politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Election Battlegrounds: Guzzledown
Comments
-
He'll be very popular with his prison inmates. That tattoo of Nixon on his back will be a real winner!FrancisUrquhart said:Roger Stone has been found guilty....
Donald Trump's former adviser Roger Stone has been found guilty on all seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and lying to Congress.
https://news.sky.com/story/ex-trump-adviser-roger-stone-convicted-of-lying-and-obstruction-118621870 -
0
-
When has the Conservative Party ever been a conservative party?Peter_the_Punter said:
Richard left the Conservative Party because it was no longer a conservative party.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I don't really get this - too clever. I'm hardly a small c conservative and will be posting my 2014 (I missed the deadline) manifesto on here in the coming days. It's got some corkers!Peter_the_Punter said:
I suspect he will be voting Tory, but not for the conservative party.JBriskinindyref2 said:I don't know art but I know what I like - used to have Gin Lane as my PC background when I worked in Shipley.
Nice thread - Is Nabavi voting tory though; that's what I want to know.
When Heath turned his back on the Commonwealth and took us into the EEC was that conservative?
When Thatcher was dismantling the post-war consensus and tackling the NUM and other unions was that conservative?
When Cameron chose to hold a referendum on the EU was that conservative?0 -
Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
0 -
Only Paddys have priced up Cardiff West so far but I think 1/3 Labour looks v generous.
56.7% of the vote in 2017. Con 29.8% and the rest miles back. Only 42% leave. Can't see Cons getting close.0 -
Tax cuts, no cuts in spending, not much more borrowing, and big increases in expenditure on health, police is the way to win elections? The parties need to be rather honest and clear in how much things cost and where the money comes from next week or they will lose votes.MarqueeMark said:
"clearly and honestly" doing some mighty heavy lifting there....egg said:
If it’s more expensive than Tory manifesto, but clearly and honestly costed like last time Whilst Tory manifesto vague on how much borrowing, tax increases and cuts pay for it, that’s extra votes for Labour isn’t it?MarqueeMark said:
That sound your hear is chainsaws hacking away at the money tree plantation....dyedwoolie said:Labour meet at 10am tomortow to finalize the manifesto
The election could be won or lost next week on this.0 -
Great news . Stone is an utterly loathsome individual.FrancisUrquhart said:Roger Stone has been found guilty....
Donald Trump's former adviser Roger Stone has been found guilty on all seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and lying to Congress.
https://news.sky.com/story/ex-trump-adviser-roger-stone-convicted-of-lying-and-obstruction-118621870 -
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?1 -
Thanks Barnsey. This is still my favourite.Barnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
All polls seem to suggest Tories are benefitting From implosion of BREX, but not by very much. Is the betting conclusion now, and the opinion piece conclusion back end of December, there’s a lot of BREX supporters who just don’t like Con?0 -
"Gold standard of climate capitalism". A phrase which will get voters almost as excited as "skills wallets"0
-
I know what you are saying Thomo, but The Barnsey sort of feels like the right result to me after all tactical voting happens. Sometimes in our bubbles we tend to forget, everyone is out to hurt the Tories in this election, including some of of BREX.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?0 -
You saw last night's by-elections in Wales?paulyork64 said:Only Paddys have priced up Cardiff West so far but I think 1/3 Labour looks v generous.
56.7% of the vote in 2017. Con 29.8% and the rest miles back. Only 42% leave. Can't see Cons getting close.0 -
Isn’t Skills Wallets an old Blues trumboneist?Stereotomy said:"Gold standard of climate capitalism". A phrase which will get voters almost as excited as "skills wallets"
1 -
For a change of pace, I found this amusing - a new font created from US Congressional district maps:
https://twitter.com/UglyGerry/status/1153661354462588929/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1153661354462588929&ref_url=https://theweek.com/speedreads/856423/someone-made-font-gerrymandered-congressional-districts0 -
Er? Clear and honestly costed? You're having a laugh.egg said:
If it’s more expensive than Tory manifesto, but clearly and honestly costed like last time Whilst Tory manifesto vague on how much borrowing, tax increases and cuts pay for it, that’s extra votes for Labour isn’t it?MarqueeMark said:
That sound your hear is chainsaws hacking away at the money tree plantation....dyedwoolie said:Labour meet at 10am tomortow to finalize the manifesto
0 -
0
-
Someone who is reliably Corbyn supporting and Labour has called bullshit on the free broadband idea "will they promise free iPhones as well?".
I genuinely think this is Labour's dementia tax moment. The policy is so unrelatable to anyone and it just seems fantastical that the government will take over the role of Sky.0 -
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1195389678226157570
Why she even on? She's standing down isn't she?0 -
People want free stuff. Shocking. Is there a question on how realistic people think the idea is?Gallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=211 -
Don't think so. Will be popular. Because most people wont question having the state controlling access to the Internet.MaxPB said:Someone who is reliably Corbyn supporting and Labour has called bullshit on the free broadband idea "will they promise free iPhones as well?".
I genuinely think this is Labour's dementia tax moment. The policy is so unrelatable to anyone and it just seems fantastical that the government will take over the role of Sky.0 -
Who on earth is answering 'oppose'? The key is how it's done and how its fundedGallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=210 -
I can't see anything other than a big Conservative win with a lead of 10.6%Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?0 -
nope. just some english ones.MarqueeMark said:
You saw last night's by-elections in Wales?paulyork64 said:Only Paddys have priced up Cardiff West so far but I think 1/3 Labour looks v generous.
56.7% of the vote in 2017. Con 29.8% and the rest miles back. Only 42% leave. Can't see Cons getting close.0 -
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free owls to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?" I want to see the polling.....Gallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=21
0 -
How long until Jez introduces a social credit system and denies access to people with a low score...rottenborough said:
Don't think so. Will be popular. Because most people wont question having the state controlling access to the Internet.MaxPB said:Someone who is reliably Corbyn supporting and Labour has called bullshit on the free broadband idea "will they promise free iPhones as well?".
I genuinely think this is Labour's dementia tax moment. The policy is so unrelatable to anyone and it just seems fantastical that the government will take over the role of Sky.0 -
The delivery method is the issue not the policy itself which is popular .MaxPB said:Someone who is reliably Corbyn supporting and Labour has called bullshit on the free broadband idea "will they promise free iPhones as well?".
I genuinely think this is Labour's dementia tax moment. The policy is so unrelatable to anyone and it just seems fantastical that the government will take over the role of Sky.0 -
Or even better: "How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to provide free broadband to all UK homes and businesses?"MarqueeMark said:
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free owls to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?" I want to see the polling.....Gallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=210 -
I can't see any other way apart from nationalising all internet providers.nico67 said:
The delivery method is the issue not the policy itself which is popular .MaxPB said:Someone who is reliably Corbyn supporting and Labour has called bullshit on the free broadband idea "will they promise free iPhones as well?".
I genuinely think this is Labour's dementia tax moment. The policy is so unrelatable to anyone and it just seems fantastical that the government will take over the role of Sky.0 -
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy where the Government risked fucking up your internet connection by 2020?" I want to see the polling...0
-
Plus do they realise the effect of this "free" policyMarqueeMark said:
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free owls to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?" I want to see the polling.....Gallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=21
Well, people have been pointing it out all day so lets see how things change0 -
Ok, I propose a policy that everyone finishes work at 3pm and gets a free pint in their local on the way home. How popular do you think that would be?nico67 said:
The delivery method is the issue not the policy itself which is popular .MaxPB said:Someone who is reliably Corbyn supporting and Labour has called bullshit on the free broadband idea "will they promise free iPhones as well?".
I genuinely think this is Labour's dementia tax moment. The policy is so unrelatable to anyone and it just seems fantastical that the government will take over the role of Sky.
As my mate said, will they be giving away free iPhones as well?0 -
'To what extent would you support or oppose a policy of the government having control over UK internet provision by 2030?'MarqueeMark said:
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free owls to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?" I want to see the polling.....Gallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=210 -
Along with tens of thousands of job losses.RobD said:
I can't see any other way apart from nationalising all internet providers.nico67 said:
The delivery method is the issue not the policy itself which is popular .MaxPB said:Someone who is reliably Corbyn supporting and Labour has called bullshit on the free broadband idea "will they promise free iPhones as well?".
I genuinely think this is Labour's dementia tax moment. The policy is so unrelatable to anyone and it just seems fantastical that the government will take over the role of Sky.0 -
I assume nationalising pubs is next on the list.MaxPB said:
Ok, I propose a policy that everyone finishes work at 3pm and gets a free pint in their local on the way home. How popular do you think that would be?nico67 said:
The delivery method is the issue not the policy itself which is popular .MaxPB said:Someone who is reliably Corbyn supporting and Labour has called bullshit on the free broadband idea "will they promise free iPhones as well?".
I genuinely think this is Labour's dementia tax moment. The policy is so unrelatable to anyone and it just seems fantastical that the government will take over the role of Sky.
As my mate said, will they be giving away free iPhones as well?0 -
A perhaps timely reminder that for all it’s faults, our electoral system still does much better than the US one:MTimT said:For a change of pace, I found this amusing - a new font created from US Congressional district maps:
https://twitter.com/UglyGerry/status/1153661354462588929/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1153661354462588929&ref_url=https://theweek.com/speedreads/856423/someone-made-font-gerrymandered-congressional-districts
- actual spending limits which do get enforced;
- Constituency boundaries set by an independent commission;
- No electronic voting;
- No political ads on TV.
Their primary system may be better, but I’m not sure there is much else we can learn.
0 -
Or, you are clutching at strawsegg said:
I know what you are saying Thomo, but The Barnsey sort of feels like the right result to me after all tactical voting happens. Sometimes in our bubbles we tend to forget, everyone is out to hurt the Tories in this election, including some of of BREX.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?0 -
I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.1
-
Will the '4 day week' Labour want to introduce be how long we get to spend on the internet once its government-ran?dyedwoolie said:
'To what extent would you support or oppose a policy of the government having control over UK internet provision by 2030?'MarqueeMark said:
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free owls to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?" I want to see the polling.....Gallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=210 -
The 10.6% lead is the lead over Labour. The Tories lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The average lead is a poor indicator because of the variation of the lead by constituency. FPTP does sometimes lead to bizarre results.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
There is no spin in my model. I've given my assumptions on swing (90% arithmetical, 10% multiplicative) with reasonable tactical voting assumptions and the latest leave and remain alliances. I don't make allowances for local soft factors because I don't know enough about them. Make your own allowances for those.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing0 -
Not to mention the analysis on the impact of the BP withdrawl - the only way you make it a draw is to include loads of polls from before it happened.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?0 -
That runs the risk of people getting the wrong end of the stick and thinking Labour are promising free iPhones.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
0 -
Young vs old may be a bigger feature in this election than South vs North or Remain vs Leave. There can't be many young people who don't want free broadband.
Who says the Tories learnt anything from 2017? That said, they know they will dip in the polls once the Labour manifesto is out, the third parties fall away in England, and the leader debates start, so the Tory manifesto is likely to have a surprise popular policy or two.
I mean..."Get Brexit Done" isn't all they've got. Right?0 -
Like a policy costed at twenty billion shown to be over 100 billion within 24 hours?egg said:
If it’s more expensive than Tory manifesto, but clearly and honestly costed like last time Whilst Tory manifesto vague on how much borrowing, tax increases and cuts pay for it, that’s extra votes for Labour isn’t it?MarqueeMark said:
That sound your hear is chainsaws hacking away at the money tree plantation....dyedwoolie said:Labour meet at 10am tomortow to finalize the manifesto
clearly and honestly costed indeed0 -
Who is out to hurt the Tories this election who wasn't out to hurt the Tories in 2017 and 2015?egg said:
I know what you are saying Thomo, but The Barnsey sort of feels like the right result to me after all tactical voting happens. Sometimes in our bubbles we tend to forget, everyone is out to hurt the Tories in this election, including some of of BREX.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
In 2017 the Tories had a 2.4% lead and got 317 seats - are there seriously so many more people 'out to hurt the Tories' now that the Tories can get a 10.6% lead and end up on fewer seats than then?0 -
Start attacking this crap policy with precision rather than complacent blanket bombing, You’ve only got a week to save the majority.dyedwoolie said:
'To what extent would you support or oppose a policy of the government having control over UK internet provision by 2030?'MarqueeMark said:
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free owls to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?" I want to see the polling.....Gallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=21
The lie at the heart of it is our competitors in global economy doing this, so global Britain needs to. Marky, woolly, you are losing this election by not rebutting to the heart of the. Labour spin. In this regard it is 2017 all over again.0 -
Dementia tax 2, perhaps.Pierrot said:Young vs old may be a bigger feature in this election than South vs North or Remain vs Leave.
Who says the Tories learnt anything from 2017? That said, they know they will dip in the polls once the Labour manifesto is out, the third parties fall away in England, and the leader debates start, so the Tory manifesto is likely to have a surprise popular policy or two.
I mean..."Get Brexit Done" isn't all they've got. Right?0 -
Well no because they will say no and tbh, anyone thick enough to think the government is about to give them a free iPhone probably doesn't vote.RobD said:
That runs the risk of people getting the wrong end of the stick and thinking Labour are promising free iPhones.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
0 -
I assume this has been updated to reflect candidates standing in each constituency?Barnesian said:
The 10.6% lead is the lead over Labour. The Tories lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The average lead is a poor indicator because of the variation of the lead by constituency. FPTP does sometimes lead to bizarre results.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
There is no spin in my model. I've given my assumptions on swing (90% arithmetical, 10% multiplicative) with reasonable tactical voting assumptions and the latest leave and remain alliances. I don't make allowances for local soft factors because I don't know enough about them. Make your own allowances for those.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing0 -
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.0 -
There’s lot of BREX that won’t vote Tory. Think of mining communities felt left behind for thirty years, would rather give Blair two fingers than their vote so haven’t voted, but voted brexit in 2016. They ain’t voting Tory. They’d vote farage and BREX, but they ain’t voting Tory, Tory strategy chasing a fools gold.Philip_Thompson said:
Who is out to hurt the Tories this election who wasn't out to hurt the Tories in 2017 and 2015?egg said:
I know what you are saying Thomo, but The Barnsey sort of feels like the right result to me after all tactical voting happens. Sometimes in our bubbles we tend to forget, everyone is out to hurt the Tories in this election, including some of of BREX.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
In 2017 the Tories had a 2.4% lead and got 317 seats - are there seriously so many more people 'out to hurt the Tories' now that the Tories can get a 10.6% lead and end up on fewer seats than then?
Tory’s are way out in front as government, in seats, polling, This is Britain, EVERYONE WANTS A PIECE Of THEM.0 -
I dont expect to change a single vote l'oeuf, I'm not part of the Tory campaignegg said:
Start attacking this crap policy with precision rather than complacent blanket bombing, You’ve only got a week to save the majority.dyedwoolie said:
'To what extent would you support or oppose a policy of the government having control over UK internet provision by 2030?'MarqueeMark said:
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free owls to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?" I want to see the polling.....Gallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=21
The lie at the heart of it is our competitors in global economy doing this, so global Britain needs to. Marky, woolly, you are losing this election by not rebutting to the heart of the. Labour spin. In this regard it is 2017 all over again.0 -
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.0 -
I hope Tory Remainers who fear a Corbyn PM and are therefore reluctant to vote LibDem agree with you. Big conservative winSean_F said:
I can't see anything other than a big Conservative win with a lead of 10.6%Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
If I was using my model to spin, that is what I would be saying too.
0 -
What would be "gratuitous" about Johnson calling Corbyn a thick twat, or Corbyn calling Johnson a fat lying philandering misogynistic lazy pustule? In both cases, an objectively accurate, Englishly understated, description of a matter of great public importance.Nigel_Foremain said:
When was gratuitous abuse used? Have I missed Johnson calling Corbyn a thick twat, or did Corbyn call Johnson a fat lying philandering misogynistic lazy pustule? That would certainly hot things up a bit.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Gratuitous abuse is the new witty repartee, apparently.Chris said:
Oscar Wilde, eat your heart out, innit?rottenborough said:Crackpot Communism is a good line from Johnson.
It's a depressing commentary on the gentrification of modern public life. No-one in Hogarth's day would have been so mealy-mouthed.
But then: no politician in Hogarth's day was as thick as Corbyn or as mendacious, and lazy as Johnson.0 -
4 day week sounds greatPhilip_Thompson said:
Will the '4 day week' Labour want to introduce be how long we get to spend on the internet once its government-ran?dyedwoolie said:
'To what extent would you support or oppose a policy of the government having control over UK internet provision by 2030?'MarqueeMark said:
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free owls to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?" I want to see the polling.....Gallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=21
Now about all those extra staff that will be needed to cover shifts in just the NHS for example
Plus all the businesses it will destroy as they become unprofitable.
Wait - Labour can nationalise everything then no one gets to lose their jobs and we can all be paid great salaries
Nothing bad will happen, no sireee ..........0 -
Indeed. Who would oppose it? Asked that question I’d say I supported it. However in the real world it’s a tab more complex.MarqueeMark said:
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free owls to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?" I want to see the polling.....Gallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=210 -
I thought the NHS was exempt from the 4 day week under their plan?Floater said:
4 day week sounds greatPhilip_Thompson said:
Will the '4 day week' Labour want to introduce be how long we get to spend on the internet once its government-ran?dyedwoolie said:
'To what extent would you support or oppose a policy of the government having control over UK internet provision by 2030?'MarqueeMark said:
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free owls to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?" I want to see the polling.....Gallowgate said:Well there we go.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1195390137968009219?s=21
Now about all those extra staff that will be needed to cover shifts in just the NHS for example
Plus all the businesses it will destroy as they become unprofitable.
Wait - Labour can nationalise everything then no one gets to lose their jobs and we can all be paid great salaries
Nothing bad will happen, no sireee ..........
0 -
I would be one. I thought the coalition was at least par for a government so 2015 would have been in favour of keeping a similar scenario. In 2017 I could tolerate May for her hard work and tenacity, especially in comparison to Corbyn, and had no enthusiasm for Farron.Philip_Thompson said:
Who is out to hurt the Tories this election who wasn't out to hurt the Tories in 2017 and 2015?egg said:
I know what you are saying Thomo, but The Barnsey sort of feels like the right result to me after all tactical voting happens. Sometimes in our bubbles we tend to forget, everyone is out to hurt the Tories in this election, including some of of BREX.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
In 2017 the Tories had a 2.4% lead and got 317 seats - are there seriously so many more people 'out to hurt the Tories' now that the Tories can get a 10.6% lead and end up on fewer seats than then?
I see Johnson as a small but realistic threat to democracy but a clear and present threat to values and decency. If Corbyn could win a majority I would have to weigh him up against Johnson but as he cant I have the liberty of aiming for a hung parliament.
So my vote will be primarily anti Tory which it would not have been in the other elections. (I have voted Tory, Labour, LD and Green before so completely untribal).0 -
"reasonable tactical voting assumptions" certainly can be spin and on that link you have BXP gaining a significant percentage in many seats they're not even standing in.Barnesian said:
The 10.6% lead is the lead over Labour. The Tories lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The average lead is a poor indicator because of the variation of the lead by constituency. FPTP does sometimes lead to bizarre results.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
There is no spin in my model. I've given my assumptions on swing (90% arithmetical, 10% multiplicative) with reasonable tactical voting assumptions and the latest leave and remain alliances. I don't make allowances for local soft factors because I don't know enough about them. Make your own allowances for those.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing
If its possible I'd be curious to see how many seats are awarded to each party purely on swing assumptions and then how many are different due to yor 'tactical voting assumptions'.0 -
The BXP withdrawal from Tory seats does not affect Labour seats at all, and does not increase the number of Tory seats. What it does on the margin is avoid the Tories losing a couple of seats to the LibDems. Otherwise it is a wash.maaarsh said:
Not to mention the analysis on the impact of the BP withdrawl - the only way you make it a draw is to include loads of polls from before it happened.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?0 -
The problem with the current polling isn’t the big lead overall for the Tories . All the polls have that so it’s likely to be correct .
The variable behind the headline figures is how efficient is each parties vote , because of the Lib Dems taking away Labour votes it’s possible that some of those huge city majorities Labour have are being eaten into but the seats are still safe .
It’s also possible that Labour are tanking in strong Leave held Tory seats . With the BP pulling out of Tory seats that effect is likely to be increased with the Tories adding to their majorities .
There’s never been a time where we need to see some regional polling , or indeed polling covering say for example , Labour City seats and Tory strong Leave seats .0 -
Something tells me those who won't vote Tory in 2019 due to mining wouldn't vote Tory in 2017 and 2015 either. Yet somehow the Tories are going to win fewer seats on a more than 10% lead in the polls than they got on a 2.4% lead in the polls?egg said:
There’s lot of BREX that won’t vote Tory. Think of mining communities felt left behind for thirty years, would rather give Blair two fingers than their vote so haven’t voted, but voted brexit in 2016. They ain’t voting Tory. They’d vote farage and BREX, but they ain’t voting Tory, Tory strategy chasing a fools gold.Philip_Thompson said:
Who is out to hurt the Tories this election who wasn't out to hurt the Tories in 2017 and 2015?egg said:
I know what you are saying Thomo, but The Barnsey sort of feels like the right result to me after all tactical voting happens. Sometimes in our bubbles we tend to forget, everyone is out to hurt the Tories in this election, including some of of BREX.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
In 2017 the Tories had a 2.4% lead and got 317 seats - are there seriously so many more people 'out to hurt the Tories' now that the Tories can get a 10.6% lead and end up on fewer seats than then?
Tory’s are way out in front as government, in seats, polling, This is Britain, EVERYONE WANTS A PIECE Of THEM.
Colour me sceptical.0 -
Labour's free broadband is dominating the national conservation. This is dangerous for Boris - gives the impression that Labour is fizzing with ideas while the Tories are still wringing their hands over a messy Brexit. Smart of Jezza though. He obviously released that his opaque Brexit position was a hindrance, so gets everyone talking about something else. A variation of the dead-cat strategy I think.0
-
Don't give Nicola Sturgeon ideas!MaxPB said:
Well no because they will say no and tbh, anyone thick enough to think the government is about to give them a free iPhone probably doesn't vote.RobD said:
That runs the risk of people getting the wrong end of the stick and thinking Labour are promising free iPhones.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
"Freedom!"
Any response yet from the SNP on Labour's broadband proposal? The SNP will be going well off-brand it they tell young Scottish voters that the Labour proposal is unserious and financially imprudent.
0 -
It has been updated to reflect the remain alliance and the BXP policy of not standing in Tory seats. You'll see that in the predicted share by constituency. It doesn't reflect anything more than that. dyor.RobD said:
I assume this has been updated to reflect candidates standing in each constituency?Barnesian said:
The 10.6% lead is the lead over Labour. The Tories lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The average lead is a poor indicator because of the variation of the lead by constituency. FPTP does sometimes lead to bizarre results.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
There is no spin in my model. I've given my assumptions on swing (90% arithmetical, 10% multiplicative) with reasonable tactical voting assumptions and the latest leave and remain alliances. I don't make allowances for local soft factors because I don't know enough about them. Make your own allowances for those.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing0 -
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?0 -
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit
2nd prize free internet
No 3rd prize.
0 -
Oh, I thought the last five columns were the prediction. What's the difference between E:J and L:Q?Barnesian said:
It has been updated to reflect the remain alliance and the BXP policy of not standing in Tory seats. You'll see that in the predicted share by constituency. It doesn't reflect anything more than that. dyor.RobD said:
I assume this has been updated to reflect candidates standing in each constituency?Barnesian said:
The 10.6% lead is the lead over Labour. The Tories lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The average lead is a poor indicator because of the variation of the lead by constituency. FPTP does sometimes lead to bizarre results.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
There is no spin in my model. I've given my assumptions on swing (90% arithmetical, 10% multiplicative) with reasonable tactical voting assumptions and the latest leave and remain alliances. I don't make allowances for local soft factors because I don't know enough about them. Make your own allowances for those.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing0 -
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.0 -
Frankly I, like the electorate at large, am expecting all the prizes, plus these for supper:Roger said:Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit
2nd prize free internet
No 3rd prize.
https://www.iceland.co.uk/p/bernard-matthews-10-unicorns-420g/75322.html
0 -
MarqueeMark saiud: ""Remainer May threw away the majority" tinfoil hats are available in the pb.com gift shop."
Is there a pb.com giftshop?
I wants a T Shirt with HYUFD`s donkey on.0 -
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!MaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.0 -
There's one off costs, but beyond that the whole network costs £230m per annum to maintain. So £3.95 per capita, ApparentlyMaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.0 -
No, a dead cat would be a prominent Labour politician saying something like Boris lied to his wife, so why wouldn't he lie to the country about no deal brexit. Dead cats are invariably personal in nature, look at the one about Ed stabbing his brother in the back.Stark_Dawning said:Labour's free broadband is dominating the national conservation. This is dangerous for Boris - gives the impression that Labour is fizzing with ideas while the Tories are still wringing their hands over a messy Brexit. Smart of Jezza though. He obviously released that his opaque Brexit position was a hindrance, so gets everyone talking about something else. A variation of the dead-cat strategy I think.
0 -
Tens of thousands of job losses is in Labour's favour?noneoftheabove said:
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!MaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.0 -
The Labour party and it's voters are in favour of job cuts? A lot of these will be CWU members as well.noneoftheabove said:
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!MaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.0 -
Can you point to seats that have a BXP % where they are not standing? I'll correct them. In those cases I assume 50% of BXP votes transfer to the Tories and none to Labour. I can easily vary that assumption to see its sensitivity.Philip_Thompson said:
"reasonable tactical voting assumptions" certainly can be spin and on that link you have BXP gaining a significant percentage in many seats they're not even standing in.Barnesian said:
The 10.6% lead is the lead over Labour. The Tories lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The average lead is a poor indicator because of the variation of the lead by constituency. FPTP does sometimes lead to bizarre results.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
There is no spin in my model. I've given my assumptions on swing (90% arithmetical, 10% multiplicative) with reasonable tactical voting assumptions and the latest leave and remain alliances. I don't make allowances for local soft factors because I don't know enough about them. Make your own allowances for those.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing
If its possible I'd be curious to see how many seats are awarded to each party purely on swing assumptions and then how many are different due to your 'tactical voting assumptions'.
The Tories get 13 seats less than swing due to tactical voting. Labour gain (or retain) 6 by LD and Green tactical voting, and the LDs gain 7 by Labour and Green tactical voting.0 -
Keeping all of those people employed is literally tens of billions per year. Just to keep the lights on, for a product the government will charge no money for an fund through taxation. We're literally talking about a whole new department with a budget vastly bigger than the Home Office.camel said:
There's one off costs, but beyond that the whole network costs £230m per annum to maintain. So £3.95 per capita, ApparentlyMaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.0 -
You might want a quick scan through your own comments. It's news to me you're interested in the betting side - partisan nonsense would be a flattering description of your oeuvre as far as I've read.Chris said:
So it seems. But seriously, why should anyone want to spend time reading through all this stuff?SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Gratuitous abuse is the new witty repartee, apparently.Chris said:
Oscar Wilde, eat your heart out, innit?rottenborough said:Crackpot Communism is a good line from Johnson.
One used to be able to glean useful information here. Now it seems to be a refuge for people with nothing better to do with their time than post ridiculously partisan nonsense. One can read that in reams on numberless websites.0 -
Yes! The reason people dont like nationalisation is government inefficiency. MaxPB is suggesting the government would be far more efficient than private businesses are.RobD said:
Tens of thousands of job losses is in Labour's favour?noneoftheabove said:
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!MaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
If it cuts 20,000 inefficent jobs out of play that is an efficiency saving of £1-2bn a year. A good reason to implement their plan.
0 -
So you're saying Labour should go into the election promising 20k job cuts?noneoftheabove said:
Yes! The reason people dont like nationalisation is government inefficiency. MaxPB is suggest the government would be far more efficient than private businesses are.RobD said:
Tens of thousands of job losses is in Labour's favour?noneoftheabove said:
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!MaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
If it cuts 20,000 inefficent jobs out of play that is an efficiency saving of £1-2bn a year. A good reason to implement their plan.0 -
You could extend that logic to many other sectors of the economy....MaxPB said:
So you're saying Labour should go into the election promising 20k job cuts?noneoftheabove said:
Yes! The reason people dont like nationalisation is government inefficiency. MaxPB is suggest the government would be far more efficient than private businesses are.RobD said:
Tens of thousands of job losses is in Labour's favour?noneoftheabove said:
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!MaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
If it cuts 20,000 inefficent jobs out of play that is an efficiency saving of £1-2bn a year. A good reason to implement their plan.0 -
No. I doubt a national government broadband company is more efficient than the private sector so I dont think it would lead to 20,000 job cuts. But if it did, then that is economic progress, it is how a country improves productivity and gets richer.MaxPB said:
So you're saying Labour should go into the election promising 20k job cuts?noneoftheabove said:
Yes! The reason people dont like nationalisation is government inefficiency. MaxPB is suggest the government would be far more efficient than private businesses are.RobD said:
Tens of thousands of job losses is in Labour's favour?noneoftheabove said:
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!MaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
If it cuts 20,000 inefficent jobs out of play that is an efficiency saving of £1-2bn a year. A good reason to implement their plan.0 -
Let's have one banks and all loans will be interest free!RobD said:
You could extend that logic to many other sectors of the economy....MaxPB said:
So you're saying Labour should go into the election promising 20k job cuts?noneoftheabove said:
Yes! The reason people dont like nationalisation is government inefficiency. MaxPB is suggest the government would be far more efficient than private businesses are.RobD said:
Tens of thousands of job losses is in Labour's favour?noneoftheabove said:
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!MaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
If it cuts 20,000 inefficent jobs out of play that is an efficiency saving of £1-2bn a year. A good reason to implement their plan.0 -
As far as I can see, like the other departees, he left because he didn't like being told to shut up for the sake of party loyalty by the people who he'd spent years telling to shut up for the sake of party loyalty.Peter_the_Punter said:
Richard left the Conservative Party because it was no longer a conservative party.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I don't really get this - too clever. I'm hardly a small c conservative and will be posting my 2014 (I missed the deadline) manifesto on here in the coming days. It's got some corkers!Peter_the_Punter said:
I suspect he will be voting Tory, but not for the conservative party.JBriskinindyref2 said:I don't know art but I know what I like - used to have Gin Lane as my PC background when I worked in Shipley.
Nice thread - Is Nabavi voting tory though; that's what I want to know.0 -
According to the Guardian https://theguardian.com/money/2019/nov/15/how-feasible-is-labour-free-broadband-plan-and-part-nationalisation-of-bt Labour are quoting a running cost of £230 million, while analysts say £1-2 billion. That’s some efficiency saving if true.noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
More likely any problems will take weeks to solve.0 -
Yes they are. The 3 polls conducted exclusively since the BXP stood down in over half of GB seats average Con 41.7, Lab 29.3, LD 15.3, Green 3, BXP 5.3. Con lead 12.3. And one of those pollsters is ComRes until recently the pollster least favourable to Con.Barnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.0 -
They can just promise to create new jobs investing in the peoples infrastructure!MaxPB said:
So you're saying Labour should go into the election promising 20k job cuts?noneoftheabove said:
Yes! The reason people dont like nationalisation is government inefficiency. MaxPB is suggest the government would be far more efficient than private businesses are.RobD said:
Tens of thousands of job losses is in Labour's favour?noneoftheabove said:
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!MaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
If it cuts 20,000 inefficent jobs out of play that is an efficiency saving of £1-2bn a year. A good reason to implement their plan.
A jobs guarantee to redeploy people.
Labour seem to have dealt a blow to the Brexit election? Different issues are dominating…..0 -
I'm interested to hear you think the primary system is better. Do you think that from a process or an outcome point of view?Fysics_Teacher said:
A perhaps timely reminder that for all it’s faults, our electoral system still does much better than the US one:MTimT said:For a change of pace, I found this amusing - a new font created from US Congressional district maps:
https://twitter.com/UglyGerry/status/1153661354462588929/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1153661354462588929&ref_url=https://theweek.com/speedreads/856423/someone-made-font-gerrymandered-congressional-districts
- actual spending limits which do get enforced;
- Constituency boundaries set by an independent commission;
- No electronic voting;
- No political ads on TV.
Their primary system may be better, but I’m not sure there is much else we can learn.0 -
E:J is my model's prediction, updated as new polls come in and new info on alliances. L:Q is the MRP regression and post-stratification predictions based on a large sample (I think 42,000). This doesn't change and is getting out of date. nevertheless it gives a useful comparison with my model's latest prediction. You can see the differences.RobD said:
Oh, I thought the last five columns were the prediction. What's the difference between E:J and L:Q?Barnesian said:
It has been updated to reflect the remain alliance and the BXP policy of not standing in Tory seats. You'll see that in the predicted share by constituency. It doesn't reflect anything more than that. dyor.RobD said:
I assume this has been updated to reflect candidates standing in each constituency?Barnesian said:
The 10.6% lead is the lead over Labour. The Tories lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The average lead is a poor indicator because of the variation of the lead by constituency. FPTP does sometimes lead to bizarre results.Philip_Thompson said:
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seatsBarnesian said:Putting the latest Panelbase into the EMA, with changes over the six previous polls since I last reported:
Con 38.6 (+0.7)
Lab 28.1 (+0.6)
LD 16.3 (-0.1)
BXP 8.4 (-1.2)
Seats
Con 319 (NC)
Lab 224 (NC)
LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
There is no spin in my model. I've given my assumptions on swing (90% arithmetical, 10% multiplicative) with reasonable tactical voting assumptions and the latest leave and remain alliances. I don't make allowances for local soft factors because I don't know enough about them. Make your own allowances for those.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing0 -
And the extra money people will have in their pockets because they're not buying broadband will stimulate the economy and create jobs :-)noneoftheabove said:
Yes! The reason people dont like nationalisation is government inefficiency. MaxPB is suggesting the government would be far more efficient than private businesses are.RobD said:
Tens of thousands of job losses is in Labour's favour?noneoftheabove said:
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!MaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
If it cuts 20,000 inefficent jobs out of play that is an efficiency saving of £1-2bn a year. A good reason to implement their plan.
Tories in a hole much?
0 -
So you are keeping an open mind then.GIN1138 said:
The longest suicide note in history? Or the second longest?dyedwoolie said:Labour meet at 10am tomortow to finalize the manifesto
0 -
Totally undeliverable. Cable certainly isn't the solution for outlying areas even now, let alone in years time with developed 5G & probably 6G up and running. No ISP solution at all. And who wants the state actually running the internet pipes? You can't trust them.noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?0 -
Panel had leadership figures: nets Bozo -2%, Thicky -42%.
Difference*0.3 gives you the election result roughly = 12%0 -
There should be. I'd take a t-shirt with 'Vapid bilge' on it.Stocky said:MarqueeMark saiud: ""Remainer May threw away the majority" tinfoil hats are available in the pb.com gift shop."
Is there a pb.com giftshop?
I wants a T Shirt with HYUFD`s donkey on.1 -
Well if you are a rural voter who has been waiting twenty years for good broadband you might be delighted with a couple of weeks.Fysics_Teacher said:
According to the Guardian https://theguardian.com/money/2019/nov/15/how-feasible-is-labour-free-broadband-plan-and-part-nationalisation-of-bt Labour are quoting a running cost of £230 million, while analysts say £1-2 billion. That’s some efficiency saving if true.noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
More likely any problems will take weeks to solve.
This is not a policy I support but it is not going to bankrupt the country or only have bad points. It will have winners and losers like every policy does.0 -
Spending to invest - It will pay for itself in a productivity miracle. The Tories have presided over stagnant productivity for the last 10 years! Real wages are at the level of 2007!MaxPB said:
Keeping all of those people employed is literally tens of billions per year. Just to keep the lights on, for a product the government will charge no money for an fund through taxation. We're literally talking about a whole new department with a budget vastly bigger than the Home Office.camel said:
There's one off costs, but beyond that the whole network costs £230m per annum to maintain. So £3.95 per capita, ApparentlyMaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that. 0 -
I assume this will have to be paid through taxation instead.Pierrot said:
And the extra money people will have in their pockets because they're not buying broadband will stimulate the economy and create jobs :-)noneoftheabove said:
Yes! The reason people dont like nationalisation is government inefficiency. MaxPB is suggesting the government would be far more efficient than private businesses are.RobD said:
Tens of thousands of job losses is in Labour's favour?noneoftheabove said:
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!MaxPB said:
What's the cost?noneoftheabove said:
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.MaxPB said:
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.noneoftheabove said:
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.MaxPB said:I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
If it cuts 20,000 inefficent jobs out of play that is an efficiency saving of £1-2bn a year. A good reason to implement their plan.
Tories in a hole much?0
