing one fairness over another. That's your prerogative, I'm just bringing it all out into the open so people can see that.

We don't vote aggregate we vote in constituencies. Those constituency MPs then meet up. Aggregate means nothing.

Absolubtely lashing it down here, looking at Windy - system looks horrific for Fishlake today.

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

nichomar said:

Luck defines where you start, talent and hard work can determine where you end up

Yes of course. But the question is "biggest single determinant" so one has to think carefully about it and then choose.

I find that choice really difficult - does that mean I'm a centrist? ;-)

Seriously though, does luck include who your parents are? If so, single biggest determinant (obviously if they are rich, but also what they put into you, even if not. My parents were relatively poor, but their outlook, intelligence - they don't consider themselves intelligent and left education at 14/15, but they are - and putting their children first gave me the motivation and opportunities to be relatively well off). From birth onwards, talent and hard work are more important than luck, I think, although luck also matters. But if you're born in the right circumstances it's very hard to really suffer materially and if you're born in the wrong circumstances you have to be really quite special to succeed.

Read 'The Black Swan'. It's by an author who understands probabilities and randomness, i.e. very far from alternating heads and tails.

Much of what's routinely attributed to talent or hard work is due to sheer luck in who one meets, who one knows... or who daddy knows. The ups and downs in my own life reflect these influences, including applied randomness.

But hopefully on a betting website most people do understand randomness ...

Philip_Thompson said:

Noo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Noo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.

Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong.
But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.

I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.

If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?

As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.

You'll note I addressed the point in my original reply. But I'll say it again. All votes are equal at a constituency level. At a constituency level, them not winning owt was fair. At an aggregate level the number of votes cast for a particular party do not give a fair result in parliament.
You are choosing one fairness over another. That's your prerogative, I'm just bringing it all out into the open so people can see that.

We don't vote aggregate we vote in constituencies. Those constituency MPs then meet up. Aggregate means nothing.

Yes, but some people think we should think about the aggregate vote. You can be of the opinion that the status quo is right. But you can't say that it's right just because it's the status quo.

And by the way, aggregate means everything. That's how legislation passes or fails in parliament, the aggregate decision of the members.

No Tories available for Politics Live.

Not a good look.

A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.

"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "

Benpointer said:

Gabs2 said:

Dura_Ace said:

kinabalu said:

Slackbladder said:

Or on the other hand, people will see it as 'I want to help my son/daughter' out with X/Y/Z and they've got to pay a chunk of it across to the tax man up front..

Some people will. Others will not see why somebody already comfortable receiving a large sum of unearned income in late middle age should be exempt from tax on it. This is a "values" thing. How you view it will depend on how you answer the following question -

What is the single biggest determinant of material life outcome? (i) Talent and Hard Work. (ii) Luck.

Forget all the rest the above question is IMO the fundamental dividing line between left and right. If you answer (i) you will be right of centre, (ii) you will be on the left.

If people try it, I bet it shows I'm right.

You need any two out of luck, hard work and connections. If you don't have one of them then you need the other two. Brains are bullshit; I've known plenty of geniuses living in penury.

The main drivers fot success are hard work and smart choices. The main negative impact of poverty is a lack of good advice, financial distress and social culture that encourages bad choices.

Overwhelmingly, the main driver for success is having wealthy parents.

A lot of people make the bad choice of having poor parents.

It certainly helps.

Boris would have been condemned over the floods no matter what course of action he took. The damage would have happened no matter who the PM was, and no matter how quickly action was taken. Unfair. But I accept politics is an unfair business, and the PM is there to be condemned when things go wrong.

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

bigjohnowls said:

#FBPE @LibDems
The only way to prevent a No Deal Brexit is to kick the Tories OUT. The only way to do this is to elect a LAB government.

LAB will ensure a People's Vote.
The Lib Dems are actively preventing this from happening.

Pick a side. https://t.co/u99v3QvGdu

Bollocks. The way to prevent a no deal Brexit is for Johnson not to get a majority.

LAB has lost between a quarter and a third of its GE2017 vote because it has stuck with an unelectable leader,

Or you could both accept democracy and accept that we voted to Leave.

Controversial suggestion I'm sure, what am I thinking?

As usual you are not thinking (or reading properly) at all. That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. You are replying to a post seeking to persuade people how to vote to avoid no deal (not avoid Brexit altogether) by saying they should vote to respect the 2016 referendum. You are thus implicitly suggesting that anyone who votes anything but Tory (or presumably TBP) is not accepting democracy. Either that or you are suggesting political parties should base their democratic platforms on a past vote, or they are not respecting democracy. Either way some participant in this election, be they voters or parties, does not accept democracy. Which is it? And how?

Philip_Thompson said:

Noo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Noo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.

Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong.
But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.

I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.

If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?

As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.

You'll note I addressed the point in my original reply. But I'll say it again. All votes are equal at a constituency level. At a constituency level, them not winning owt was fair. At an aggregate level the number of votes cast for a particular party do not give a fair result in parliament.
You are choosing one fairness over another. That's your prerogative, I'm just bringing it all out into the open so people can see that.

We don't vote aggregate we vote in constituencies. Those constituency MPs then meet up. Aggregate means nothing.

Except for what the population purported to being represented might actually be wanting.

Sean_F said:

bigjohnowls said:

No Tories available for Politics Live.

Not a good look.

A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.

"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "

Many will agree. Labour barely leads on the NHS.

A Neil thought it was a ridiculous way to respond to the worst NHS numbers in history. Try recruiting some staff to the 150,000 vacancies or resolving the pension tax that's stopping Consultants working extra hours.

OblitusSumMe said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.

If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?

As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.

FPTP is fine if you're mostly electing individuals, with their own consciences and the freedom to act on that conscience. We've seen now, with Johnson's ruthless enforcement of party discipline that we do not have such a system. People vote for parties, and they elect representatives of those parties, rather than representatives of their constituency.

Therefore we should use a voting system that is suitable for electing parties rather than individuals. British Proportional Representation is my favourite version, but there are others.

We are electing individuals with a party label, our system manages both. MPs individualism trumps their party label as we have seen in recent years: Johnson could not ruthlessly enforce party discipline, if he stripped an MP of the whip that didn't strip them of their seat they remained in Parliament for the rest of their term as an elected individual.

We also see every week in Parliament people bringing up their own local constituents concerns. Yes there are national issues but there are also issues of local concern that can be brought up to our local MPs. Going to national PR breaks that local link.

British Proportional Representation is the compromise between national PR and FPTP that we need. You could have 3-5 MPs per constituency, so they would still represent a distinct local area. We wouldn't have the abomination of party lists.

None of the MPs who Johnson had prevented from standing as Conservative candidates are likely to win re-election. That's a fairly effective purge of his political opponents, not in keeping with the theoretical principles of FPTP.

That's a fudge trying to reverse engineer a solution to suit yourself. So you don't either have one MP taking responsibility for a local constituency, nor do you look at the aggregate votes. No thanks.

Stark_Dawning said:

What was Nigel's momentous announcement?

No idea but it is not news worthy apparently