politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest Ipsos MORI government satisfaction ratings are wors

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

Here is a very simple thought experiment.

Assume that BXP had a 12% share in every constituency.

Then assume they stood down in all the Tory constituencies (say half of the total) and the Brexit vote transferred to the Tories.

The national Brexit vote would drop to 6%.
The national Tory vote would increase by 6%.
But the Tories would not gain a single seat from Labour. Their votes would pile up in their own constituencies.
They might avoid losing a handful of seats to LD but that's it.

The difference between the Brexit party standing and not must surely be more than a few LD seats? If they take 2/3rds of their vote from the Tories, that would put at risk any seat with a majority of less than a few thousand.

I made it three. Guildford, Portsmouth South and Montgomeryshire. But even if it were six, it's not a lot for a 6% increase in national share and lead over Labour.

I don't see how that works. If they are taking (say) 10% off the Tories and 5% off Labour every Tory/Lab marginal with a 5% majority or less would be lost.

I don't follow?

Beibheirli_C said:

Gabs3 said:

rottenborough said:

ThomastheCat said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1195815006262177793?s=21

Some serious stuff hasn't made into this 'leak' i reckon.

Why on Earth would they scrap academies and free schools when school ratings have improved so much under them?

If you recall the left-wing / communist govts of Eastern Europe and the USSR, ideology trumped facts every time no matter how relevant the facts or how stupid the ideology

That statement is very sweeping and abstract. When a Politburo member in the USSR was getting chauffeured around in his Zil and he saw a proletarian approach the kerb, he didn't order the car to be stopped to allow the person to cross in front of him on the grounds that he recognised the primacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat. What is true is that there was an awful lot of faking in industrial production and a lack of care about what actually got produced, so long as target indicators were met and exceeded, despite efforts in the 1960s to reform the system, efforts which failed. But it wasn't as if everyone sat back and said screw the facts, let's follow the ideology. If you were in charge of purchasing parts that an enterprise required, you had to go by the "facts" of who actually had what you wanted and what they wanted in exchange for it, otherwise you wouldn't get any parts at all, and it's hard to meet target indicators even on paper if the plant isn't actually operating. What is true is that there was an awful lack of openness about social problems until Gorbachev came along. There is a huge lack in Britain now too, the obvious case being what is not allowed to be said by politicians and in the media about the real reasons why many people voted for Brexit. Another good example is NHS waiting lists. I don't think I've heard anyone in public life explain why those lists even exist.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Gabs3 said:

rottenborough said:

ThomastheCat said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1195815006262177793?s=21

Some serious stuff hasn't made into this 'leak' i reckon.

Why on Earth would they scrap academies and free schools when school ratings have improved so much under them?

If you recall the left-wing / communist govts of Eastern Europe and the USSR, ideology trumped facts every time no matter how relevant the facts or how stupid the ideology

Labour's Marxists are the same breed of cat

If you want to see what the USSR was like, I recently stumbled across this guy on Youtube (Channel is called something like bald and broke). He is English, but fluent Russian speaker and travels around the states that make up the USSR and shows what life is like. Put it is way, I doubt 99% of the UK population would fancy it.

Which is why Momentum / Militant / Corbyn will not win

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1195850083901878272

This seems to be Labour "attack" line to take this evening. Its all about the wrong weightings.

How convenient they are complaining about one of the companies that didn't release a poll this evening...

Beibheirli_C said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Gabs3 said:

rottenborough said:

ThomastheCat said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1195815006262177793?s=21

Some serious stuff hasn't made into this 'leak' i reckon.

Why on Earth would they scrap academies and free schools when school ratings have improved so much under them?

If you recall the left-wing / communist govts of Eastern Europe and the USSR, ideology trumped facts every time no matter how relevant the facts or how stupid the ideology

Labour's Marxists are the same breed of cat

If you want to see what the USSR was like, I recently stumbled across this guy on Youtube (Channel is called something like bald and broke). He is English, but fluent Russian speaker and travels around the states that make up the USSR and shows what life is like. Put it is way, I doubt 99% of the UK population would fancy it.

Which is why Momentum / Militant / Corbyn will not win

The channel is actually called Bald and Bankrupt.

I did particularly chuckle when he went to a car parts shop....where you could buy everything under the sun for cars, as long as it was a Lada.

HYUFD said:

51% of all voters and 67% of Labour voters say nobody deserves to be rich enough to be a billionaire.

79% of voters support raising tax on billionaires

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/16/half-brits-say-nobody-should-be-billionaire

That is scary as shit that half the population agree nobody should be a billionaire. That is literally saying Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Warren Buffet should never be able to be in a position to change the world for the better.

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1195790552492642305

No it wont. Free extraction dentistry would. But Lab aren't proposing that unless I have missed it.

Its amazing that this "women" appears to know everything about everything that is going on in the world, despite never leaving her home in Swindon.

Are we genuinely, a year after she gave an interview, still going to insinuate that she is a man? Seriously?

viewcode said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1195790552492642305

No it wont. Free extraction dentistry would. But Lab aren't proposing that unless I have missed it.

Its amazing that this "women" appears to know everything about everything that is going on in the world, despite never leaving her home in Swindon.

Are we genuinely, a year after she gave an interview, still going to insinuate that she is a man? Seriously?

I thought the account was run by her husband after his was banned?

brokenwheel said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1195850083901878272

This seems to be Labour "attack" line to take this evening. Its all about the wrong weightings.

How convenient they are complaining about one of the companies that didn't release a poll this evening...

If that turnout is correct then it’s seriously weird however I looked at the previous YouGov and the turnout figures there looked okay and that showed a 13 point lead for the Tories .

I suspect the tin foil hats are needed for some , pollsters reputation is on them getting as accurate as possible results not some conspiracy to help one party .

The polls suck for Labour , that’s the reality at this moment in time . I expect they’ll close the gap a little but unless Trump turns up and says the NHS will be part of a trade deal then not sure what will cause a big change in the polling .

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1195850083901878272

Tories still lead by 9% with Yougov including those who say they will not vote, don't know or refused

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/12/latest-polling-reveals-effect-brexit-party-strateg

another_richard said:

Arthur said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1195790552492642305

No it wont. Free extraction dentistry would. But Lab aren't proposing that unless I have missed it.

It wouldn't put an end to it, but it would reduce it. There again, perhaps Labour will abolish NHS dental fees altogether. Nye Bevan lives again! (As most working class people over about 50 know, the introduction of dental charges was one of the reasons Bevan cited when he resigned.) Interesting that Labour are delaying the release of the manifesto until Thursday, five days after it was signed off and two days after the first Corbyn-Johnson debate. Corbyn can then announce a surprise manifesto promise or two on live TV, straight into Johnson's face - ouch. What argument could Johnson (or the BDA for that matter) advance against a Labour proposal to make NHS dental care, eye tests and spectacles all free at the point of delivery, beginning 13 December? Labour can win this.

As most working class people over about 50 know, the introduction of dental charges was one of the reasons Bevan cited when he resigned.

I don't think I've ever heard a working class person of any age mention Nye Bevan.

You just hang out with the wrong class of working class person.

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

Here is a very simple thought experiment.

Assume that BXP had a 12% share in every constituency.

Then assume they stood down in all the Tory constituencies (say half of the total) and the Brexit vote transferred to the Tories.

The national Brexit vote would drop to 6%.
The national Tory vote would increase by 6%.
But the Tories would not gain a single seat from Labour. Their votes would pile up in their own constituencies.
They might avoid losing a handful of seats to LD but that's it.

The difference between the Brexit party standing and not must surely be more than a few LD seats? If they take 2/3rds of their vote from the Tories, that would put at risk any seat with a majority of less than a few thousand.

I made it three. Guildford, Portsmouth South and Montgomeryshire. But even if it were six, it's not a lot for a 6% increase in national share and lead over Labour.

I don't see how that works. If they are taking (say) 10% off the Tories and 5% off Labour every Tory/Lab marginal with a 5% majority or less would be lost.

Well, if you assumed that the Green vote was going to fall in half, and that would go 60:40 to Labour, that might explain it.

Or if you assumed that in Lab-Con marginals, the LD vote would drop 25% as people tactically voted.

I'm just making shit up, but that - I presume - is how Barnesian's model works. He assumes that, after tactical voting practically disappeared in 2017, it comes back to some extent in 2019.

We shall see what happens in - oohhh... - about four weeks.

But tactical voting didn't disappear in 2017.

Arthur said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Gabs3 said:

rottenborough said:

ThomastheCat said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1195815006262177793?s=21

Some serious stuff hasn't made into this 'leak' i reckon.

Why on Earth would they scrap academies and free schools when school ratings have improved so much under them?

If you recall the left-wing / communist govts of Eastern Europe and the USSR, ideology trumped facts every time no matter how relevant the facts or how stupid the ideology

That statement is very sweeping and abstract. When a Politburo member in the USSR was getting chauffeured around in his Zil and he saw a proletarian approach the kerb, he didn't order the car to be stopped to allow the person to cross in front of him on the grounds that he recognised the primacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat. What is true is that there was an awful lot of faking in industrial production and a lack of care about what actually got produced, so long as target indicators were met and exceeded, despite efforts in the 1960s to reform the system, efforts which failed. But it wasn't as if everyone sat back and said screw the facts, let's follow the ideology. If you were in charge of purchasing parts that an enterprise required, you had to go by the "facts" of who actually had what you wanted and what they wanted in exchange for it, otherwise you wouldn't get any parts at all, and it's hard to meet target indicators even on paper if the plant isn't actually operating. What is true is that there was an awful lack of openness about social problems until Gorbachev came along. There is a huge lack in Britain now too, the obvious case being what is not allowed to be said by politicians and in the media about the real reasons why many people voted for Brexit. Another good example is NHS waiting lists. I don't think I've heard anyone in public life explain why those lists even exist.

Abstract? What was the purpose of Zampolits, commisars, the cheka or the KGB come to that? Ideology - marxism, leninism, stalinism etc. was a big deal. The enforcement of ideological work practices guaranteed inefficiency.

Only a minority of British people would put up with that sort of nonsense.

another_richard said:

Barnesian said:

Here is a very simple thought experiment.

Assume that BXP had a 12% share in every constituency.

Then assume they stood down in all the Tory constituencies (say half of the total) and the Brexit vote transferred to the Tories.

The national Brexit vote would drop to 6%.
The national Tory vote would increase by 6%.
But the Tories would not gain a single seat from Labour. Their votes would pile up in their own constituencies.
They might avoid losing a handful of seats to LD but that's it.

It would mean that the Conservatives were able to defend their 2017 seats against the LibDems and SNP.

And its those losses to the LibDems and SNP which are assumed to stop the Conservatives winning a majority.

They still lose seats to the LibDems and SNP even with BXP stepping down.

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

Here is a very simple thought experiment.

Assume that BXP had a 12% share in every constituency.

Then assume they stood down in all the Tory constituencies (say half of the total) and the Brexit vote transferred to the Tories.

The national Brexit vote would drop to 6%.
The national Tory vote would increase by 6%.
But the Tories would not gain a single seat from Labour. Their votes would pile up in their own constituencies.
They might avoid losing a handful of seats to LD but that's it.

The difference between the Brexit party standing and not must surely be more than a few LD seats? If they take 2/3rds of their vote from the Tories, that would put at risk any seat with a majority of less than a few thousand.

I made it three. Guildford, Portsmouth South and Montgomeryshire. But even if it were six, it's not a lot for a 6% increase in national share and lead over Labour.

I don't see how that works. If they are taking (say) 10% off the Tories and 5% off Labour every Tory/Lab marginal with a 5% majority or less would be lost.

I don't follow?

If you assume that 2/3 of BXP goes to CON, and 1/3 goes to LAB, you should have many cases like this hypothetical seat. Let's say it was won in 2017 by the Tories. If the BXP were to stand in 2019 it would go Labour assuming that split.

Without BXP:
CON 45
LAB 41
OTH 14

With BXP:
CON 35
LAB 36
BXP 15
OTH 14

"Let's say it was won by the Tories". Labour are not going to win any seats off the Tories BXP or no BXP. BXP makes no difference.

rottenborough said:

This weekend's election coverage in full:

twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1195855582269464577

I can only presume he was advised by JRM on how to do PR.

Barnesian said:

OK @Philip_Thompson

I've picked the first in your list - Bristol North West.

2017 Con 22,639 Lab 27,400 Valid voters 54,096

Con share 40.1% ie. -3.4% of 2017, or 92% of 2017
Lab share 30.2% (incl 1.5% green adjustment) ie. -10.8% of 2017, or 74% of 2017

Arithmetic swing (UNS)
Con = 22,639 - .034x54,096 = 20,800
Lab = 27,400 -.108x54,096= 21,558

Multiplicative swing (favours "lumpiness" ie. bigger effect on larger shares)
Con = 92% of 22,639 = 20,074
Lab = 74% of 27,400 = 20,276

I assume 80% additive and 20% multiplicative
Con = 20,655
Lab = 21,301

As LibDems were less than 30% of lab vote last time, I assume 40% of LibDems vote tactically for Labour ie extra 1,126 making 22,427 for labour.

BXP stand in this seat (Labour seat) so no transfer to Tories from BXP.

So Labour retain the seat.

NB MRP have Tories taking the seat with a bigger LibDem vote splitting the remain vote. Could happen. I don't know anything about the local campaign.

This has been a useful check of my model and the arithmetic.

I agree with Bristol NW staying Labour with the polls the way they are at present. Not sure about Great Grimsby, Blackpool South, Darlington, Scunthorpe — although most of those are almost a dead heat on the spreadsheet.

nico67 said:

rottenborough said:

This weekend's election coverage in full:

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1195855582269464577

That interview was a complete car crash . Astonishing he didn’t say he regretted his friendship with Epstein.

I don't think car crash even comes close to describing it.

Has anyone seen a single person defend Prince Andrew? I think my view that any Gvt role be stripped from him and he be removed from the Civil List is the strong monarchist view......

Barnesian said:

another_richard said:

Barnesian said:

Here is a very simple thought experiment.

Assume that BXP had a 12% share in every constituency.

Then assume they stood down in all the Tory constituencies (say half of the total) and the Brexit vote transferred to the Tories.

The national Brexit vote would drop to 6%.
The national Tory vote would increase by 6%.
But the Tories would not gain a single seat from Labour. Their votes would pile up in their own constituencies.
They might avoid losing a handful of seats to LD but that's it.

It would mean that the Conservatives were able to defend their 2017 seats against the LibDems and SNP.

And its those losses to the LibDems and SNP which are assumed to stop the Conservatives winning a majority.

They still lose seats to the LibDems and SNP even with BXP stepping down.

How many ? Three to each would be a fair estimate given the current polls.

If there's one thing which has been proven during the last decade is that LibDems always overestimate how well they are going to do against the Conservatives.

Andy_JS said:

Barnesian said:

OK @Philip_Thompson

I've picked the first in your list - Bristol North West.

2017 Con 22,639 Lab 27,400 Valid voters 54,096

Con share 40.1% ie. -3.4% of 2017, or 92% of 2017
Lab share 30.2% (incl 1.5% green adjustment) ie. -10.8% of 2017, or 74% of 2017

Arithmetic swing (UNS)
Con = 22,639 - .034x54,096 = 20,800
Lab = 27,400 -.108x54,096= 21,558

Multiplicative swing (favours "lumpiness" ie. bigger effect on larger shares)
Con = 92% of 22,639 = 20,074
Lab = 74% of 27,400 = 20,276

I assume 80% additive and 20% multiplicative
Con = 20,655
Lab = 21,301

As LibDems were less than 30% of lab vote last time, I assume 40% of LibDems vote tactically for Labour ie extra 1,126 making 22,427 for labour.

BXP stand in this seat (Labour seat) so no transfer to Tories from BXP.

So Labour retain the seat.

NB MRP have Tories taking the seat with a bigger LibDem vote splitting the remain vote. Could happen. I don't know anything about the local campaign.

This has been a useful check of my model and the arithmetic.

I agree with Bristol NW staying Labour with the polls the way they are at present. Not sure about Great Grimsby, Blackpool South, Darlington, Scunthorpe — although most of those are almost a dead heat on the spreadsheet.

I could reproduce the arithmetic for all those seats. It would be a similar format to Bristol West. But it would be tedious and boring!

Great Grimsby Dead heat my model. Dead heat MRP
Blackpool South Dead heat my model, Lab hold MRP
Darlington Dead heat my model, dead heat MRP
Scunthorpe Con/Lab 40/41 my model, 36/31 MRP so there's a difference.

Small increases in share will switch these seats to Tory.

Time_to_Leave said:

Has anyone seen a single person defend Prince Andrew? I think my view that any Gvt role be stripped from him and he be removed from the Civil List is the strong monarchist view......

Prince Andrew currently has a 19% positive rating, compared to a 72% approval rating for the Queen, 48% for Prince Charles and 66% for Prince William. I expect he will now fade into the background.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Prince_Andrew_Duke_of_York

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Queen_Elizabeth_II

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Prince_Charles

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Prince_William_Duke_of_Cambridge

@Barnesian - what share would Lab/Con need for a majority of 30 each way?

To be fair....

https://twitter.com/CuteBabyYoda/status/1195557439313235969?s=20

viewcode said:

RobD said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I don't know why, but I am about to subject myself to the 2nd episode of the Mandalorian....its only 30mins long. Can't Disney even make 1hr episodes.

Always worth giving something 3-4 episodes, to get past teething issues. Heck, the entire first season of some things are not good, like Parks and Recreation.

and Deep Space Nine (excluding Duet)

And TNG.

And Enterprise.

And Discovery.

In fact, it's almost a tradition at this point.

And the first season of Babylon 5

nico67 said:

brokenwheel said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1195850083901878272

This seems to be Labour "attack" line to take this evening. Its all about the wrong weightings.

How convenient they are complaining about one of the companies that didn't release a poll this evening...

If that turnout is correct then it’s seriously weird however I looked at the previous YouGov and the turnout figures there looked okay and that showed a 13 point lead for the Tories ..

Okay so I bothered to check and unsurprisingly I can't replicate these tweeted figures from the last Kantar, it's not quite as extreme as they make out.

However the Kantar weightings are in part based on self-reported likelihood to vote. Note Yougov is showing a lower likelihood to vote in the lowest (and highest) age bracket compared to the last GE result and Yougov's own polling at this stage of the campaign in 2017. So it's just possible the youngest age group aren't as enthused this time, which is entirely understandable.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Barnesian said:

OK @Philip_Thompson

I've picked the first in your list - Bristol North West.

2017 Con 22,639 Lab 27,400 Valid voters 54,096

Con share 40.1% ie. -3.4% of 2017, or 92% of 2017
Lab share 30.2% (incl 1.5% green adjustment) ie. -10.8% of 2017, or 74% of 2017

Arithmetic swing (UNS)
Con = 22,639 - .034x54,096 = 20,800
Lab = 27,400 -.108x54,096= 21,558

Multiplicative swing (favours "lumpiness" ie. bigger effect on larger shares)
Con = 92% of 22,639 = 20,074
Lab = 74% of 27,400 = 20,276

I assume 80% additive and 20% multiplicative
Con = 20,655
Lab = 21,301

As LibDems were less than 30% of lab vote last time, I assume 40% of LibDems vote tactically for Labour ie extra 1,126 making 22,427 for labour.

BXP stand in this seat (Labour seat) so no transfer to Tories from BXP.

So Labour retain the seat.

NB MRP have Tories taking the seat with a bigger LibDem vote splitting the remain vote. Could happen. I don't know anything about the local campaign.

This has been a useful check of my model and the arithmetic.

Just because BXP are standing does not mean there will be no transfer of their vote to the Tories. I would work on the basis that in Southern seats you should be expecting at least 50% transfer BXP to Tories even when there is a BXP candidate standing.

Good suggestion. I'll work on that tomorrow. I'll see what the sensitivity is to various assumptions. A lot of the transference to the Tories has already happened as can be seen by the change in shares so the remaining BXP might be more Labour inclined or old UKIP. I'll have a look.

Ohhhhhhhhhh...

Boris Johnson’s love affair with a pole-dancing US model who was handed thousands of pounds in public money lasted for four years, an explosive TV documentary claims tonight.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7693809/In-TV-interview-Jennifer-Arcuri-says-warned-Boris-Johnson-come-clean.html

FrancisUrquhart said:

Ohhhhhhhhhh...

Boris Johnson’s love affair with a pole-dancing US model who was handed thousands of pounds in public money lasted for four years, an explosive TV documentary claims tonight.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7693809/In-TV-interview-Jennifer-Arcuri-says-warned-Boris-Johnson-come-clean.html

As with Trump, as with Berlusconi, as with Bill Clinton already priced in with Boris and this story now been out for months

brokenwheel said:

viewcode said:

RobD said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I don't know why, but I am about to subject myself to the 2nd episode of the Mandalorian....its only 30mins long. Can't Disney even make 1hr episodes.

Always worth giving something 3-4 episodes, to get past teething issues. Heck, the entire first season of some things are not good, like Parks and Recreation.

and Deep Space Nine (excluding Duet)

And TNG.

And Enterprise.

And Discovery.

In fact, it's almost a tradition at this point.

And the first season of Babylon 5

(makes strangulated sound and falls over)

FrancisUrquhart said:

Ohhhhhhhhhh...

Boris Johnson’s love affair with a pole-dancing US model who was handed thousands of pounds in public money lasted for four years, an explosive TV documentary claims tonight.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7693809/In-TV-interview-Jennifer-Arcuri-says-warned-Boris-Johnson-come-clean.html

Thank God for Prince Andrew!

RobD said:

@Barnesian - what share would Lab/Con need for a majority of 30 each way?

Con would need a lead over Labour of about 14% to get a 50 majority.
Lab would need a lead over Con of about 18% to get a 50 majority.

This assumes current shares for SNP and LDs.

The hurdle is the rump of non Con/Lab seats to be overcome before you can start building a majority.

SNP+LD+PC+Green+NI
48+34+4+1+18 = 105 out of 650.

My nowcast: Con 339 Lab 210 SNP 45 LD 32 Others 24
Con majority 28

https://ukelect.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/swing-seats.xls

Arthur said:

BluerBlue said:

brokenwheel said:

viewcode said:

RobD said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I don't know why, but I am about to subject myself to the 2nd episode of the Mandalorian....its only 30mins long. Can't Disney even make 1hr episodes.

Always worth giving something 3-4 episodes, to get past teething issues. Heck, the entire first season of some things are not good, like Parks and Recreation.

and Deep Space Nine (excluding Duet)

And TNG.

And Enterprise.

And Discovery.

In fact, it's almost a tradition at this point.

And the first season of Babylon 5

nico67 said:

brokenwheel said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1195850083901878272

This seems to be Labour "attack" line to take this evening. Its all about the wrong weightings.

How convenient they are complaining about one of the companies that didn't release a poll this evening...

If that turnout is correct then it’s seriously weird however I looked at the previous YouGov and the turnout figures there looked okay and that showed a 13 point lead for the Tories ..

Okay so I bothered to check and unsurprisingly I can't replicate these tweeted figures from the last Kantar, it's not quite as extreme as they make out.

However the Kantar weightings are in part based on self-reported likelihood to vote. Note Yougov is showing a lower likelihood to vote in the lowest (and highest) age bracket compared to the last GE result and Yougov's own polling at this stage of the campaign in 2017. So it's just possible the youngest age group aren't as enthused this time, which is entirely understandable.

There's really no way they can be as enthused - where's the "Ohhhh Jeremy Coooooorbyn" stuff gone? The problem with becoming a hipster flash hit like Corbyn did in 2017 is that every cool thing starts to look a little stale 2-and-a-half years later...

Who is in the Tory campaign team who can say "This was the big mistake I made in 2017 and I'm sure as hell not making it again" - a sure sign of an intelligent person? Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy were metaphorically taken outside and shot. Is Lynton still around?

On the Labour side, Seumas Milne and Karie Murphy were there in 2017 and are still in fine fettle now.

It wasn't just the ones inside the campaign that could see what they were doing wrong.

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

51% of all voters and 67% of Labour voters say nobody deserves to be rich enough to be a billionaire.

79% of voters support raising tax on billionaires

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/16/half-brits-say-nobody-should-be-billionaire

That is scary as shit that half the population agree nobody should be a billionaire. That is literally saying Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Warren Buffet should never be able to be in a position to change the world for the better.

Plenty of billionaires (like the Koch brothers) use their money for evil.

The world should not have to rely on the generosity of billionaires for good works, and we do need to allow for all the harm that they have done to millions by their greed along their way.

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

51% of all voters and 67% of Labour voters say nobody deserves to be rich enough to be a billionaire.

79% of voters support raising tax on billionaires

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/16/half-brits-say-nobody-should-be-billionaire

That is scary as shit that half the population agree nobody should be a billionaire. That is literally saying Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Warren Buffet should never be able to be in a position to change the world for the better.

Plenty of billionaires (like the Koch brothers) use their money for evil.

The world should not have to rely on the generosity of billionaires for good works, and we do need to allow for all the harm that they have done to millions by their greed along their way.

Bill Gates invented Microsoft, put a computer on the desktop of every office worker on Earth, and is trying to eliminate malaria and polio. I know ctrl-alt-delete is annoying, but isn't that a bit excessive?

FrancisUrquhart said:

BluerBlue said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Ohhhhhhhhhh...

Boris Johnson’s love affair with a pole-dancing US model who was handed thousands of pounds in public money lasted for four years, an explosive TV documentary claims tonight.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7693809/In-TV-interview-Jennifer-Arcuri-says-warned-Boris-Johnson-come-clean.html

Thank God for Prince Andrew!

Well yes...did the Tories offer him a big job or something?

Somebody offered him a big job. Or at least I think he said "big", I might have misheard.

Pause.

I am an adult with a mortgage, really...

RobD said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

51% of all voters and 67% of Labour voters say nobody deserves to be rich enough to be a billionaire.

79% of voters support raising tax on billionaires

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/16/half-brits-say-nobody-should-be-billionaire

That is scary as shit that half the population agree nobody should be a billionaire. That is literally saying Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Warren Buffet should never be able to be in a position to change the world for the better.

Plenty of billionaires (like the Koch brothers) use their money for evil.

The world should not have to rely on the generosity of billionaires for good works, and we do need to allow for all the harm that they have done to millions by their greed along their way.

Bill Gates invented Microsoft, put a computer on the desktop of every office worker on Earth, and is trying to eliminate malaria and polio. I know ctrl-alt-delete is annoying, but isn't that a bit excessive?

Clippy?

Yes, fair point. Hang him.

ydoethur said:

Time_to_Leave said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1195771706599727104

Finally reversing some of the changes that red Tory, Attlee, made to ensure the NHS was affordable. Whatever happened to him? Was he asked to f%%# off and join the Tories?

Edit - More seriously anyone proposing this has to explain why the £450m isn’t better spent on [insert popular NHS funding cause here].

His son joined the SDP, and his grandson is a Tory!

And his wife! Not only did he kiss a Tory, he had a long and happy marriage to one. She used to scare the living daylights out of his Special Branch protection officers when driving them around at election times. Of course she was of the vintage (like my grand parents) who never had to take a driving test.

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

51% of all voters and 67% of Labour voters say nobody deserves to be rich enough to be a billionaire.

79% of voters support raising tax on billionaires

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/16/half-brits-say-nobody-should-be-billionaire

That is scary as shit that half the population agree nobody should be a billionaire. That is literally saying Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Warren Buffet should never be able to be in a position to change the world for the better.

Plenty of billionaires (like the Koch brothers) use their money for evil.

The world should not have to rely on the generosity of billionaires for good works, and we do need to allow for all the harm that they have done to millions by their greed along their way.

Billionaire-driven billionaire tax: Any billionaire can pledge any amount of their billions to the approved charity of their choice (I mean a proper charity like malaria prevention, not the Koch Family Education Fund or whatever, and all the other billionaires have to chip in 20% of the same amount, scaled in proportion to the relative size of their billions.

Stop our hard-working, generous billionaires getting taken advantage of by their mean, selfish fellow billionaires.

https://twitter.com/robblackie_oo/status/1195617469332905984?s=20

Mr Burnham said: "[The Cube] does not have the same ACM cladding [that was on Grenfell Tower] but nevertheless it does have a form of cladding that causes concern and raises issues that will have to be addressed."

He said he would talk to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who visited the Bolton site earlier, about whether "we need to go further to remove cladding from these buildings and give families peace of mind".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-50445311

Guardian: "Jennifer Arcuri: ‘I’ve kept Johnson’s secrets – now he’s cast me aside like a one-night stand’ "

"...an outspoken interview with ITV’s Exposure, to be broadcast on Sunday..."

"I don’t understand why you’ve blocked me and ignored me as if I was some fleeting one-night stand or some girl that you picked up at a bar because I wasn’t - and you know that."

She sounds like a 16-year-old.

"Arcuri said that, when she tried his personal phone on yet another occasion, she was summarily passed to someone who spoke to her in a language she believed to be Chinese."

Arthur said:

Guardian: "Jennifer Arcuri: ‘I’ve kept Johnson’s secrets – now he’s cast me aside like a one-night stand’ "

"...an outspoken interview with ITV’s Exposure, to be broadcast on Sunday..."

"I don’t understand why you’ve blocked me and ignored me as if I was some fleeting one-night stand or some girl that you picked up at a bar because I wasn’t - and you know that."

She sounds like a 16-year-old.

"Arcuri said that, when she tried his personal phone on yet another occasion, she was summarily passed to someone who spoke to her in a language she believed to be Chinese."

If ITV thought there were any explosive insights in the programme, it would not be going out at 11pm.

RobD said:

Arthur said:

I'm looking forward to the big debate on Tuesday. There's just no way Johnson will win points for saying the Tories are more trustworthy on the NHS than Labour. The Tories voted against creating the NHS more than 20 times. The most one can say is that they haven't abolished it yet and that Theresa May did look embarrassed standing next to Donald Trump when he said it had to be put up for sale as part of a post-Brexit trade agreement with the US.

Lay price for Tories getting most seats is 1.07. That's got to hit 1.14 by next Saturday.

You don't think those sort of attitudes are priced in already? We've heard X minutes to save the NHS so many times it has lost all meaning.

"The Tories will spend a lot of money on the NHS" is supposed to be one of the main reasons to vote Tory, other than they'll "get Brexit done", to which it's related. The NHS stuff probably comes from Cummings treating the election as EUref2 and from the idea that they've got to say something that isn't about immigration for a while so that a) they can boost BXP voteshare in the North and b) being hard on immigration will have more impact when they do it later. I don't think the failure of the Tories' NHS line is priced in. The main reason the Tory price on the betting markets is high is polls showing BXP and the LibDems performing better than they actually will, which probably comes from respondents "protesting" to pollsters rather as voters did in the EU election, when those two parties came first and second. So I stand by my prediction.

How do you think prices will move next week?

Arthur said:

I'm looking forward to the big debate on Tuesday. There's just no way Johnson will win points for saying the Tories are more trustworthy on the NHS than Labour. The Tories voted against creating the NHS more than 20 times. The most one can say is that they haven't abolished it yet and that Theresa May did look embarrassed standing next to Donald Trump when he said it had to be put up for sale as part of a post-Brexit trade agreement with the US.

Lay price for Tories getting most seats is 1.07. That's got to hit 1.14 by next Saturday.

A fiscally incontinent Corbyn government is the real threat to the NHS.

Arthur said:

Who is in the Tory campaign team who can say "This was the big mistake I made in 2017 and I'm sure as hell not making it again" - a sure sign of an intelligent person? Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy were metaphorically taken outside and shot. Is Lynton still around?

On the Labour side, Seumas Milne and Karie Murphy were there in 2017 and are still in fine fettle now.

I'd be surprised if there is a single person inside the Tory campaign team that doesn't think 2017 was an absolute disaster.

And as for Milne and Murphy being in fine fettle I would hate to see the effect on polling if they had a dip in form.

SunnyJim said:

Arthur said:

Who is in the Tory campaign team who can say "This was the big mistake I made in 2017 and I'm sure as hell not making it again" - a sure sign of an intelligent person? Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy were metaphorically taken outside and shot. Is Lynton still around?

On the Labour side, Seumas Milne and Karie Murphy were there in 2017 and are still in fine fettle now.

I'd be surprised if there is a single person inside the Tory campaign team that doesn't think 2017 was an absolute disaster.

And as for Milne and Murphy being in fine fettle I would hate to see the effect on polling if they had a dip in form.

2017 being a disaster doesn't mean the Tory team were idiots. They half-lost a battle. A complete disaster would have been a Labour landslide. The reasons they did badly were the usual mix: some poor judgement, strategy and tactics by them and by others on their side, some better play by the opposition, some bad luck. If I were Boris I'd want some of them in the team this time who could give everyone the benefit of how they learnt from their errors, rather than a bunch of cocky types who believe that the 2017 lot were utter morons and who are so sure they would have done better last time had they been doing the job instead. What's he going to do if there's a hung parliament and another election in the spring - have this lot all metaphorically shot too and bring in a third lot?

Milne and Murphy made mistakes too and have considered them. This far out in 2017 the gap Labour had to bridge was bigger than it is now and on the day they got 40%. They're doing well so far. The talk about a LibDem-BXP squeeze is mainly rubbish. I doubt things would be very different if BXP could get deleted, and there are hardly any Lab-LibDem marginals. I'm not sure which side is most vulnerable to a balls-up. Depends on the kind of balls-up. A Boris skeleton could emerge from a cupboard, or on the Labour side Emily Thornberry could give us a Gillian Duffy 2.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Gabs3 said:

rottenborough said:

ThomastheCat said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1195815006262177793?s=21

Some serious stuff hasn't made into this 'leak' i reckon.

Why on Earth would they scrap academies and free schools when school ratings have improved so much under them?

If you recall the left-wing / communist govts of Eastern Europe and the USSR, ideology trumped facts every time no matter how relevant the facts or how stupid the ideology

Labour's Marxists are the same breed of cat

If you want to see what the USSR was like, I recently stumbled across this guy on Youtube (Channel is called something like bald and broke). He is English, but fluent Russian speaker and travels around the states that make up the USSR and shows what life is like. Put it is way, I doubt 99% of the UK population would fancy it.

Ironically, Russia is now exactly the sort of country that Soviet propaganda used to tell its citizens the west was like...

Bald & Bankrupt is in, no way, 'fluent' in Russian. Being able to speak a bit of Russian with poor grammar, and imprecise syllabic emphasis is not 'fluent'. Mrs DA tells me his Hindi is worse but fair fucks to him for having a go.

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT for @Noo

Noo said:

You can reread the conversation here:
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7953/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-new-pb-polling-matters-podcast-where-do-we-go-from-here-and/p6

I was very clearly arguing for tolerance in the way people choose to dress by saying that we wouldn't find it acceptable for someone to ridicule the yarmulke (although I spelled it wrong, so apologies for that).

You then decided to drag the KKK into the discussion. Later you doubled down on that comparison.

Those quotes there show exactly the difference between what you claimed was said and what was really said. Nobody was defending "those who attack people for choosing to wear a burqa". We weren't discussing physically or otherwise attacking those wearing the burqa, we were discussing the garment itself and whether or not it should be illegal, not attacking people wearing it.

And comparing the burqa - a nasty, misogynistic, dehumanising garment with no religious bearing designed to culturally separate people - to the yarmuka, a simple skullcap that doesn't mask or dehumanise its wearer is quite frankly antisemitic.

The yarmuka is not a misogynistic, dehumanising garment and to conflate it with the burqa is racist to Jews and Muslims and it is also extremely ignorant of Islam. Comparable to the yarmuka would be the kufi or the hijab not the burqa.

A very comparable garment to the burqa is worn by some in the west. Equally as nasty, dehumanising etc it is the KKK's outfit. Again designed to dehumanise and seperate people, again designed to hide people from head to toe. Both only worn by extremists with an extreme distorted view of religion. Unlike simple religious garments like the yarmuka, kufi, hijab or turban etc

I'm sad I missed this at the time yesterday. Yet another islamophobic outburst from you. You are scum.