Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

15678911»

Comments

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,079
    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?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    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.
    ...what?
  • ArthurArthur Posts: 63
    edited November 2019

    Gabs3 said:

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    edited November 2019
    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
  • Gabs3 said:

    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
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,331
    Arthur said:

    Gabs3 said:

    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
    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.
    Do tell. We have heard a lot of reasons for it, I'm curious which have remained unspoken.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352

    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...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    edited November 2019
    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 and 88% support the government taking action to prevent them avoiding paying tax

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/16/half-brits-say-nobody-should-be-billionaire
  • Gabs3 said:

    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.
  • viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Disparities in the polls today range from +8 to +17 Tory Lead.....dont know what to make of this

    The average of the polls is about 13%.
    One day I will have to write an article about why averaging polls is a bad idea. Especially if (as I suspect) the distribution is bimodal. Either one extreme is correct, or the other, but not both.
    I agree with you, but playing devil’s advocate it will mean you’re not as wrong as you might have been. You’re not as right either, but whether that matters depends on what you’re trying to achieve.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    edited November 2019
    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,589
    edited November 2019

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Are shy LDs a thing?

    I really struggle to believe the LDs are doing that badly and the Tories that well.

    Something doesn’t smell right.

    Shy Lib-Dems must be in the same category as vegans who keep quiet about it or Oxbridge graduates who aren’t desperate to tell you which college we went to.
    LOL....how do you know somebody is a vegan....they will tell...again and again and again.
    That bullshit is on the march though.

    I think I care more about defending meat than I do Leaving the EU.
    My argument, 'If we're not meant to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?'
    I think Sarah Palin said the same thing once.

    I'm sure most vegans are very nice people, but they do have an image problem, as I find a lot vegetarians joke about vegans as well.
    They don't have an image problem, they have a dietary problem. A vegan diet is not a healthy diet - it is objectively not possible to get the nutrition needed for health on a vegan diet, which is why certain dietary supplements are required. It's abysmal.
    "Objectively not possible" is not correct. It is *harder* with a vegan diet. But it is by no means impossible.

    Which particular nutrients do you think are impossible with a vegan diet.
    Vitamin B12.
    pretty much every breakfast cereal

    Vitamin D.
    Mushrooms

    Omega 3.
    Brussels sprouts

    There you go, and that was without even thinking about it. Now, I'm not going to deny it's harder (and you end up with a highly restrictive diet), but it's by no means impossible.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,928

    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?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,589

    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.

    In the old world, 30 minutes was an hour. (After commercials.)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    viewcode 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?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,705
    edited November 2019
    viewcode 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 am very very suspicious that this account is really just controlled by this single individual with just the use of her outdated smart phone with no help from anybody else. Remember Jezza doesn't write his tweets (not that unsurprising), there are WhatsApp groups from Team Jezza spreading exactly the lines to take to a close group of cheer leaders, etc.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    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 .
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,589
    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.
  • I'm not complaining about the weighting thing, I was just trying to explain the differences between the polls and why that might be! Please don't shout at me!
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,079
    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    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 we are only discussing the removal of the BXP in Con/Lab marginals. I am quite surprised it only affects the outcome of three seats, despite how many of said marginals there are with majorities <5%.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,589

    Arthur 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.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,928
    RobD said:

    kle4 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.
  • 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.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,928

    Arthur 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.
    My grandad used to, but that was some time ago.
  • Arthur said:

    Gabs3 said:

    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.
  • The most disappoint thing about the Mandalorian. By modern standards and the standards we expect from Lucas Acts, the special effects really aren't very good.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,079

    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.
  • This weekend's election coverage in full:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1195855582269464577
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,079
    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.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    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.
  • 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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614

    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.
    It is not surprising given the legacy of the crash, in the US too Bernie Sanders has attacked 'the arrogance of billlionaires'

    https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/sanders-campaigning-aoc-potential-bloomberg-bid-shows-arrogance/story?id=66881233

    It is controlling immigration, restoring national sovereignty, tough action on crime, tax cuts for average workers and protecting funding for core services that will win conservatives elections at the moment, not tax cuts for the rich
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,365
    edited November 2019
    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.
  • The most disappoint thing about the Mandalorian. By modern standards and the standards we expect from Lucas Acts, the special effects really aren't very good.

    You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about it. It contrasts with all the comments I have been seeing from the Nerdoverse who really like it.
  • nico67 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.


  • The most disappoint thing about the Mandalorian. By modern standards and the standards we expect from Lucas Acts, the special effects really aren't very good.

    You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about it. It contrasts with all the comments I have been seeing from the Nerdoverse who really like it.
    Me...No...I have hardly mentioned it ;-)
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    edited November 2019
    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......
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,089


    Vitamin B12.
    pretty much every breakfast cereal

    Vitamin D.
    Mushrooms

    Omega 3.
    Brussels sprouts

    There you go, and that was without even thinking about it. Now, I'm not going to deny it's harder (and you end up with a highly restrictive diet), but it's by no means impossible.

    Well perhaps you should have thought about it. Breakfast cereal is 'fortified' with different vitamins. Whether you are putting a supplement in your mouth, or kellogs is sprinkling it on your frosties, it's still a supplement. Nor is it likely to be as absorbable and beneficial as when consumed in its natural form. Mushrooms - not in high enough quantities imo. Though a quick Google tells me that people are growing them under UV lamps and stuff to get more vitamim D into them, which sounds promising. Getting what you need in the way of Omega 3 is not as simple as eating sprouts. There are different types, only found in fish oil, and (thankfully for vegans) algae.

    So vegans need an artificial source of B12 (thanks for confirming), to supplement their Omega 3 intake, and would be well advised to take a vitamin D supplement. Along with zinc, iron, and probably many more.
  • Barnesian 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.
  • 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.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,079
    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.
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    These opinion polls with growing Conservative leads seem broadly correct to me as a Lib Dem activist living in a Lab/Con marginal. It doesn't feel at all like 2017 out there. I think Labour are in for a thrashing. The poll showing my party on 11% maybe doesn't feel quite right but the broad picture from all of tonight's polls does.

    I think too many people from all parties have been scarred for life by 2017.

    Do you still think it was a good idea to choose Jo Swinson over someone like Layla Moran or Ed Davey? Jo Swinson doesn't seem to be making much impact on the campaign so far.
    She's having a hard time getting noticed. Layla Moran would have been much better at that, she has a much more interesting media personality. Didn't run, sadly.
    I'm not sure Layla would have been that great either. The LDs really need an election where they've got a dozen new and young MPs, one of which might distinguish themselves.
    For me Sal Brinton has been the most effective LD media performer. Layla is great too. It's hard to pick a leader from half a dozen MPs but I still think lovely Jo has disappointed,
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    edited November 2019

    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
  • viewcode said:

    Arthur 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.
    My grandad used to, but that was some time ago.
    I think that backups my statement :smile:
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    @Barnesian - what share would Lab/Con need for a majority of 30 each way?
  • ArthurArthur Posts: 63

    Arthur said:

    Gabs3 said:

    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.
    The idea that ideology always trumped facts is highly abstract. You want the notion of ideology to do far heavier lifting than it actually did. From your examples, I think you mean the party state and its control over the education system, the media, and public life (although the KGB doesn't fit into that so neatly - it kind of "included" a lot of organised crime and except in a nominal sense it by no means disappeared in 1991).
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,928

    viewcode 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 am very very suspicious that this account is really just controlled by this single individual with just the use of her outdated smart phone with no help from anybody else. Remember Jezza doesn't write his tweets (not that unsurprising), there are WhatsApp groups from Team Jezza spreading exactly the lines to take to a close group of cheer leaders, etc.
    I'm happy to believe that she takes feeds from others as cues. As, I should imagine, do half the people here. But that doesn't imply she's not a single individual. As PB proves day after day, there's no need to pay apparatchiks to spread the party line when there are so many party followers willing to do it for free.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited November 2019
    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 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:

    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.
  • camelcamel Posts: 815

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Are shy LDs a thing?

    I really struggle to believe the LDs are doing that badly and the Tories that well.

    Something doesn’t smell right.

    Shy Lib-Dems must be in the same category as vegans who keep quiet about it or Oxbridge graduates who aren’t desperate to tell you which college we went to.
    LOL....how do you know somebody is a vegan....they will tell...again and again and again.
    That bullshit is on the march though.

    I think I care more about defending meat than I do Leaving the EU.
    My argument, 'If we're not meant to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?'
    I think Sarah Palin said the same thing once.

    I'm sure most vegans are very nice people, but they do have an image problem, as I find a lot vegetarians joke about vegans as well.
    They don't have an image problem, they have a dietary problem. A vegan diet is not a healthy diet - it is objectively not possible to get the nutrition needed for health on a vegan diet, which is why certain dietary supplements are required. It's abysmal.
    "Objectively not possible" is not correct. It is *harder* with a vegan diet. But it is by no means impossible.

    Which particular nutrients do you think are impossible with a vegan diet.
    Vitamin B12. Vitamin D. Omega 3.
    Alpha-linoleic acid is an Omega 3 and is easily obtainable in a vegan diet from nuts and seeds. Ergocalciferol is Vitamin D and is obtainable in a vegan diet from mushrooms.

    B12 does require supplementation or fortified foods.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,079

    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.
  • ArthurArthur Posts: 63
    edited November 2019
    For info: Times report.

    Seems as though the Labour manifesto will promise to make Band 1 dental treatments free at the point of delivery. Checkups, scale and polish, corrections to fillings, and corrections to dentures are in Band 1. Fillings and extractions are in Band 2; bridges, crowns, and dentures are in Band 3. They say a nil fee for Band 1 will be a first step towards making "all dentistry services free" as "part of a truly universally free health service", which surely must also include eye tests and spectacles. And southern Labour Remainers will flock to vote LibDem while northern Labour Leavers swarm to vote Farage or Tory? Who cares about Brexit when you've got toothache? :)

  • 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
  • viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 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:

    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...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614

    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
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    BluerBlue said:

    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 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:

    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...
    Whereas the oldies only get more and more enthused about voting Tory as time goes on.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,928

    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 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)
  • HYUFD 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
    Even if true, it is going to have the media asking lots of questions and distracting from any attempts by the Tories to sell any policies / rebutt Labour's fantasy stuff.
  • 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! :lol:
  • BluerBlue 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! :lol:
    Well yes...did the Tories offer him a big job or something?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,079
    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    Barnesian said:

    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.
    Thanks, useful numbers. Labour are really hurt by the loss of the Scottish seats, arent they.?
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,032
    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
  • ArthurArthur Posts: 63
    BluerBlue said:

    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 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:

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    Arthur said:

    BluerBlue said:

    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 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:

    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.
  • The Conservatives seats market on Betfair is a bit odd. There are 16 brackets you can bet on, the top end is 340 or above. Now the odds-on favourite.

    I'd have thought they should be offering 350+, 360+, 370+, 380+ etc. Up to maybe 420+.

    For those who think the Tories are in for a tonking, there is a market available on the blues winning 199 seats or fewer.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,317

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,589

    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.
    I think the model works off the basis that 2017 UKIP votes are the basis for 2019 BXP votes, so while I agree that there will undoubtedly be some tactical squeeze, UKIP simply didn't stand in that many seats last time around.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,928
    Foxy 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?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    viewcode said:

    Foxy 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?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,928

    BluerBlue 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! :lol:
    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... :(
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,365
    Billionaires pay a lot of tax.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,928
    RobD said:

    viewcode said:

    Foxy 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.

    :)
  • ArthurArthur Posts: 63
    edited November 2019
    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.
  • ydoethur said:

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,317
    Andy_JS said:

    Billionaires pay a lot of tax.

    Some pay next to none. Often their businesses leach off the taxes paid by ordinary folk who DO pay their taxes. Amazon has paid no Federal tax for the last 2 years despite booking over $16 billion in profit over that period.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-bezos-twitter-spat-over-wages-tax-2019-4

    Meanwhile their "associates" on short term contracts and the minimum wage get their tax credits and other in work benefits paid by taxpayers like you and me. Their business relies on the road network paid for by us too.

    We get cheap stuff, but it is made artificially cheap because we subsidise it.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,953
    edited November 2019
    Foxy 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.
  • 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
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,184
    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.
  • ArthurArthur Posts: 63
    edited November 2019
    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."

  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,032

    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.
    What they do with their money is not relevant to the fact that they shouldn't have it. Every country should have a tax code that ensures that billionaires don't exist.
  • 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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,365
    Average of polls published during the last 10 days:

    Con 41%
    Lab 29%
    LD 16%
    BRX 6%
    Grn 3%
  • ArthurArthur Posts: 63
    edited November 2019
    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?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,365
    John Harris's latest walkabout, in Guildford.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPbU2sxzGO4
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    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.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Billionaires pay a lot of tax.

    Some pay next to none. Often their businesses leach off the taxes paid by ordinary folk who DO pay their taxes. Amazon has paid no Federal tax for the last 2 years despite booking over $16 billion in profit over that period.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-bezos-twitter-spat-over-wages-tax-2019-4

    Meanwhile their "associates" on short term contracts and the minimum wage get their tax credits and other in work benefits paid by taxpayers like you and me. Their business relies on the road network paid for by us too.

    We get cheap stuff, but it is made artificially cheap because we subsidise it.

    How will the UK's ability to tax the multi-nationals differ depending on whether we are in the EU or not?
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    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.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2019
    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.

    Where did you get Lab 30.2% from? The Greens are standing a candidate in Bristol NW. Why quote you are using a poll of 28.7% then use a poll of 30.2% instead? The figures quoted as being used were:

    Con 40.1% (+1.5%)
    Lab 28.7 (+0.6)
    LD 15.3 (-1.1)
    BXP 7.5 (-0.9)

    So Lab share of 28.7% ie -12.3% of 2017, or 70% of 2017

    Arithmetic swing (UNS)
    Con = 22,639 - .034x54,096 = 20,800
    Lab = 27,400 -.123x54,096= 20,746

    Multiplicative swing (favours "lumpiness" ie. bigger effect on larger shares)
    Con = 92% of 22,639 = 20,074
    Lab = 70% of 27,400 = 19,180

    I assume 80% additive and 20% multiplicative
    Con = 20,655
    Lab = 20,432

    So Tory Gain. Based on Lab 28.7% and Tory 40.1% you said you were using from last night's polls.
  • ArthurArthur Posts: 63
    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.

  • NEW THREAD
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,146

    Gabs3 said:

    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.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,192
    rcs1000 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.

    In the old world, 30 minutes was an hour. (After commercials.)
    44 minutes.

    Twenty two minutes was a half hour show. Forty four was an hour. It was why many British shows were ~45 mins, so they can be sold to the American market.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    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.
This discussion has been closed.