Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How a CON majority moved from a 31% chance to victory – the GE

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited December 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How a CON majority moved from a 31% chance to victory – the GE2019 betting timeline

Before we move on from looking at GE19 I thought it might be useful, as with previous big political events like the referendum, to put up the betting chart.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    first?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,087
    edited December 2019
    Second

    Good chart, Mike.

    >Nunu
    >Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
    >It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.

    I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.

    Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.

    Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.

    Yup - the nonsense of London as the UK writ very large indeed.
  • JamesPJamesP Posts: 85

    There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.

    Still scared me silly though. 1.67 was the highest point on the day if I recall correctly.

    Never ever following the betting odds on the day again.
  • There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.

    One thing I have learned through costly experience is not to place bets during the day of a general election. I remember at G2001 when all the indications during the morning was that turnout would be very low - this proved to be accurate and it finished below 60%. My mistake was to assume that the Tories would be the beneficiary & I bought CON seats.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    JamesP said:

    There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.

    Still scared me silly though. 1.67 was the highest point on the day if I recall correctly.

    Never ever following the betting odds on the day again.
    It hovered around 1.4 for most of the past couple of weeks, even as the final polls came in and it was clear there was a 10-point lead. I piled n sat back on the day and waited for the exit poll - much less nerve-wracking than chasing the price overnight, although probably not as profitable as chasing the price correctly.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited December 2019
    In theory Boris was the ideal right wing populist to answer for the left wing populism of Corbyn.
    But people were too cautious, my self included, because of the memories of 2017.

    On election day it was obvious that something was going on outside of London, there was silence beyond the M25 from Labour campaigners.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287
    edited December 2019

    There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.

    I wasn't certain about the result , because polls in 2017 had got it in many cases disastrously wrong.. They adjusted their data collected in a much better fashion this time.
    What I did know was that wherever I travelled , Corbyn was loathed but nearly everyone I chatted to, The "unbiased" press further muddied the waters because even through they knew what was going on, they could not say.
    The one thing I do recall was a vox pop on the BBC WATO where 6 of the 8 if they had to choose were going to vote Tory(in fact for BORIS). I found that strong evidence and that the song "There's only one Jeremy Corbyn " song was still true, but in a different way. He was loathed.

    How much he was loathed together with the unrealistic policies came out in the results.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    MattW said:

    Second

    Good chart, Mike.

    >Nunu
    >Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
    >It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.

    I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.

    Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.

    Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.

    "It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory"

    I live in the E Mids. It really was largely about Brexit - a frustration with parliament and a strong desire to end free movement.

    I don`t think they were "looking for an excuse". Reasons were much stronger than that - many people still underestimate the hatred that is out there for the EU. (I don`t agree, but there you go.)
  • Good evening, everyone.

    As others have said, a very interesting graph.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited December 2019
    felix said:

    There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.

    Yup - the nonsense of London as the UK writ very large indeed.
    Indeed, the Tories gained 0 net seats in London but gained 48 seats net nationwide
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    It is interesting to look at some of the things going on in other EU countries at the moment and ask what the view would be if they were happening here.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,087
    edited December 2019
    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    Second

    Good chart, Mike.

    >Nunu
    >Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
    >It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.

    I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.

    Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.

    Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.

    "It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory"

    I live in the E Mids. It really was largely about Brexit - a frustration with parliament and a strong desire to end free movement.

    I don`t think they were "looking for an excuse". Reasons were much stronger than that - many people still underestimate the hatred that is out there for the EU. (I don`t agree, but there you go.)
    From here (North Notts) I very firmly heard both Brexit and Corbyn.

    Example: Gloria on GMB
    https://www.express.co.uk/videos/6116976775001/Labour-De-Piero-says-party-betrayed-life-long-voters
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited December 2019
    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
  • MattW said:

    Second

    Good chart, Mike.

    >Nunu
    >Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
    >It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.

    I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.

    Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.

    Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.

    Wheres droppin well btw?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,087
    edited December 2019

    MattW said:

    Second

    Good chart, Mike.

    >Nunu
    >Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
    >It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.

    I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.

    Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.

    Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.

    Wheres droppin well btw?
    Correction: It was INLA not the IRA. My friend's elder brother was fortunately on the loo...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droppin_Well_bombing
  • MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Second

    Good chart, Mike.

    >Nunu
    >Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
    >It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.

    I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.

    Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.

    Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.

    Wheres droppin well btw?
    Correction: It was INLA not the IRA. My friend's elder brother was fortunately on the loo...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droppin_Well_bombing
    Yes that's why I haven't heard about it as the IRA done more and perhaps got more media coverage.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    Second

    Good chart, Mike.

    >Nunu
    >Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
    >It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.

    I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.

    Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.

    Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.

    "It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory"

    I live in the E Mids. It really was largely about Brexit - a frustration with parliament and a strong desire to end free movement.

    I don`t think they were "looking for an excuse". Reasons were much stronger than that - many people still underestimate the hatred that is out there for the EU. (I don`t agree, but there you go.)
    But in other Brexit strong areas the Brexit party took most of the labour fall, here the Labour share plummeted and went mainly straight Tory. The tells me it's more than just brexit
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
  • Saw mate at weekend, born and bred north east, solid working class.

    Said how up to exit poll, twas tad concerned about the result. He said, if only I'd asked him. He said all his normally 100% Labour family, friends, indeed anyone he knew, all backed Boris.

    All thought Boris would give things a go, they were completely hacked off waiting to Brexit and all hated Corbyn.

    Suspect those 3 points are replicated all over the place.

    If Boris does make a go of it, they ain't going back to Labour.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    JamesP said:

    There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.

    Still scared me silly though. 1.67 was the highest point on the day if I recall correctly.

    Never ever following the betting odds on the day again.
    Yes I'm sure someone on here said they got that price. I took 1.53 which I thought was a good bet and i dont normally play that market. It just felt like the madness of crowds moving the price.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,621
    nunu2 said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    Second

    Good chart, Mike.

    >Nunu
    >Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
    >It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.

    I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.

    Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.

    Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.

    "It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory"

    I live in the E Mids. It really was largely about Brexit - a frustration with parliament and a strong desire to end free movement.

    I don`t think they were "looking for an excuse". Reasons were much stronger than that - many people still underestimate the hatred that is out there for the EU. (I don`t agree, but there you go.)
    But in other Brexit strong areas the Brexit party took most of the labour fall, here the Labour share plummeted and went mainly straight Tory. The tells me it's more than just brexit
    From my own Northern family members - though they were generally already not Labour - the Corbyn Labour Party were seen as Negative Nationalists from London. The CLP had defined themselves as anti everything that locals liked - they *like* being British. The final push was the explicit move to hatred of the WWC - the final hate was for the voters themselves. What a pitch! - "We hate everything you like. We hate you."
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,087
    edited December 2019
    From a PB viewpoint, it will be of interest who will be opposing the Tories next time around and what will Lab have done. If Lab stays Continuity Corbynista it will be ... interesting.

    Mansfield has had Independent Mayors for about 3 or 4 terms now, with a Lab squeaked mayoral victory this time.

    Ashfield has Zadrozny and friends, who are relatively formidable.
    Bolsover has lots of Indys, who failed to be coordinated at

    Will the ex-Red Wall be Tory vs Indy next time? At least in Local Government contests? Or a patchwork quilt?

    I would see Lib Dems as having burnt their boats in this immediate area.

    Elsewhere?
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231
    Banterman said:

    Saw mate at weekend, born and bred north east, solid working class.

    Said how up to exit poll, twas tad concerned about the result. He said, if only I'd asked him. He said all his normally 100% Labour family, friends, indeed anyone he knew, all backed Boris.

    All thought Boris would give things a go, they were completely hacked off waiting to Brexit and all hated Corbyn.

    Suspect those 3 points are replicated all over the place.

    If Boris does make a go of it, they ain't going back to Labour.

    Yup. If only the Labour party were listening. But they aren't.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    edited December 2019
    nunu2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
    Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.

    EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?
  • EPG said:

    nunu2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
    Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.

    EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?
    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    edited December 2019
    EPG said:

    nunu2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
    Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.

    EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?
    And it can't be long before 'send 'em back' makes a return to the political discourse. There are certainly elements that would love to utilize the slogan and they've been given a splendid mechanism to do so if they convince that it is 'The Will of The People'.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    EPG said:

    nunu2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
    Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.

    EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?
    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
    Well let's just suspend our disbelief and consider the hypothesis that the typical leaver in a traditional Labour seat does not have an awful lot in common in motivation with a typical leaver posting on this forum... And certainly not somebody who was a remainer until a few weeks before polling day. Although that doesn't mean that it's all about immigration either - there are i would think other factors at play.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,621

    EPG said:

    nunu2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
    Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.

    EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?
    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
    It's more about priorities. Labour made it clear that they love immigrants much more than the WWC. The WWC have shown little or no sign of not liking immigrants in general - what they dislike is the lack of integration, the idea that the immigrants are special or better than them and the apparent absence of quality control.
  • nunu2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
    Disagreed. That word cloud is very flawed. Basically immigration is one word that anyone meaning that subject uses, the other being arguably borders.

    OTOH there are many synonyms there - sovereignty, control, laws, democracy, decisions, freedom etc which means the words appear smaller depending upon which word gets chosen.

    Data shows that sovereignty/control was a bigger reason than immigration.



  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    EPG said:

    nunu2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
    Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.

    EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?
    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
    It's more about priorities. Labour made it clear that they love immigrants much more than the WWC. The WWC have shown little or no sign of not liking immigrants in general - what they dislike is the lack of integration, the idea that the immigrants are special or better than them and the apparent absence of quality control.
    And the fact the Govt did not recruit enough doctors, nurses, teachers and the associated infrastructure to cope. These people got offered a migration impact fund.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    nunu2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
    Disagreed. That word cloud is very flawed. Basically immigration is one word that anyone meaning that subject uses, the other being arguably borders.

    OTOH there are many synonyms there - sovereignty, control, laws, democracy, decisions, freedom etc which means the words appear smaller depending upon which word gets chosen.

    Data shows that sovereignty/control was a bigger reason than immigration.



    Really - could it be true that while Immigration is the core reason, a different reason is used because the Immigration is seen to be "racist".

    After all the issue with immigration is never with your nice neighbour it's always the foreigners you don't know / meet.
  • There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.

    Think it was supposed to be Brixton.
  • MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Second

    Good chart, Mike.

    >Nunu
    >Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
    >It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.

    I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.

    Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.

    Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.

    Wheres droppin well btw?
    Correction: It was INLA not the IRA. My friend's elder brother was fortunately on the loo...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droppin_Well_bombing
    Yes that's why I haven't heard about it as the IRA done more and perhaps got more media coverage.
    Three of the ten 1981 hunger strikers were INLA.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    edited December 2019

    EPG said:

    nunu2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
    Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.

    EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?
    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
    It's more about priorities. Labour made it clear that they love immigrants much more than the WWC. The WWC have shown little or no sign of not liking immigrants in general - what they dislike is the lack of integration, the idea that the immigrants are special or better than them and the apparent absence of quality control.
    I think this is possible, but under-determined in the absence of sources, and the Labour bit in particular is party-political tendentious, nobody said "I like non-British people better than Andy from Stoke". The WWC have voted for Brexit because they want less immigration. Integration could simply mean the immigrants are too non-British, i.e. are immigrants, and quality could simply mean the immigrants are seen as bad, i.e. people don't like them. So we are going in circles as long as the immigrants are foreigners.
  • eek said:

    nunu2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
    Disagreed. That word cloud is very flawed. Basically immigration is one word that anyone meaning that subject uses, the other being arguably borders.

    OTOH there are many synonyms there - sovereignty, control, laws, democracy, decisions, freedom etc which means the words appear smaller depending upon which word gets chosen.

    Data shows that sovereignty/control was a bigger reason than immigration.



    Really - could it be true that while Immigration is the core reason, a different reason is used because the Immigration is seen to be "racist".

    After all the issue with immigration is never with your nice neighbour it's always the foreigners you don't know / meet.
    That is correct, I would have said the same thing.
  • MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Second

    Good chart, Mike.

    >Nunu
    >Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
    >It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.

    I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.

    Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.

    Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.

    Wheres droppin well btw?
    Correction: It was INLA not the IRA. My friend's elder brother was fortunately on the loo...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droppin_Well_bombing
    Yes that's why I haven't heard about it as the IRA done more and perhaps got more media coverage.
    Three of the ten 1981 hunger strikers were INLA.
    I'm aware of this, that's correct.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    If immigration is the main / a joint main driver of LeaveThenLabToCon, the question then becomes WHY immigration did not cause the same backlash in Manchester Sheffield etc. (never mind London for now) - here are four options:
    1. Self-sorting by attitudes to foreigners
    2. Self-sorting by economic vulnerability to immigration - perhaps including socio-economic category, or industry of employment
    3. Something intrinsic to education or inherited family attitudes in Northern towns that doesn't exist in Manchester Sheffield etc. (seems very unlikely!)
    4. Larger, thus more impactful realised numbers of evidently non-British people in small towns than in Manchester Sheffield etc. (seems very unlikely - but I could be wrong!)
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,013



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    edited December 2019
    Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,621
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    nunu2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.

    Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.
    I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.

    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
    Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.

    EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?
    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
    It's more about priorities. Labour made it clear that they love immigrants much more than the WWC. The WWC have shown little or no sign of not liking immigrants in general - what they dislike is the lack of integration, the idea that the immigrants are special or better than them and the apparent absence of quality control.
    I think this is possible, but under-determined in the absence of sources, and the Labour bit in particular is party-political tendentious, nobody said "I like non-British people better than Andy from Stoke". The WWC have voted for Brexit because they want less immigration. Integration could simply mean the immigrants are too non-British, i.e. are immigrants, and quality could simply mean the immigrants are seen as bad, i.e. people don't like them. So we are going in circles as long as the immigrants are foreigners.
    The progressive ruling class AKA The Blob etc. has made it's views clear on "protected groups" vs WWC on a number of occasions. Rotheram comes to mind - they made a literal choice there.

    Immigration was used, quite deliberately, to drive down low and semi-skilled wages. Exactly in the manner that Australian Unions campaigned against when the modern Australian immigration laws were created. Why should the low and semi-skilled indigenous rush to applaud such actions?

  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    edited December 2019

    EPG said:


    I think this is possible, but under-determined in the absence of sources, and the Labour bit in particular is party-political tendentious, nobody said "I like non-British people better than Andy from Stoke". The WWC have voted for Brexit because they want less immigration. Integration could simply mean the immigrants are too non-British, i.e. are immigrants, and quality could simply mean the immigrants are seen as bad, i.e. people don't like them. So we are going in circles as long as the immigrants are foreigners.

    The progressive ruling class AKA The Blob etc. has made it's views clear on "protected groups" vs WWC on a number of occasions. Rotheram comes to mind - they made a literal choice there.

    Immigration was used, quite deliberately, to drive down low and semi-skilled wages. Exactly in the manner that Australian Unions campaigned against when the modern Australian immigration laws were created. Why should the low and semi-skilled indigenous rush to applaud such actions?

    If we are being literal, Rotherham did not involve a literal choice by teachers' unions, and immigration was not literally "used quite deliberately" to drive down wages in quite enough numbers to explain Brexit, was it?

    Your use of the phrase "The Blob" itself highlights a problematic aspect of the argument that we have to drill down into: Conservative advisors and a friendly media like to propagate arguments that sympathetic potential voters are under attack, perhaps even literal attack, by people who are similar to the Labour Party, because this rhetoric has crippled support for left parties among white people in other English-speaking countries before it happened in the UK. It's a problematic aspect because that rhetoric always goes hand-in-hand with racial appeals and is broadcast at white voters, so even if this is the true mechanism, it can't be used to dispose of the question of attitudes toward foreigners. But in any case it means it's a question, at least in part, of what makes rhetoric effective, rather than what literally happened.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    tl'dr If it wasn't the case that "the elite" collectively decided to allow gangs of mainly or entirely Muslim men to abuse children, then any connection between a particular event like the scandal in Rotherham and voting patterns becomes a subject of rhetoric, that may rely on pre-existing attitudes toward the protagonists, or simply on what media tell people to believe if you're a cynic.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.
    FF43 said:

    Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    FF43 said:

    Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737

    Exactly. This was Ref2 under FPTP with the Leave vote united. Once Johnson managed that it was only a question of how big the majority would be. Corbyn was important but secondary. He cost at most 25 seats.
  • Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    Surely there must be polling evidence to address, if not resolve, the question of whether attitudes to immigration are positive among Remain/Leave voters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    FF43 said:

    To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.

    FF43 said:

    Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=20
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,396
    kinabalu said:

    FF43 said:

    Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737

    Exactly. This was Ref2 under FPTP with the Leave vote united. Once Johnson managed that it was only a question of how big the majority would be. Corbyn was important but secondary. He cost at most 25 seats.
    Oh is that all? What a trooper he is.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.

    FF43 said:

    Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=20
    I really wish they used equal sized age bins for this.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,621
    EPG said:

    EPG said:


    I think this is possible, but under-determined in the absence of sources, and the Labour bit in particular is party-political tendentious, nobody said "I like non-British people better than Andy from Stoke". The WWC have voted for Brexit because they want less immigration. Integration could simply mean the immigrants are too non-British, i.e. are immigrants, and quality could simply mean the immigrants are seen as bad, i.e. people don't like them. So we are going in circles as long as the immigrants are foreigners.

    The progressive ruling class AKA The Blob etc. has made it's views clear on "protected groups" vs WWC on a number of occasions. Rotheram comes to mind - they made a literal choice there.

    Immigration was used, quite deliberately, to drive down low and semi-skilled wages. Exactly in the manner that Australian Unions campaigned against when the modern Australian immigration laws were created. Why should the low and semi-skilled indigenous rush to applaud such actions?

    If we are being literal, Rotherham did not involve a literal choice by teachers' unions, and immigration was not literally "used quite deliberately" to drive down wages in quite enough numbers to explain Brexit, was it?

    Your use of the phrase "The Blob" itself highlights a problematic aspect of the argument that we have to drill down into: Conservative advisors and a friendly media like to propagate arguments that sympathetic potential voters are under attack, perhaps even literal attack, by people who are similar to the Labour Party, because this rhetoric has crippled support for left parties among white people in other English-speaking countries before it happened in the UK. It's a problematic aspect because that rhetoric always goes hand-in-hand with racial appeals and is broadcast at white voters, so even if this is the true mechanism, it can't be used to dispose of the question of attitudes toward foreigners. But in any case it means it's a question, at least in part, of what makes rhetoric effective, rather than what literally happened.
    Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.

    The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.

    As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    EPG said:

    EPG said:


    I think this is possible, but under-determined in the absence of sources, and the Labour bit in particular is party-political tendentious, nobody said "I like non-British people better than Andy from Stoke". The WWC have voted for Brexit because they want less immigration. Integration could simply mean the immigrants are too non-British, i.e. are immigrants, and quality could simply mean the immigrants are seen as bad, i.e. people don't like them. So we are going in circles as long as the immigrants are foreigners.

    The progressive ruling class AKA The Blob etc. has made it's views clear on "protected groups" vs WWC on a number of occasions. Rotheram comes to mind - they made a literal choice there.

    Immigration was used, quite deliberately, to drive down low and semi-skilled wages. Exactly in the manner that Australian Unions campaigned against when the modern Australian immigration laws were created. Why should the low and semi-skilled indigenous rush to applaud such actions?

    If we are being literal, Rotherham did not involve a literal choice by teachers' unions, and immigration was not literally "used quite deliberately" to drive down wages in quite enough numbers to explain Brexit, was it?

    Your use of the phrase "The Blob" itself highlights a problematic aspect of the argument that we have to drill down into: Conservative advisors and a friendly media like to propagate arguments that sympathetic potential voters are under attack, perhaps even literal attack, by people who are similar to the Labour Party, because this rhetoric has crippled support for left parties among white people in other English-speaking countries before it happened in the UK. It's a problematic aspect because that rhetoric always goes hand-in-hand with racial appeals and is broadcast at white voters, so even if this is the true mechanism, it can't be used to dispose of the question of attitudes toward foreigners. But in any case it means it's a question, at least in part, of what makes rhetoric effective, rather than what literally happened.
    Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.

    The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.

    As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.
    Rotherham and All The Other Cases is an unspoken driver of Brexit and the dying of Labour. There is a quiet but intense rage out there, you see it in odd outburst and strange encounters.

    Not helped by the fact stories are STILL emerging: Sheffield today, for instance.
  • New Thread? Not exactly PB's normal standard.


  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,919
    edited December 2019
    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Leave 52%
    Remain 48%

    :lol:
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    edited December 2019


    Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.

    The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.

    As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.

    Apparently is far from literally, and "the entire state structure decided from the top down" is more a figurative statement than either an apparent or literal one, unless Blair/Brown/Cameron all gave the orders. I'm not writing this to be pedantic but simply to highlight that people construct part of the narrative, and the question really is why they choose to construct the narrative that way. There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    And all that about constructed narratives of Rotherham is before we even get to the fact that Brexit and Brexit-ness are largely associated with about eastern European migration rather than Muslim-majority.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,621
    edited December 2019
    EPG said:


    Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.

    The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.

    As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.

    Apparently is far from literally, and "the entire state structure decided from the top down" is more a figurative statement than either an apparent or literal one, unless Blair/Brown/Cameron all gave the orders. I'm not writing this to be pedantic but simply to highlight that people construct part of the narrative, and the question really is why they choose to construct the narrative that way. There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.
    I suggest you read up the various court cases (and major investigations) - local social services, police and their reporting pyramid knew what was happening and acted according to set of behaviours. This knowledge reached the level of front bench MPs. The concern at every level, expressed in writing, was to prevent the "issue" becomes public.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,046

    New Thread? Not exactly PB's normal standard.


    Refreshingly to the point I felt. :lol:
  • TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    Not my cause.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996

    EPG said:


    Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.

    The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.

    As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.

    Apparently is far from literally, and "the entire state structure decided from the top down" is more a figurative statement than either an apparent or literal one, unless Blair/Brown/Cameron all gave the orders. I'm not writing this to be pedantic but simply to highlight that people construct part of the narrative, and the question really is why they choose to construct the narrative that way. There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.
    I suggest you read up the various court cases (and major investigations) - local social services, police and their reporting pyramid knew what was happening and acted according to set of behaviours. This knowledge reached the level of front bench MPs. The concern at every level, expressed in writing, was to prevent the "issue" becomes public.
    Right, so it's not the entire state apparatus. In many countries, the response to such a cover-up would be to punish officials and a number of MPs. In the UK, it seems to justify a bundle of attitudes toward Eastern European foreigners. There is a huge step of rhetorical justification in between that is interesting, isn't there?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Leave 52%
    Remain 48%

    :lol:
    You've swapped sides again, haven't you... :)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,046
    TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    It was a binary choice. If Pol Pot (thought it made a change from Hitler) took one side, that shouldn't make anyone automatically take the other side if they were satisfied they'd made their choice for the right reasons. It would be weak-minded in the extreme.
  • New Thread? Not exactly PB's normal standard.


    Lol
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    Not my cause.
    You are somewhat naive. Xenophobia was clearly one motivator of Brexit.

    And why not? The British working classes, without their permission, were subjected to an historic and unprecedented influx of foreigners - at one stage 600,000 a year - and just told to tolerate it. And this went on for a decade. And one of the reasons it happened was because the Left simply wanted to "rub the noses of the right in diversity".

    Shaming.

    The marvel of it is that the British voters, in their essential decency, just became slightly ethnocentric, and voted for Brexit and One Nation Tories.

    Lesser nations might have voted full on hard right or Far Right. See Sweden right now, where the Swedish Democrats are way ahead in the polls, and they have recent roots in overt Fascism.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.

    FF43 said:

    Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=20
    I really wish they used equal sized age bins for this.
    Can anyone explain why these age ranges are used? There must be a reason, but to me they look positively designed to be misleading.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,621
    edited December 2019
    EPG said:

    EPG said:


    Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.

    The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.

    As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.

    Apparently is far from literally, and "the entire state structure decided from the top down" is more a figurative statement than either an apparent or literal one, unless Blair/Brown/Cameron all gave the orders. I'm not writing this to be pedantic but simply to highlight that people construct part of the narrative, and the question really is why they choose to construct the narrative that way. There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.
    I suggest you read up the various court cases (and major investigations) - local social services, police and their reporting pyramid knew what was happening and acted according to set of behaviours. This knowledge reached the level of front bench MPs. The concern at every level, expressed in writing, was to prevent the "issue" becomes public.
    Right, so it's not the entire state apparatus. In many countries, the response to such a cover-up would be to punish officials and a number of MPs. In the UK, it seems to justify a bundle of attitudes toward Eastern European foreigners. There is a huge step of rhetorical justification in between that is interesting, isn't there?
    Sigh, The point I was making was that a huge pyramid of public officials (from the police to the Cabinet Room) made a choice. A choice which has resulted in the demolition of the belief that they will act fairly when choosing between between groups.

    Actually holding the officials in question to account would be nice - it would indeed, as you suggest, have gone someway to undoing the damage.

    Trust is a funny thing. Takes a long time to build. Can be blown away in a single minute. Demanding it as a moral right is foolish.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    glw said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.

    FF43 said:

    Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=20
    I really wish they used equal sized age bins for this.
    Can anyone explain why these age ranges are used? There must be a reason, but to me they look positively designed to be misleading.
    It's an advertiser's model, and very effective

    Young people 18-24 have an energy and curiosity denied everyone else, they are the market everyone wants, because they drive big change and new fashions. People over 55 are entirely set in their ways. Etc.

    Proven to work.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    MattW said:

    From a PB viewpoint, it will be of interest who will be opposing the Tories next time around and what will Lab have done. If Lab stays Continuity Corbynista it will be ... interesting.

    Mansfield has had Independent Mayors for about 3 or 4 terms now, with a Lab squeaked mayoral victory this time.

    Ashfield has Zadrozny and friends, who are relatively formidable.
    Bolsover has lots of Indys, who failed to be coordinated at

    Will the ex-Red Wall be Tory vs Indy next time? At least in Local Government contests? Or a patchwork quilt?

    I would see Lib Dems as having burnt their boats in this immediate area.

    Elsewhere?

    The swing in the north of the East Midlands/bottom of rural south Yorkshire was so big that all the historically Labour constituencies here aren't even in the game next time round. The closest for Labour is Don Valley with 4% swing needed and target 45
  • Byronic said:

    TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    Not my cause.
    You are somewhat naive. Xenophobia was clearly one motivator of Brexit.

    And why not? The British working classes, without their permission, were subjected to an historic and unprecedented influx of foreigners - at one stage 600,000 a year - and just told to tolerate it. And this went on for a decade. And one of the reasons it happened was because the Left simply wanted to "rub the noses of the right in diversity".

    Shaming.

    The marvel of it is that the British voters, in their essential decency, just became slightly ethnocentric, and voted for Brexit and One Nation Tories.

    Lesser nations might have voted full on hard right or Far Right. See Sweden right now, where the Swedish Democrats are way ahead in the polls, and they have recent roots in overt Fascism.
    Xenophobia may be one motivator of Brexit for some. So what? That doesn't make Brexit a cause nor does it make everyone who voted for it believe in it like some religious cult demanding fealty to some divine faith.

    Brexit is a political view on one issue. No more, no less.

    I couldn't care less that 600k foreigners a year were coming. I don't give a damn about that.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Byronic said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.

    FF43 said:

    Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=20
    I really wish they used equal sized age bins for this.
    Can anyone explain why these age ranges are used? There must be a reason, but to me they look positively designed to be misleading.
    It's an advertiser's model, and very effective

    Young people 18-24 have an energy and curiosity denied everyone else, they are the market everyone wants, because they drive big change and new fashions. People over 55 are entirely set in their ways. Etc.

    Proven to work.
    But why would social sciences use ranges that advertisers use? They don't have equal ranges, or equal populations, so it seems like a bloody stupid way of divvying up data, particularly if you are going to turn it into a chart that shows the ranges side by side implying some sort of equality for comparison.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    Not my cause.
    You are somewhat naive. Xenophobia was clearly one motivator of Brexit.

    And why not? The British working classes, without their permission, were subjected to an historic and unprecedented influx of foreigners - at one stage 600,000 a year - and just told to tolerate it. And this went on for a decade. And one of the reasons it happened was because the Left simply wanted to "rub the noses of the right in diversity".

    Shaming.

    The marvel of it is that the British voters, in their essential decency, just became slightly ethnocentric, and voted for Brexit and One Nation Tories.

    Lesser nations might have voted full on hard right or Far Right. See Sweden right now, where the Swedish Democrats are way ahead in the polls, and they have recent roots in overt Fascism.
    Xenophobia may be one motivator of Brexit for some. So what? That doesn't make Brexit a cause nor does it make everyone who voted for it believe in it like some religious cult demanding fealty to some divine faith.

    Brexit is a political view on one issue. No more, no less.

    I couldn't care less that 600k foreigners a year were coming. I don't give a damn about that.
    That's daft. 600,000 is an enormous figure, for one of the most densely settled nations on earth. It was bound to provoke a reaction

    So there is no level of migration which might influence your vote? 1m a year? 2m? 10m?

    I don't believe you.

    Brexiteers who claim Brexit had NOTHING to do with immigration are as absurd as Remainers who claim Free Movement and Mass Immigration are wholly brilliant and any anxiety is racist


  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    Not my cause.
    It was used as part of the leave campaign.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996

    EPG said:

    EPG said:


    Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.

    The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.

    As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.

    Apparently is far from literally, and "the entire state structure decided from the top down" is more a figurative statement than either an apparent or literal one, unless Blair/Brown/Cameron all gave the orders. I'm not writing this to be pedantic but simply to highlight that people construct part of the narrative, and the question really is why they choose to construct the narrative that way. There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.
    I suggest you read up the various court cases (and major investigations) - local social services, police and their reporting pyramid knew what was happening and acted according to set of behaviours. This knowledge reached the level of front bench MPs. The concern at every level, expressed in writing, was to prevent the "issue" becomes public.
    Right, so it's not the entire state apparatus. In many countries, the response to such a cover-up would be to punish officials and a number of MPs. In the UK, it seems to justify a bundle of attitudes toward Eastern European foreigners. There is a huge step of rhetorical justification in between that is interesting, isn't there?
    Sigh, The point I was making was that a huge pyramid of public officials (from the police to the Cabinet Room) made a choice. A choice which has resulted in the demolition of the belief that they will act fairly when choosing between between groups.

    Actually holding the officials in question to account would be nice - it would indeed, as you suggest, have gone someway to undoing the damage.

    Trust is a funny thing. Takes a long time to build. Can be blown away in a single minute. Demanding it as a moral right is foolish.
    And yet I think we'd both agree it was not JUST Rotherham, but that there is ALSO strong resentment about immigration generally (noting that Rotherham is not particularly an immigration story, though it is a race story).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    It was a binary choice. If Pol Pot (thought it made a change from Hitler) took one side, that shouldn't make anyone automatically take the other side if they were satisfied they'd made their choice for the right reasons. It would be weak-minded in the extreme.
    The poster was designed and used specifically to further the leave campaign.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    glw said:

    Byronic said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.

    FF43 said:

    Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=20
    I really wish they used equal sized age bins for this.
    Can anyone explain why these age ranges are used? There must be a reason, but to me they look positively designed to be misleading.
    It's an advertiser's model, and very effective

    Young people 18-24 have an energy and curiosity denied everyone else, they are the market everyone wants, because they drive big change and new fashions. People over 55 are entirely set in their ways. Etc.

    Proven to work.
    But why would social sciences use ranges that advertisers use? They don't have equal ranges, or equal populations, so it seems like a bloody stupid way of divvying up data, particularly if you are going to turn it into a chart that shows the ranges side by side implying some sort of equality for comparison.
    I presume the pollsters and psephs imagine that political tastes diverge and evolve by age as do tastes in ice cream, music, trouser leg, female haircuts, etc

    They may be right. Also maybe just laziness

  • Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:

    Con - lose 13 seats
    Lab - lose 29 seats
    LD - lose 4 seats
    SNP - lose 1 seat
    Plaid lose - 2 seats
    DUP - lose 1 seat

    This would give a Con majority of 104.

    That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:

    1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
    2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.

    The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,621
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    EPG said:


    Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.

    The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.

    As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.

    :
    :

    There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.
    I suggest you read up the various court cases (and major investigations) - local social services, police and their reporting pyramid knew what was happening and acted according to set of behaviours. This knowledge reached the level of front bench MPs. The concern at every level, expressed in writing, was to prevent the "issue" becomes public.
    Right, so it's not the entire state apparatus. In many countries, the response to such a cover-up would be to punish officials and a number of MPs. In the UK, it seems to justify a bundle of attitudes toward Eastern European foreigners. There is a huge step of rhetorical justification in between that is interesting, isn't there?
    Sigh, The point I was making was that a huge pyramid of public officials (from the police to the Cabinet Room) made a choice. A choice which has resulted in the demolition of the belief that they will act fairly when choosing between between groups.

    Actually holding the officials in question to account would be nice - it would indeed, as you suggest, have gone someway to undoing the damage.

    Trust is a funny thing. Takes a long time to build. Can be blown away in a single minute. Demanding it as a moral right is foolish.
    And yet I think we'd both agree it was not JUST Rotherham, but that there is ALSO strong resentment about immigration generally (noting that Rotherham is not particularly an immigration story, though it is a race story).
    The resentment is not so much about immigration itself - at least among the WWC I know personally - but the perception that integration is not happening, equality before the law is not being applied and that "low end" jobs are being targeted. Ultimately they don't believe that any of this will change...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:

    Con - lose 13 seats
    Lab - lose 29 seats
    LD - lose 4 seats
    SNP - lose 1 seat
    Plaid lose - 2 seats
    DUP - lose 1 seat

    This would give a Con majority of 104.

    That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:

    1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
    2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.

    The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.

    This should not be a political matter...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:

    Con - lose 13 seats
    Lab - lose 29 seats
    LD - lose 4 seats
    SNP - lose 1 seat
    Plaid lose - 2 seats
    DUP - lose 1 seat

    This would give a Con majority of 104.

    That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:

    1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
    2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.

    The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.

    This should not be a political matter...
    Yeah, it's a shame that it was blocked twice, and that we are still using boundaries drawn up using data from over a decade ago.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    Not my cause.
    It was used as part of the leave campaign.
    No it wasn't, it was used as part of the unofficial Leave.EU campaign.

    Not that it makes any difference. Brexit is not a cause, it is a view on a binary issue.

    If there was a referendum on whether we should have the Death Penalty and an unofficial anti-Death Penalty group made a vile poster would that make me wrong for still voting against us having the Death Penalty? Should every anti-Death Penalty voter be scorned because one unofficial anti-Death Penalty group was repugnant?
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    Not my cause.
    It was used as part of the leave campaign.
    Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    Not my cause.
    It was used as part of the leave campaign.
    No it wasn't, it was used as part of the unofficial Leave.EU campaign.

    Not that it makes any difference. Brexit is not a cause, it is a view on a binary issue.

    If there was a referendum on whether we should have the Death Penalty and an unofficial anti-Death Penalty group made a vile poster would that make me wrong for still voting against us having the Death Penalty? Should every anti-Death Penalty voter be scorned because one unofficial anti-Death Penalty group was repugnant?
    Chill, and ignore their taunts, which are born of desolate defeat

    So some Brexiteers were worried about immigration in an unevolved way, who cares. Most ultra Remainers are c*nts, Also they are surprisingly stupid, which is why they lost. And would, I think, have lost again.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    RobD said:

    Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:

    Con - lose 13 seats
    Lab - lose 29 seats
    LD - lose 4 seats
    SNP - lose 1 seat
    Plaid lose - 2 seats
    DUP - lose 1 seat

    This would give a Con majority of 104.

    That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:

    1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
    2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.

    The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.

    This should not be a political matter...
    Yeah, it's a shame that it was blocked twice, and that we are still using boundaries drawn up using data from over a decade ago.
    How can changing the number of MPs realistically ever be a non-political matter?
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    Not my cause.
    It was used as part of the leave campaign.
    Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
    The English Democrats and UKIP backed "Yes" in the AV Referendum in 2011. The BNP, however, supported FPTP.
  • viewcode said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Leave 52%
    Remain 48%

    :lol:
    You've swapped sides again, haven't you... :)
    Whaddaya mean? I voted Leave in 2016!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
    It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
    Not my cause.
    It was used as part of the leave campaign.
    Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
    Hmm a bit apples and chalk there Richard.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,919
    edited December 2019
    Oh, yes, forgot to mention, yesterday did the Guide Bridge to Stockport train (just one round-trip on Saturdays), and on Friday did the new West Midlands Metro extension from New Street ("Grand Central") to Birmingham Library. No overhead wires on the extension, trams run on batteries, and I think it'll be the case on the further extension to Edgbaston due to open next year.

    Also saw on Saturday that the new Metrolink extension to Trafford Centre is to all intents and purposes finished, at least at the Media City end. 15th April I believe is the slated start date.
  • RobD said:

    Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:

    Con - lose 13 seats
    Lab - lose 29 seats
    LD - lose 4 seats
    SNP - lose 1 seat
    Plaid lose - 2 seats
    DUP - lose 1 seat

    This would give a Con majority of 104.

    That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:

    1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
    2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.

    The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.

    This should not be a political matter...
    Yeah, it's a shame that it was blocked twice, and that we are still using boundaries drawn up using data from over a decade ago.
    Reduce the number of UNELECTED "Lords", NOT the elected MPs!
  • O/T Another low day in the 2019-20 Spurs season.... the 'performance' on the pitch and the racist idiots in the crowd (couldn't hear them my end but disgusting to hear what's been reported)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231

    viewcode said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Leave 52%
    Remain 48%

    :lol:
    You've swapped sides again, haven't you... :)
    Whaddaya mean? I voted Leave in 2016!
    Hence "again"
  • viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Mango said:



    I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.

    We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.

    That poster, FFS.
    Leave 52%
    Remain 48%

    :lol:
    You've swapped sides again, haven't you... :)
    Whaddaya mean? I voted Leave in 2016!
    Hence "again"
    But we only got one vote!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,621

    O/T Another low day in the 2019-20 Spurs season.... the 'performance' on the pitch and the racist idiots in the crowd (couldn't hear them my end but disgusting to hear what's been reported)

    I always finding it amusing that when Edward IV banned football, he did so on the grounds that archery practise was preferable.

    Due to a collision in my hashtables, I am now picturing Millwall fans practising with G36s behind the church at Sutton Courtney....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:

    Con - lose 13 seats
    Lab - lose 29 seats
    LD - lose 4 seats
    SNP - lose 1 seat
    Plaid lose - 2 seats
    DUP - lose 1 seat

    This would give a Con majority of 104.

    That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:

    1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
    2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.

    The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.

    Agreed.

    The other issue I have with the boundary commission is that right now we have seats that vary in size from 25,000 to 100,000. That's a ridiculously broad spread.

    But the proposal to have seats being just +/- 2.5% is equally too tight. It means that there can be little recognition of natural geographic boundaries. You end up with seats that contain a bit of three different towns just to make everything fit such a narrow spread.

    Better to recognise natural boundaries and make the range +/- 10%. It would mean that the range of constituency sizes was dramatically reduced, while avoiding splitting natural boundaries up too much.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911

    RobD said:

    Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:

    Con - lose 13 seats
    Lab - lose 29 seats
    LD - lose 4 seats
    SNP - lose 1 seat
    Plaid lose - 2 seats
    DUP - lose 1 seat

    This would give a Con majority of 104.

    That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:

    1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
    2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.

    The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.

    This should not be a political matter...
    Yeah, it's a shame that it was blocked twice, and that we are still using boundaries drawn up using data from over a decade ago.
    Reduce the number of UNELECTED "Lords", NOT the elected MPs!
    One of the much vaunted advantages of FPTP is the constituency link. Effectively making constituencies bigger by reducing the number of MPs reduces the strength of the constituency link and thus the argument for FPTP.

    MPs will have less time for individual constituents and have to represent the interests of a wider area.

    If anything, there should be more MPs not less. It would also have the side effect of government and opposition having a wider pool of talent to draw from.
This discussion has been closed.