Here! Cherry pick this one poll! Starmer must resign! Vote Tory!
I think the appropriate response is 'calm down dear' - you're just showing your lack of confidence in your party. You're also inventing posts to argue against! Not a good look.
Felix! Glad to have you back posting, how you doing
@CorrectHorseBattery - Starmer is boring and unappealing. We are heading for 1992 rather than 2010 in reverse. The Tories will just about get to 310 maybe as high as 325-326 in 2024. The first clue will be in two weeks time when voters will come out motivated by a dislike of the main stream media to vote and will stick with Boris as a Two figured gesture to the media and their poster boy Sir Keir.
Sorry, I accidentally flagged this meaning to press Quote - please ignore!
The 1992 election had Major as a fresh new face. Are you saying that we're likely to have a new Tory leader this time too?
Here! Cherry pick this one poll! Starmer must resign! Vote Tory!
I think the appropriate response is 'calm down dear' - you're just showing your lack of confidence in your party. You're also inventing posts to argue against! Not a good look.
Felix! Glad to have you back posting, how you doing
Rwanda policy also leads 38 to 32 approval which is again unexpected
I'm not surprised. A majority or at least plurality will support most proposals to try and deal with matters relating to immigration and/or boats landing on the beaches I expect. That's why the likely effectiveness, or not, and morality of any proposal is more relevant to me.
Sky reported yesterday that asylum seekers in Calais are seriously worried and reconsidering their plans
If they are asylum seekers why don't they seek asylum in France?
The UK, and other countries, signed agreements saying they don't have to. Perhaps they expect the UK to stick to what it has signed?
If we don't want that then we should withdraw from the relevant human rights treaties, not blame asylum seekers for making choices that we promised them were a choice.
I've always wondered if the 2019 "Tories" are really Tories at all, I wonder if in years gone by they would have been in New Labour
An awful lot of voters are neither Tory or labour, or indeed any party. They pick and choose. I’m certain that many voters who voted Tory in 2019 in the past voted for Tony Blair’s labour. That’s the nature of things. It’s why I despair of some of the lefts attitude to conservatives (scum, never kissed a Tory etc). You need those voters to get you into power so you can actually change the country.
Not my Labour Party
Your Labour Party contains elements. Angela Raynor really believes Tories are scum.
So does the Tory Party, the point is that in Labour these voices are now irrelevant
Are they? Certainly starmer has helped to restrain the worst excesses of the left, but Raynor is still there.
Rayner is irrelevant.
The deputy leader of the party is irrelevant? It’s a view I suppose.
She has no power to do anything, the NEC is run by Starmer supporters. All Rayner can do is shout from the sidelines.
And yet when he tried to sack her, he failed.
Rayner is basically Starmer's female John Prescott
FWIW Andrew Neil rates Yvette. Glad to see I am not entirely alone:
"Yvette Cooper, shadow home secretary, is head and shoulders above most of her colleagues."
Here! Cherry pick this one poll! Starmer must resign! Vote Tory!
I think the appropriate response is 'calm down dear' - you're just showing your lack of confidence in your party. You're also inventing posts to argue against! Not a good look.
Felix! Glad to have you back posting, how you doing
Rwanda policy also leads 38 to 32 approval which is again unexpected
I'm not surprised. A majority or at least plurality will support most proposals to try and deal with matters relating to immigration and/or boats landing on the beaches I expect. That's why the likely effectiveness, or not, and morality of any proposal is more relevant to me.
Sky reported yesterday that asylum seekers in Calais are seriously worried and reconsidering their plans
If they are asylum seekers why don't they seek asylum in France?
The UK, and other countries, signed agreements saying they don't have to. Perhaps they expect the UK to stick to what it has signed?
If we don't want that then we should withdraw from the relevant human rights treaties, not blame asylum seekers for making choices that we promised them were a choice.
I'm genuinely interested to know more about these agreements. Can you point me towards them?
I got up to Barcelona station and realised that St Jordi’s day was just like Easter Monday; ie a Sunday that the timetables didn’t recognise. I was expecting to get a 46 minute direct train to Girona, but I had to catch a train to somewhere completely different, and then change at a station that had virtually the same name as the station before it and after it, then walk to another station half a mile away with an even more similar name to get on the train to Girona.
I had looked at other places to stay and explore, but everywhere else was so expensive. I think I got lucky with the room I found here for the last two nights - it’s nearly as busy here now as it was in Barcelona! Certainly at least twice as busy as when I arrived three weeks ago.
I’ve come out to a steak restaurant for dinner. I had their pickled veal tongue to start, and now trying my best to eat through the huge rib steak. I might need carrying back to my hotel!
I've no idea if it applies to you, but it really annoys me how unregarding restaurants are to single diners. It's quite tough to win.
A few places have turned me away over the last three weeks, hopefully for that reason! But generally I’ve been looked after fine alone.
There should be precisely no places that turn away a PBer,
'As the Roman, in days of old, could say 'Civis Romanus Sum', so the PB member, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye of OGH, and the strong arm of TSE, will protect him against indignity and wrong.'
Rwanda policy also leads 38 to 32 approval which is again unexpected
I'm not surprised. A majority or at least plurality will support most proposals to try and deal with matters relating to immigration and/or boats landing on the beaches I expect. That's why the likely effectiveness, or not, and morality of any proposal is more relevant to me.
Sky reported yesterday that asylum seekers in Calais are seriously worried and reconsidering their plans
If they are asylum seekers why don't they seek asylum in France?
The UK, and other countries, signed agreements saying they don't have to. Perhaps they expect the UK to stick to what it has signed?
If we don't want that then we should withdraw from the relevant human rights treaties, not blame asylum seekers for making choices that we promised them were a choice.
I'm genuinely interested to know more about these agreements. Can you point me towards them?
Sure, full fact do a clear explainer of the situation.
So Oldham Athletic become the first Premier League club to be relegated all the way out of the league. Credit to their fans for the huge on pitch process against the owner which stopped the game for an hour.
The harsh reality - and its been like this for a while - is there are too many league clubs in Greater Manchester to be viable. When the city of Manchester has two global giants, the neighbouring city of Salford has a club and every surrounding town has a club, there's just not enough fans.
But most of those clubs have probably been in existence for a century or more. The population isn't decreasing. I don't believe football is getting less popular. So what gives?
Part of the problem is that there's now a big gap in the League One because of all the "massive" ex PL clubs there. The days of an Oldham or Wimbledon being in the top flight - or a Yeovil or Stockport being competitive in the second tier - are pretty much over.
The contrast between the French right & British right is really quite striking.
How the hell did the tories end up heavily taxing young workers in order to shovel cash to their client vote?
I suspect it is only after a period of opposition that the tories will see sense and make a coherent and generous policy offer to the young.
The contrast between the British Conservatives and the French Conservatives is the British Conservatives got 43.6% at the 2019 UK general election and won a landslide majority. While the French Conservative candidate Pecresse got just 5% in the first round of the Presidential election earlier this month and was knocked out
A portent of things to come, perhaps?
Your voters are dying and they’re not being replaced.
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
@CorrectHorseBattery - Starmer is boring and unappealing. We are heading for 1992 rather than 2010 in reverse. The Tories will just about get to 310 maybe as high as 325-326 in 2024. The first clue will be in two weeks time when voters will come out motivated by a dislike of the main stream media to vote and will stick with Boris as a Two figured gesture to the media and their poster boy Sir Keir.
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
A serious forecast for 20% leads is how you are measuring Labours ongoing poll leads? I’m trying to be serious here and trade in facts not spin.
I’ve explained the higher green figures come from companies showing lower Labour leads. For example the Kantor 3% lead you say is poor for Labour and the techne 7% lead both total the 55% for the shared votes. The 11% lead only 58% anti Tory vote total.
Which means I agree with second thing you said, my theory only works in elections with tactical voting between labour, But this is exactly the situation we are in, this is exactly where we are when trying to guess the next GE from the polls we are today being given, by appreciating the mood is right for that tactical element, not least because Corbyn is gone and it’s now Boris and his team that’s hated.
In short, 20% lead isn’t going to happen. But a labour lead of 5 or 6 in the next general election could happen. And tactical interchange between the labour and green vote will happen in GE, so it’s sensible to interpret the polling companies with high green figures in this way.
"Can work w/ leaders" Starmer +1 "Strong leader" Starmer +3 "Knows how to get things done" Starmer +4 "Stands up 4 UK" Starmer +5 "Build strong economy" Starmer +6 "Represents change" Starmer +10 "Cares 4 ppl like me" Starmer +15 "In good health" Starmer +21
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
In any case, I'm sceptical about the idea of just lumping the Labour, Green, and Lib Dem vote shares all together.
This is an unpopular government, but not an unusally unpopular government.
So Oldham Athletic become the first Premier League club to be relegated all the way out of the league. Credit to their fans for the huge on pitch process against the owner which stopped the game for an hour.
The harsh reality - and its been like this for a while - is there are too many league clubs in Greater Manchester to be viable. When the city of Manchester has two global giants, the neighbouring city of Salford has a club and every surrounding town has a club, there's just not enough fans.
But most of those clubs have probably been in existence for a century or more. The population isn't decreasing. I don't believe football is getting less popular. So what gives?
Part of the problem is that there's now a big gap in the League One because of all the "massive" ex PL clubs there. The days of an Oldham or Wimbledon being in the top flight - or a Yeovil or Stockport being competitive in the second tier - are pretty much over.
Yet Brentford are in the top flight and Luton are in the champ play offs......well run clubs can still over achieve.
This is desperate stuff and maybe the President of Ukraine would wholly disagree
Indeed why not criticise Germany who have sold their economy to Russia and done everything to be evasive in helping Ukraine
It's the statement of the obvious, given that there are a whole bunch of weapons that we are now giving Ukraine for the first time, and having to give them crash-course training in.
Maybe it was the right policy at the time, in an attempt to avoid the large-scale war now being fought, but as a description of what happened it hardly merits an "exclusive" tag, given that the facts are well-known.
Rwanda policy also leads 38 to 32 approval which is again unexpected
I'm not surprised. A majority or at least plurality will support most proposals to try and deal with matters relating to immigration and/or boats landing on the beaches I expect. That's why the likely effectiveness, or not, and morality of any proposal is more relevant to me.
Sky reported yesterday that asylum seekers in Calais are seriously worried and reconsidering their plans
If they are asylum seekers why don't they seek asylum in France?
The UK, and other countries, signed agreements saying they don't have to. Perhaps they expect the UK to stick to what it has signed?
If we don't want that then we should withdraw from the relevant human rights treaties, not blame asylum seekers for making choices that we promised them were a choice.
I'm genuinely interested to know more about these agreements. Can you point me towards them?
Sure, full fact do a clear explainer of the situation.
@CorrectHorseBattery - Starmer is boring and unappealing. We are heading for 1992 rather than 2010 in reverse. The Tories will just about get to 310 maybe as high as 325-326 in 2024. The first clue will be in two weeks time when voters will come out motivated by a dislike of the main stream media to vote and will stick with Boris as a Two figured gesture to the media and their poster boy Sir Keir.
BJO, is that you?
No.
I think you will find there are more of us who hold SKS in poor regard than you would like though.
@Correct Horse Battery 2024 will be like 1992 when the media, a remain voting British Media says a Labour government, the red wall will then go and vote in a Tory government never in my life time has their been a massive discourse between the electorate and the main stream broadcast media.
So Oldham Athletic become the first Premier League club to be relegated all the way out of the league. Credit to their fans for the huge on pitch process against the owner which stopped the game for an hour.
The harsh reality - and its been like this for a while - is there are too many league clubs in Greater Manchester to be viable. When the city of Manchester has two global giants, the neighbouring city of Salford has a club and every surrounding town has a club, there's just not enough fans.
Not just GM - Lancashire (by which I mean, here, post 1974 Lancashire) has, now, 7 league clubs. But I don't see too much wrong with this, to be honest. Should be perfectly possible to run a professional team with average gates of 4,000 or so as long as you cut your cloth accordingly. Problems only arise when you get situations like that of Bury where assets get stripped. Football defies economics. It's about identity. (It's certainly not, most of the time, about entertainment.) You can't simply move consumers around like economic units.
Where do you put Milton Keynes Dons? Moved best part of 100 miles North, picked up new supporters.
I thought the discussion was about football clubs, not franchise scum who should never have been allowed to steal a league place and kill off at least two other clubs in the process.
@CorrectHorseBattery - Starmer is boring and unappealing. We are heading for 1992 rather than 2010 in reverse. The Tories will just about get to 310 maybe as high as 325-326 in 2024. The first clue will be in two weeks time when voters will come out motivated by a dislike of the main stream media to vote and will stick with Boris as a Two figured gesture to the media and their poster boy Sir Keir.
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
A serious forecast for 20% leads is how you are measuring Labours ongoing poll leads? I’m trying to be serious here and trade in facts not spin.
I’ve explained the higher green figures come from companies showing lower Labour leads. For example the Kantor 3% lead you say is poor for Labour and the techne 7% lead both total the 55% for the shared votes. The 11% lead only 58% anti Tory vote total.
Which means I agree with second thing you said, my theory only works in elections with tactical voting between labour, But this is exactly the situation we are in, this is exactly where we are when trying to guess the next GE from the polls we are today being given, by appreciating the mood is right for that tactical element, not least because Corbyn is gone and it’s now Boris and his team that’s hated.
In short, 20% lead isn’t going to happen. But a labour lead of 5 or 6 in the next general election could happen. And tactical interchange between the labour and green vote will happen in GE, so it’s sensible to interpret the polling companies with high green figures in this way.
I never thought a 20% lead was feasible but it has been forecast by some
Despite the atrocious few weeks the conservatives have had, and Boris in particular , average 34/35% polling is remarkable and I can only suggest the public are weary of partygate and want full attention on the cost of living crisis by all parties
So Oldham Athletic become the first Premier League club to be relegated all the way out of the league. Credit to their fans for the huge on pitch process against the owner which stopped the game for an hour.
The harsh reality - and its been like this for a while - is there are too many league clubs in Greater Manchester to be viable. When the city of Manchester has two global giants, the neighbouring city of Salford has a club and every surrounding town has a club, there's just not enough fans.
But most of those clubs have probably been in existence for a century or more. The population isn't decreasing. I don't believe football is getting less popular. So what gives?
Money. It costs £lots to compete, and you can't generate enough revenues from the population of Oldham. Or Bury. Or Stockport.
Oldham, Stockport and Bury are quite sizable settlements. If Southampton and Norwich are able to field a team there's no reason why Stockport, Oldham and Bury cannot. Obviously Man U and Man C draw a lot of fans from those towns. But there's nothing inevitable about that - it's largely a function of relative league standing. Back in the 90s when Stockport were in the second tier (a tier above Man City) they were getting gates of 10,000 plus. Kids in South Eastern GM were choosing Stockport over City. Then Carlton Palmer came along... (Actually, I don't wholly blame Carlton - Stockport were disproportionately hit by the collapse of ITV digital.)
"Can work w/ leaders" Starmer +1 "Strong leader" Starmer +3 "Knows how to get things done" Starmer +4 "Stands up 4 UK" Starmer +5 "Build strong economy" Starmer +6 "Represents change" Starmer +10 "Cares 4 ppl like me" Starmer +15 "In good health" Starmer +21
Here! Cherry pick this one poll! Starmer must resign! Vote Tory!
I think the appropriate response is 'calm down dear' - you're just showing your lack of confidence in your party. You're also inventing posts to argue against! Not a good look.
Felix! Glad to have you back posting, how you doing
There's a sign outside Kings Cross about a development proud of being "carbon neutral", which then confusingly goes on to say that it's a step towards their ambition of being "net zero". Looking at it from a simple-minded maths perspective I would have expected the two to be synonymous, but it would seem that "carbon neutral" is not as good as "net zero", and somehow also a lot easier to achieve.
So, does it mean anything specific beyond being a superficially attractive slogan?
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
No doubt there’s a degree of “I told you so” going on. Backlash against the simple minded transactional foreign policy of the Cameron / Osborne years.
So Oldham Athletic become the first Premier League club to be relegated all the way out of the league. Credit to their fans for the huge on pitch process against the owner which stopped the game for an hour.
The harsh reality - and its been like this for a while - is there are too many league clubs in Greater Manchester to be viable. When the city of Manchester has two global giants, the neighbouring city of Salford has a club and every surrounding town has a club, there's just not enough fans.
But most of those clubs have probably been in existence for a century or more. The population isn't decreasing. I don't believe football is getting less popular. So what gives?
Part of the problem is that there's now a big gap in the League One because of all the "massive" ex PL clubs there. The days of an Oldham or Wimbledon being in the top flight - or a Yeovil or Stockport being competitive in the second tier - are pretty much over.
Yet Brentford are in the top flight and Luton are in the champ play offs......well run clubs can still over achieve.
Brentford have a multi-millionaire sugar daddy (although, to be fair, so do Stockport now. And Wrexham. Some of the money at the top of the NL is crazy)
Rwanda policy also leads 38 to 32 approval which is again unexpected
I'm not surprised. A majority or at least plurality will support most proposals to try and deal with matters relating to immigration and/or boats landing on the beaches I expect. That's why the likely effectiveness, or not, and morality of any proposal is more relevant to me.
Sky reported yesterday that asylum seekers in Calais are seriously worried and reconsidering their plans
If they are asylum seekers why don't they seek asylum in France?
The UK, and other countries, signed agreements saying they don't have to. Perhaps they expect the UK to stick to what it has signed?
If we don't want that then we should withdraw from the relevant human rights treaties, not blame asylum seekers for making choices that we promised them were a choice.
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
Come on, you're trying to build a poll move within Margin of Error as though it was a huge event of seminal importance.
We know Opinium have changed their methodology and we'll see if this represents a genuine shift in opinion or it's just an outlier but some on here build it up as being the most important poll ever reported.
As to what will happen in May. @xxxxx5 has a view, it's not one I've heard before but there you go. I suspect we'll see Conservative abstention rather than a direct flight to Labour and while that will cost Conservative councillors their seats it may not worry Government as much because it will show those voters are there to be regained in the next couple of years.
My final thought is those viewing the Parliament through the prism of others and treating this as a traditional mid term and expecting the usual swingback forget what an unusual Parliament has been with the virus and now a major conflict. This Parliament won't play like the others - I haven't a clue how it will play out but assuming there's going to be a swingback may be unwise.
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
In any case, I'm sceptical about the idea of just lumping the Labour, Green, and Lib Dem vote shares all together.
This is an unpopular government, but not an unusally unpopular government.
Then you are clueless in how elections work. People never vote positively they vote negatively. They don’t vote for, they vote against, which is why the 55% average I quoted WILL mean tactical voting and Tory losses that seat calculators struggle to show you.
Forget 97, I’m giving you 2005 and 1992 to prove you are wrong.
Firstly 2005, how does that result happen if you are ruling out tactical anti Tory vote on a massive scale when the climate is right for it?
secondly, how do you think 92 happened. Labour leads in polls, great by election and local election results all the way up to election, and then crushing defeat? The answers easy let me explain it to you. In the years up to the election Labour didn’t get positive votes for, the votes were against government, or more importantly not even a vote, a sitting on hands. The 92 result was negative vote against Labour, fearful of economy, tax policy, and defence in their hands, the no longer sitting on hands but using the vote against Labour.
Incidentally, this same MoonRabbit theory means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then the local elections results are meaningless as GE guide and no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time.
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Rwanda policy also leads 38 to 32 approval which is again unexpected
I'm not surprised. A majority or at least plurality will support most proposals to try and deal with matters relating to immigration and/or boats landing on the beaches I expect. That's why the likely effectiveness, or not, and morality of any proposal is more relevant to me.
Sky reported yesterday that asylum seekers in Calais are seriously worried and reconsidering their plans
If they are asylum seekers why don't they seek asylum in France?
The UK, and other countries, signed agreements saying they don't have to. Perhaps they expect the UK to stick to what it has signed?
If we don't want that then we should withdraw from the relevant human rights treaties, not blame asylum seekers for making choices that we promised them were a choice.
It's a Yossarian thing -
How can you claim asylum in the UK?
You have to prove you're a genuine asylum seeker.
How?
By not claiming asylum in the UK.
Would it be tasteless to introduce a witch finder comparison?
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Hoping to achieve what exactly?
That they deserve more credit for helping Ukraine than Boris Johnson would be my guess.
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
In any case, I'm sceptical about the idea of just lumping the Labour, Green, and Lib Dem vote shares all together.
This is an unpopular government, but not an unusally unpopular government.
Then you are clueless in how elections work. People never vote positively they vote negatively. They don’t vote for, they vote against, which is why the 55% average I quoted WILL mean tactical voting and Tory losses that seat calculators struggle to show you.
Forget 97, I’m giving you 2005 and 1992 to prove you are wrong.
Firstly 2005, how does that result happen if you are ruling out tactical anti Tory vote on a massive scale when the climate is right for it?
secondly, how do you think 92 happened. Labour leads in polls, great by election and local election results all the way up to election, and then crushing defeat? The answers easy let me explain it to you. In the years up to the election Labour didn’t get positive votes for, the votes were against government, or more importantly not even a vote, a sitting on hands. The 92 result was negative vote against Labour, fearful of economy, tax policy, and defence in their hands, the no longer sitting on hands but using the vote against Labour.
Incidentally, this same MoonRabbit theory means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then the local elections results are meaningless as GE guide and no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time.
I have quite a bit of knowledge about how elections work, thank you. I've contested quite a few, either as a candidate, or as an organiser.
In every general election in my lifetime, the combined vote share for Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens have exceeded the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives have won more than half of those same elections.
There's a sign outside Kings Cross about a development proud of being "carbon neutral", which then confusingly goes on to say that it's a step towards their ambition of being "net zero". Looking at it from a simple-minded maths perspective I would have expected the two to be synonymous, but it would seem that "carbon neutral" is not as good as "net zero", and somehow also a lot easier to achieve.
So, does it mean anything specific beyond being a superficially attractive slogan?
I suppose you could define 'neutral' to mean no worse than than the alternative.
So flying could be 'carbon neutral' if it emits (net) no more than a car / boat making the same journey.
There's a sign outside Kings Cross about a development proud of being "carbon neutral", which then confusingly goes on to say that it's a step towards their ambition of being "net zero". Looking at it from a simple-minded maths perspective I would have expected the two to be synonymous, but it would seem that "carbon neutral" is not as good as "net zero", and somehow also a lot easier to achieve.
So, does it mean anything specific beyond being a superficially attractive slogan?
I also thought it was the same. Or rather that the difference is only that carbon neutral tends to relate to an activity and net zero to a target aggregate state of affairs.
Rwanda policy also leads 38 to 32 approval which is again unexpected
I'm not surprised. A majority or at least plurality will support most proposals to try and deal with matters relating to immigration and/or boats landing on the beaches I expect. That's why the likely effectiveness, or not, and morality of any proposal is more relevant to me.
Sky reported yesterday that asylum seekers in Calais are seriously worried and reconsidering their plans
If they are asylum seekers why don't they seek asylum in France?
The UK, and other countries, signed agreements saying they don't have to. Perhaps they expect the UK to stick to what it has signed?
If we don't want that then we should withdraw from the relevant human rights treaties, not blame asylum seekers for making choices that we promised them were a choice.
It's a Yossarian thing -
How can you claim asylum in the UK?
You have to prove you're a genuine asylum seeker.
How?
By not claiming asylum in the UK.
Would it be tasteless to introduce a witch finder comparison?
‘You drowned, you’re a genuine asylum seeker!’
It would be inappropriate to joke about a serious Matt-er.
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
In any case, I'm sceptical about the idea of just lumping the Labour, Green, and Lib Dem vote shares all together.
This is an unpopular government, but not an unusally unpopular government.
Then you are clueless in how elections work. People never vote positively they vote negatively. They don’t vote for, they vote against, which is why the 55% average I quoted WILL mean tactical voting and Tory losses that seat calculators struggle to show you.
Forget 97, I’m giving you 2005 and 1992 to prove you are wrong.
Firstly 2005, how does that result happen if you are ruling out tactical anti Tory vote on a massive scale when the climate is right for it?
secondly, how do you think 92 happened. Labour leads in polls, great by election and local election results all the way up to election, and then crushing defeat? The answers easy let me explain it to you. In the years up to the election Labour didn’t get positive votes for, the votes were against government, or more importantly not even a vote, a sitting on hands. The 92 result was negative vote against Labour, fearful of economy, tax policy, and defence in their hands, the no longer sitting on hands but using the vote against Labour.
Incidentally, this same MoonRabbit theory means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then the local elections results are meaningless as GE guide and no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time.
I have quite a bit of knowledge about how elections work, thank you. I've contested quite a few, either as a candidate, or as an organiser.
In every general election in my lifetime, the combined vote share for Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens have exceeded the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives have won more than half of those same elections.
I don’t mind your patronising response, so typical of PB, because you didn’t attwck or prove my theory wrong at all.
Basically you can’t, because you know I am right.
2005 there was massive anti Tory tactical vote to produce those seat totals from the popular vote share. You know I’m right.
1992. The stay at home vote from previous things such as locals came out to stop labour they feared in government. You know I am right.
And my theory doesn’t just work retrospectively, it can predict the future.
Yes this same MoonRabbit theory of tactical votes, including stay at home votes and coming out to stop someone winning not positive for the other parties, means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then coming local elections results are meaningless as GE guide, no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time as a GE guide.
I want to see specifics of actual churn. I want to see proof what degree it’s stay at home voters disproportion from a particular party, but evidence those who voted Boris last election now vote Labour just two years later not merely staying home.
Without that evidence I dare you to draw conclusion it’s bad result for Tories, because if it’s just hand sitters stay at home votes putting Tories say 7% behind Labour nationally, that merely points possibility 1992 happening all over again at next election.
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
In any case, I'm sceptical about the idea of just lumping the Labour, Green, and Lib Dem vote shares all together.
This is an unpopular government, but not an unusally unpopular government.
Then you are clueless in how elections work. People never vote positively they vote negatively. They don’t vote for, they vote against, which is why the 55% average I quoted WILL mean tactical voting and Tory losses that seat calculators struggle to show you.
Forget 97, I’m giving you 2005 and 1992 to prove you are wrong.
Firstly 2005, how does that result happen if you are ruling out tactical anti Tory vote on a massive scale when the climate is right for it?
secondly, how do you think 92 happened. Labour leads in polls, great by election and local election results all the way up to election, and then crushing defeat? The answers easy let me explain it to you. In the years up to the election Labour didn’t get positive votes for, the votes were against government, or more importantly not even a vote, a sitting on hands. The 92 result was negative vote against Labour, fearful of economy, tax policy, and defence in their hands, the no longer sitting on hands but using the vote against Labour.
Incidentally, this same MoonRabbit theory means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then the local elections results are meaningless as GE guide and no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time.
I have quite a bit of knowledge about how elections work, thank you. I've contested quite a few, either as a candidate, or as an organiser.
In every general election in my lifetime, the combined vote share for Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens have exceeded the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives have won more than half of those same elections.
But what about in this polarized 'trads v progs' politics that has been evolving since 2016 and which Johnson is seeing as the way to win again?
There's a sign outside Kings Cross about a development proud of being "carbon neutral", which then confusingly goes on to say that it's a step towards their ambition of being "net zero". Looking at it from a simple-minded maths perspective I would have expected the two to be synonymous, but it would seem that "carbon neutral" is not as good as "net zero", and somehow also a lot easier to achieve.
So, does it mean anything specific beyond being a superficially attractive slogan?
I also thought it was the same. Or rather that the difference is only that carbon neutral tends to relate to an activity and net zero to a target aggregate state of affairs.
I believe that net zero applies to all emissions, not just carbon dioxide.
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Hoping to achieve what exactly?
A mixture of reasons
1) To admit past mistakes 2) To try and correct those mistakes 3) Make sure we help Ukraine 4) To make sure Putin understands that we will no longer appease him 5) That we are prepared for Putin's next target(s)
Rwanda policy also leads 38 to 32 approval which is again unexpected
I'm not surprised. A majority or at least plurality will support most proposals to try and deal with matters relating to immigration and/or boats landing on the beaches I expect. That's why the likely effectiveness, or not, and morality of any proposal is more relevant to me.
Sky reported yesterday that asylum seekers in Calais are seriously worried and reconsidering their plans
If they are asylum seekers why don't they seek asylum in France?
The UK, and other countries, signed agreements saying they don't have to. Perhaps they expect the UK to stick to what it has signed?
If we don't want that then we should withdraw from the relevant human rights treaties, not blame asylum seekers for making choices that we promised them were a choice.
It's a Yossarian thing -
How can you claim asylum in the UK?
You have to prove you're a genuine asylum seeker.
How?
By not claiming asylum in the UK.
Would it be tasteless to introduce a witch finder comparison?
‘You drowned, you’re a genuine asylum seeker!’
Risky post, this. Can we be absolutely sure Priti isn't on here looking for the next big idea?
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
Come on, you're trying to build a poll move within Margin of Error as though it was a huge event of seminal importance.
We know Opinium have changed their methodology and we'll see if this represents a genuine shift in opinion or it's just an outlier but some on here build it up as being the most important poll ever reported.
As to what will happen in May. @xxxxx5 has a view, it's not one I've heard before but there you go. I suspect we'll see Conservative abstention rather than a direct flight to Labour and while that will cost Conservative councillors their seats it may not worry Government as much because it will show those voters are there to be regained in the next couple of years.
My final thought is those viewing the Parliament through the prism of others and treating this as a traditional mid term and expecting the usual swingback forget what an unusual Parliament has been with the virus and now a major conflict. This Parliament won't play like the others - I haven't a clue how it will play out but assuming there's going to be a swingback may be unwise.
“I suspect we'll see Conservative abstention rather than a direct flight to Labour and while that will cost Conservative councillors their seats it may not worry Government as much because it will show those voters are there to be regained in the next couple of years.“
Absolutely spot on Stodge, this is exactly what I have been trying to explain to PB tonight.
How can we know? Who can actually give it to us, the degree the result is stay at home Tories ready to come out for Boris again at next election, or 2019 Tory voters are now voting Labour in large numbers? This major election event, all the money spent on it, will we actually get thst key piece of information killing spin stone dead, or just endless spin leaving us in the dark about what actually happened?
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Hoping to achieve what exactly?
A mixture of reasons
1) To admit past mistakes 2) To try and correct those mistakes 3) Make sure we help Ukraine 4) To make sure Putin understands that we will no longer appease him 5) That we are prepared for Putin's next target(s)
3-5 are all worthy aims, but it seems like the emphasis is on the first point - which is what’s total bollocks and looking through the benefit of hindsight.
Oh, and if they hadn’t noticed, 3-5 are very much being implemented right now.
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Do we know why Fallon disappeared so quickly? There must have been more in his old locker than a thigh grope at dinner? Did he go to bed with an enemy spy or something?
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Do we know why Fallon disappeared so quickly? There must have been more in his old locker than a thigh grope at dinner? Did he go to bed with an enemy spy or something?
Rwanda policy also leads 38 to 32 approval which is again unexpected
I'm not surprised. A majority or at least plurality will support most proposals to try and deal with matters relating to immigration and/or boats landing on the beaches I expect. That's why the likely effectiveness, or not, and morality of any proposal is more relevant to me.
Sky reported yesterday that asylum seekers in Calais are seriously worried and reconsidering their plans
If they are asylum seekers why don't they seek asylum in France?
The UK, and other countries, signed agreements saying they don't have to. Perhaps they expect the UK to stick to what it has signed?
If we don't want that then we should withdraw from the relevant human rights treaties, not blame asylum seekers for making choices that we promised them were a choice.
It's a Yossarian thing -
How can you claim asylum in the UK?
You have to prove you're a genuine asylum seeker.
How?
By not claiming asylum in the UK.
Would it be tasteless to introduce a witch finder comparison?
‘You drowned, you’re a genuine asylum seeker!’
Risky post, this. Can we be absolutely sure Priti isn't on here looking for the next big idea?
She'd be a great asset if she is a member. She's far from faultless, but the criticism she gets is wild.
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Hoping to achieve what exactly?
Boris Johnson did state at PMQs this week, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin.
No you are not Boris, you delusional Buffoon. 😠. You are in fact doing nothing different than any other leader of Tory’s today would do, and no different than Starmer would do if PM in this crisis. In fact if we had a less lazy and more trustworthy PM than you Boris, we could expect an even better job of it actually going on behind the scenes.
Does anyone on PB want to agree with Boris, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin?
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Do we know why Fallon disappeared so quickly? There must have been more in his old locker than a thigh grope at dinner? Did he go to bed with an enemy spy or something?
And why is he trying to stab Boris tonight?
I don’t understand this.
Kick a man when he's down, but before he's out?
The person Michael Fallon is most critical of in this piece?
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Do we know why Fallon disappeared so quickly? There must have been more in his old locker than a thigh grope at dinner? Did he go to bed with an enemy spy or something?
And why is he trying to stab Boris tonight?
I don’t understand this.
Kick a man when he's down, but before he's out?
Just so he is aware you are kicking him and appreciating the pain?
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
In any case, I'm sceptical about the idea of just lumping the Labour, Green, and Lib Dem vote shares all together.
This is an unpopular government, but not an unusally unpopular government.
Then you are clueless in how elections work. People never vote positively they vote negatively. They don’t vote for, they vote against, which is why the 55% average I quoted WILL mean tactical voting and Tory losses that seat calculators struggle to show you.
Forget 97, I’m giving you 2005 and 1992 to prove you are wrong.
Firstly 2005, how does that result happen if you are ruling out tactical anti Tory vote on a massive scale when the climate is right for it?
secondly, how do you think 92 happened. Labour leads in polls, great by election and local election results all the way up to election, and then crushing defeat? The answers easy let me explain it to you. In the years up to the election Labour didn’t get positive votes for, the votes were against government, or more importantly not even a vote, a sitting on hands. The 92 result was negative vote against Labour, fearful of economy, tax policy, and defence in their hands, the no longer sitting on hands but using the vote against Labour.
Incidentally, this same MoonRabbit theory means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then the local elections results are meaningless as GE guide and no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time.
I have quite a bit of knowledge about how elections work, thank you. I've contested quite a few, either as a candidate, or as an organiser.
In every general election in my lifetime, the combined vote share for Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens have exceeded the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives have won more than half of those same elections.
I don’t mind your patronising response, so typical of PB, because you didn’t attwck or prove my theory wrong at all.
Basically you can’t, because you know I am right.
2005 there was massive anti Tory tactical vote to produce those seat totals from the popular vote share. You know I’m right.
1992. The stay at home vote from previous things such as locals came out to stop labour they feared in government. You know I am right.
And my theory doesn’t just work retrospectively, it can predict the future.
Yes this same MoonRabbit theory of tactical votes, including stay at home votes and coming out to stop someone winning not positive for the other parties, means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then coming local elections results are meaningless as GE guide, no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time as a GE guide.
I want to see specifics of actual churn. I want to see proof what degree it’s stay at home voters disproportion from a particular party, but evidence those who voted Boris last election now vote Labour just two years later not merely staying home.
Without that evidence I dare you to draw conclusion it’s bad result for Tories, because if it’s just hand sitters stay at home votes putting Tories say 7% behind Labour nationally, that merely points possibility 1992 happening all over again at next election.
You started with the ad hominem attack on me. My response was restrained, and in no way patronising.
Putting aside the fact that in two of his questions, two of his suggested answers are correct; in one, technically none of his suggestions are right (although the one I chose is closest); that he misspelled a couple (which might be down to the original article), and that in a quiz about pretentious word uels, he used braggadocious (!), I got 23/30.
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Hoping to achieve what exactly?
Boris Johnson did state at PMQs this week, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin.
No you are not Boris, you delusional Buffoon. 😠. You are in fact doing nothing different than any other leader of Tory’s today would do, and no different than Starmer would do if PM in this crisis. In fact if we had a less lazy and more trustworthy PM than you Boris, we could expect an even better job of it actually going on behind the scenes.
Does anyone on PB want to agree with Boris, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin?
He’s getting delusional on this isn’t he?
I think the PM was quoting the Ukranian PM Zelensky. The UK has been training the Ukranian military since 2014, and there’s a huge amount of mutual respect between the countries at a military level.
Boris has certainly been leading the European response, with Macron in election mode and that prat in Germany more worried about upsetting Putin. Johnson has also been key to getting Biden and the Americans involved, against a domestic background of not wanting to get involved in more foreign wars.
I hope that isn't a dig at Correct Horse Battery and if it isn't a dig I wish you all the best recovering in regards to your mental health. I feel that the Brexit wounds haven't healed and there is still a suspicion amongst the Red Wall voters that the media are using party gate as a smoke screen to attack the Prime Minister die to Brexit. I think this will enthuse Red Wall voters to stick with Boris. I think Boris the Tories will be the largest party just shy of a majority in 2024 they could even get over the line to 324/327 seats.
Putting aside the fact that in two of his questions, two of his suggested answers are correct; in one, technically none of his suggestions are right (although the one I chose is closest); that he misspelled a couple (which might be down to the original article), and that in a quiz about pretentious word uels, he used braggadocious (!), I got 23/30.
I hope that isn't a dig at Correct Horse Battery and if it isn't a dig I wish you all the best recovering in regards to your mental health. I feel that the Brexit wounds haven't healed and there is still a suspicion amongst the Red Wall voters that the media are using party gate as a smoke screen to attack the Prime Minister die to Brexit. I think this will enthuse Red Wall voters to stick with Boris. I think Boris the Tories will be the largest party just shy of a majority in 2024 they could even get over the line to 324/327 seats.
The most likely result for the next election IMHO, is something like 1992 - a drastically reduced but just about workable majority.
I hope that isn't a dig at Correct Horse Battery and if it isn't a dig I wish you all the best recovering in regards to your mental health. I feel that the Brexit wounds haven't healed and there is still a suspicion amongst the Red Wall voters that the media are using party gate as a smoke screen to attack the Prime Minister die to Brexit. I think this will enthuse Red Wall voters to stick with Boris. I think Boris the Tories will be the largest party just shy of a majority in 2024 they could even get over the line to 324/327 seats.
The most likely result for the next election IMHO, is something like 1992 - a drastically reduced but just about workable majority.
Or 2010 and a hung parliament, except with Starmer in the Cameron role and Boris as Brown
It’s the concentration on Village gossip, rather than issues that matter to normal people. Labour had the opportunity last week to force a debate on inflation, minimum wage or cost of living, but instead decided to have a go at the PM personally because his wife bought him a birthday cake two years ago.
I don’t know how many times I’ve said this now, but everyone needs to get off Twitter and look at what’s happening in the real world.
The real world doesn’t live in Zone 1, drives to work and is watching petrol prices.
There's a sign outside Kings Cross about a development proud of being "carbon neutral", which then confusingly goes on to say that it's a step towards their ambition of being "net zero". Looking at it from a simple-minded maths perspective I would have expected the two to be synonymous, but it would seem that "carbon neutral" is not as good as "net zero", and somehow also a lot easier to achieve.
So, does it mean anything specific beyond being a superficially attractive slogan?
I suppose you could define 'neutral' to mean no worse than than the alternative.
So flying could be 'carbon neutral' if it emits (net) no more than a car / boat making the same journey.
I do hope nobody has been doing this...
AIUI carbon neutral refers to CO2 release. Net zero refers to all greenhouse gases, which would include methane for instance, as well as CO2.
Edit: in both cases there is no net addition to the atmosphere of the gases in question.
Putting aside the fact that in two of his questions, two of his suggested answers are correct; in one, technically none of his suggestions are right (although the one I chose is closest); that he misspelled a couple (which might be down to the original article), and that in a quiz about pretentious word uels, he used braggadocious (!), I got 23/30.
24 for me ...
Itnwas a bit like reading a condensed Clark Ashton Smith short story, tbh
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Hoping to achieve what exactly?
Boris Johnson did state at PMQs this week, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin.
No you are not Boris, you delusional Buffoon. 😠. You are in fact doing nothing different than any other leader of Tory’s today would do, and no different than Starmer would do if PM in this crisis. In fact if we had a less lazy and more trustworthy PM than you Boris, we could expect an even better job of it actually going on behind the scenes.
Does anyone on PB want to agree with Boris, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin?
He’s getting delusional on this isn’t he?
I think the PM was quoting the Ukranian PM Zelensky. The UK has been training the Ukranian military since 2014, and there’s a huge amount of mutual respect between the countries at a military level.
Boris has certainly been leading the European response, with Macron in election mode and that prat in Germany more worried about upsetting Putin. Johnson has also been key to getting Biden and the Americans involved, against a domestic background of not wanting to get involved in more foreign wars.
yes the usual “compared to Germany and France Boris is leading the world against Putin etc”. No Boris wasn’t quoting Zelenskyy, Boris genuinely believes what he said at PMQs - he is deluded enough to think he is leading the world in fight against Putin.
No we havn’t done too bad in supplying arms, though we were slow at first on sanctions and on oligarch’s and still not got it good on those needing refuge after fleeing, but that’s basically because under Petal this is the most useless home office EVER - that’s not just me saying it, that’s what her cabinet colleagues told her!
What has Boris and his government actually done that tops the doggedness and bravery of the Poles or the financial largess of the US? In fact, when you discount for pain and exposure to Russia Gas, have we really outstripped the EU?
The only world this lazy lying oaf Boris is leading is the world of delusion in his own head. The opposition party leaders should now pick him up on that claim at next PMQs and call him out as over egging it.
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Hoping to achieve what exactly?
Boris Johnson did state at PMQs this week, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin.
No you are not Boris, you delusional Buffoon. 😠. You are in fact doing nothing different than any other leader of Tory’s today would do, and no different than Starmer would do if PM in this crisis. In fact if we had a less lazy and more trustworthy PM than you Boris, we could expect an even better job of it actually going on behind the scenes.
Does anyone on PB want to agree with Boris, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin?
He’s getting delusional on this isn’t he?
I think the PM was quoting the Ukranian PM Zelensky. The UK has been training the Ukranian military since 2014, and there’s a huge amount of mutual respect between the countries at a military level.
Boris has certainly been leading the European response, with Macron in election mode and that prat in Germany more worried about upsetting Putin. Johnson has also been key to getting Biden and the Americans involved, against a domestic background of not wanting to get involved in more foreign wars.
yes the usual “compared to Germany and France Boris is leading the world against Putin etc”. No Boris wasn’t quoting Zelenskyy, Boris genuinely believes what he said at PMQs - he is deluded enough to think he is leading the world in fight against Putin.
No we havn’t done too bad in supplying arms, though we were slow at first on sanctions and on oligarch’s and still not got it good on those needing refuge after fleeing, but that’s basically because under Petal this is the most useless home office EVER - that’s not just me saying it, that’s what her cabinet colleagues told her!
What has Boris and his government actually done that tops the doggedness and bravery of the Poles or the financial largess of the US? In fact, when you discount for pain and exposure to Russia Gas, have we really outstripped the EU?
The only world this lazy lying oaf Boris is leading is the world of delusion in his own head. The opposition party leaders should now pick him up on that claim at next PMQs and call him out as over egging it.
It’s called soft power, and the UK still has f***loads of it in Ukraine.
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
In any case, I'm sceptical about the idea of just lumping the Labour, Green, and Lib Dem vote shares all together.
This is an unpopular government, but not an unusally unpopular government.
Then you are clueless in how elections work. People never vote positively they vote negatively. They don’t vote for, they vote against, which is why the 55% average I quoted WILL mean tactical voting and Tory losses that seat calculators struggle to show you.
Forget 97, I’m giving you 2005 and 1992 to prove you are wrong.
Firstly 2005, how does that result happen if you are ruling out tactical anti Tory vote on a massive scale when the climate is right for it?
secondly, how do you think 92 happened. Labour leads in polls, great by election and local election results all the way up to election, and then crushing defeat? The answers easy let me explain it to you. In the years up to the election Labour didn’t get positive votes for, the votes were against government, or more importantly not even a vote, a sitting on hands. The 92 result was negative vote against Labour, fearful of economy, tax policy, and defence in their hands, the no longer sitting on hands but using the vote against Labour.
Incidentally, this same MoonRabbit theory means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then the local elections results are meaningless as GE guide and no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time.
I have quite a bit of knowledge about how elections work, thank you. I've contested quite a few, either as a candidate, or as an organiser.
In every general election in my lifetime, the combined vote share for Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens have exceeded the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives have won more than half of those same elections.
I don’t mind your patronising response, so typical of PB, because you didn’t attwck or prove my theory wrong at all.
Basically you can’t, because you know I am right.
2005 there was massive anti Tory tactical vote to produce those seat totals from the popular vote share. You know I’m right.
1992. The stay at home vote from previous things such as locals came out to stop labour they feared in government. You know I am right.
And my theory doesn’t just work retrospectively, it can predict the future.
Yes this same MoonRabbit theory of tactical votes, including stay at home votes and coming out to stop someone winning not positive for the other parties, means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then coming local elections results are meaningless as GE guide, no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time as a GE guide.
I want to see specifics of actual churn. I want to see proof what degree it’s stay at home voters disproportion from a particular party, but evidence those who voted Boris last election now vote Labour just two years later not merely staying home.
Without that evidence I dare you to draw conclusion it’s bad result for Tories, because if it’s just hand sitters stay at home votes putting Tories say 7% behind Labour nationally, that merely points possibility 1992 happening all over again at next election.
You started with the ad hominem attack on me. My response was restrained, and in no way patronising.
Okay, I’ll concede that mate. 👍🏻
I’ll also wouldn’t mind if you could use that knowledge about elections, to prove my theory about the 2005 and 1992 elections is actually wrong. Because if I am right about what happened then and why, it shows what things to look for in predicting future elections.
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
In any case, I'm sceptical about the idea of just lumping the Labour, Green, and Lib Dem vote shares all together.
This is an unpopular government, but not an unusally unpopular government.
Then you are clueless in how elections work. People never vote positively they vote negatively. They don’t vote for, they vote against, which is why the 55% average I quoted WILL mean tactical voting and Tory losses that seat calculators struggle to show you.
Forget 97, I’m giving you 2005 and 1992 to prove you are wrong.
Firstly 2005, how does that result happen if you are ruling out tactical anti Tory vote on a massive scale when the climate is right for it?
secondly, how do you think 92 happened. Labour leads in polls, great by election and local election results all the way up to election, and then crushing defeat? The answers easy let me explain it to you. In the years up to the election Labour didn’t get positive votes for, the votes were against government, or more importantly not even a vote, a sitting on hands. The 92 result was negative vote against Labour, fearful of economy, tax policy, and defence in their hands, the no longer sitting on hands but using the vote against Labour.
Incidentally, this same MoonRabbit theory means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then the local elections results are meaningless as GE guide and no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time.
I have quite a bit of knowledge about how elections work, thank you. I've contested quite a few, either as a candidate, or as an organiser.
In every general election in my lifetime, the combined vote share for Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens have exceeded the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives have won more than half of those same elections.
I don’t mind your patronising response, so typical of PB, because you didn’t attwck or prove my theory wrong at all.
Basically you can’t, because you know I am right.
2005 there was massive anti Tory tactical vote to produce those seat totals from the popular vote share. You know I’m right.
1992. The stay at home vote from previous things such as locals came out to stop labour they feared in government. You know I am right.
And my theory doesn’t just work retrospectively, it can predict the future.
Yes this same MoonRabbit theory of tactical votes, including stay at home votes and coming out to stop someone winning not positive for the other parties, means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then coming local elections results are meaningless as GE guide, no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time as a GE guide.
I want to see specifics of actual churn. I want to see proof what degree it’s stay at home voters disproportion from a particular party, but evidence those who voted Boris last election now vote Labour just two years later not merely staying home.
Without that evidence I dare you to draw conclusion it’s bad result for Tories, because if it’s just hand sitters stay at home votes putting Tories say 7% behind Labour nationally, that merely points possibility 1992 happening all over again at next election.
You started with the ad hominem attack on me. My response was restrained, and in no way patronising.
Okay, I’ll concede that mate. 👍🏻
I’ll also wouldn’t mind if you could use that knowledge about elections, to prove my theory about the 2005 and 1992 elections is actually wrong. Because if I am right about what happened then and why, it shows what things to look for in predicting future elections.
Were you not saying we would shortly be having a snap general election?
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Hoping to achieve what exactly?
Boris Johnson did state at PMQs this week, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin.
No you are not Boris, you delusional Buffoon. 😠. You are in fact doing nothing different than any other leader of Tory’s today would do, and no different than Starmer would do if PM in this crisis. In fact if we had a less lazy and more trustworthy PM than you Boris, we could expect an even better job of it actually going on behind the scenes.
Does anyone on PB want to agree with Boris, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin?
He’s getting delusional on this isn’t he?
I think the PM was quoting the Ukranian PM Zelensky. The UK has been training the Ukranian military since 2014, and there’s a huge amount of mutual respect between the countries at a military level.
Boris has certainly been leading the European response, with Macron in election mode and that prat in Germany more worried about upsetting Putin. Johnson has also been key to getting Biden and the Americans involved, against a domestic background of not wanting to get involved in more foreign wars.
yes the usual “compared to Germany and France Boris is leading the world against Putin etc”. No Boris wasn’t quoting Zelenskyy, Boris genuinely believes what he said at PMQs - he is deluded enough to think he is leading the world in fight against Putin.
No we havn’t done too bad in supplying arms, though we were slow at first on sanctions and on oligarch’s and still not got it good on those needing refuge after fleeing, but that’s basically because under Petal this is the most useless home office EVER - that’s not just me saying it, that’s what her cabinet colleagues told her!
What has Boris and his government actually done that tops the doggedness and bravery of the Poles or the financial largess of the US? In fact, when you discount for pain and exposure to Russia Gas, have we really outstripped the EU?
The only world this lazy lying oaf Boris is leading is the world of delusion in his own head. The opposition party leaders should now pick him up on that claim at next PMQs and call him out as over egging it.
It’s called soft power, and the UK still has f***loads of it in Ukraine.
Ukraine rightly say nice things about everyone (except Germans) in this situation you concede? But a UK PM must not actually believe hype from others, but concentrate modestly on doing best they can, you understand?
It was crass when Gordon Brown claimed he was saving the world, it’s crass and cringeworthy to hear it from Boris too.
It’s the concentration on Village gossip, rather than issues that matter to normal people. Labour had the opportunity last week to force a debate on inflation, minimum wage or cost of living, but instead decided to have a go at the PM personally because his wife bought him a birthday cake two years ago.
I don’t know how many times I’ve said this now, but everyone needs to get off Twitter and look at what’s happening in the real world.
The real world doesn’t live in Zone 1, drives to work and is watching petrol prices.
Yes and no.
The party itself isn't as important as the other things you mention, sure. But telling the truth does matter a lot. After all, if the party (let alone the others that we know happened) isn't that important, why did Johnson go to the trouble of not making a full confession from the off? Why is the extent of the problem having to be dragged out of him?
I've said before that my take on Johnson is that he's an overgrown schoolboy. And one of the things that schoolboys do when they've been caught out (copy of Big and Bouncy in their locker, that sort of thing) is to make it as painful and humiliating as possible to bring them to justice, even when they've been caught bang to rights.
It's the same MO that Johnson and Cummings used in 2019, and Johnson and Patel are trying over the Rwanda plan. "Sure, you can stop us. But if you do, loads of people will hate you for stopping us in an underhand way. And if you don't, loads of other people will hate you for being weak and failing to stop us when you could have." Clever politics, but it tends to lead to Dick Dastardly-style behaviour that distracts from good government.
The PM could stop Partygate tomorrow, if he wanted to. All he has to do is tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But if he insists on clinging on by his fingernails, he doesn't get to complain if the doorframe gets scratched.
Putting aside the fact that in two of his questions, two of his suggested answers are correct; in one, technically none of his suggestions are right (although the one I chose is closest); that he misspelled a couple (which might be down to the original article), and that in a quiz about pretentious word uels, he used braggadocious (!), I got 23/30.
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
In any case, I'm sceptical about the idea of just lumping the Labour, Green, and Lib Dem vote shares all together.
This is an unpopular government, but not an unusally unpopular government.
Then you are clueless in how elections work. People never vote positively they vote negatively. They don’t vote for, they vote against, which is why the 55% average I quoted WILL mean tactical voting and Tory losses that seat calculators struggle to show you.
Forget 97, I’m giving you 2005 and 1992 to prove you are wrong.
Firstly 2005, how does that result happen if you are ruling out tactical anti Tory vote on a massive scale when the climate is right for it?
secondly, how do you think 92 happened. Labour leads in polls, great by election and local election results all the way up to election, and then crushing defeat? The answers easy let me explain it to you. In the years up to the election Labour didn’t get positive votes for, the votes were against government, or more importantly not even a vote, a sitting on hands. The 92 result was negative vote against Labour, fearful of economy, tax policy, and defence in their hands, the no longer sitting on hands but using the vote against Labour.
Incidentally, this same MoonRabbit theory means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then the local elections results are meaningless as GE guide and no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time.
I have quite a bit of knowledge about how elections work, thank you. I've contested quite a few, either as a candidate, or as an organiser.
In every general election in my lifetime, the combined vote share for Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens have exceeded the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives have won more than half of those same elections.
I don’t mind your patronising response, so typical of PB, because you didn’t attwck or prove my theory wrong at all.
Basically you can’t, because you know I am right.
2005 there was massive anti Tory tactical vote to produce those seat totals from the popular vote share. You know I’m right.
1992. The stay at home vote from previous things such as locals came out to stop labour they feared in government. You know I am right.
And my theory doesn’t just work retrospectively, it can predict the future.
Yes this same MoonRabbit theory of tactical votes, including stay at home votes and coming out to stop someone winning not positive for the other parties, means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then coming local elections results are meaningless as GE guide, no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time as a GE guide.
I want to see specifics of actual churn. I want to see proof what degree it’s stay at home voters disproportion from a particular party, but evidence those who voted Boris last election now vote Labour just two years later not merely staying home.
Without that evidence I dare you to draw conclusion it’s bad result for Tories, because if it’s just hand sitters stay at home votes putting Tories say 7% behind Labour nationally, that merely points possibility 1992 happening all over again at next election.
You started with the ad hominem attack on me. My response was restrained, and in no way patronising.
Okay, I’ll concede that mate. 👍🏻
I’ll also wouldn’t mind if you could use that knowledge about elections, to prove my theory about the 2005 and 1992 elections is actually wrong. Because if I am right about what happened then and why, it shows what things to look for in predicting future elections.
Were you not saying we would shortly be having a snap general election?
A weeks a long time in politics, let alone last month.
Labour didn’t have to go in 1970, but lured into by good locals.
I stand by what I said on basis the Tory’s have war gamed every month left of this term for the best moment to have election, 2023 2024 are completely ruled out by stagflation and recession and double digit poll deficits so you see the point that if there was enough war bounce left this May then June, before three years of economic pain hurts voters so much isn’t such a bad idea. You see my point?
Except that it’s provable that the UK has been providing both arms and extensive military training to Ukraine since 2014.
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
It's not shit stirring, it is former ministers and others, such as Defence ministers like Michael Fallon and Gerald Howarth, who have gone on the record.
Hoping to achieve what exactly?
Boris Johnson did state at PMQs this week, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin.
No you are not Boris, you delusional Buffoon. 😠. You are in fact doing nothing different than any other leader of Tory’s today would do, and no different than Starmer would do if PM in this crisis. In fact if we had a less lazy and more trustworthy PM than you Boris, we could expect an even better job of it actually going on behind the scenes.
Does anyone on PB want to agree with Boris, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin?
He’s getting delusional on this isn’t he?
I think the PM was quoting the Ukranian PM Zelensky. The UK has been training the Ukranian military since 2014, and there’s a huge amount of mutual respect between the countries at a military level.
Boris has certainly been leading the European response, with Macron in election mode and that prat in Germany more worried about upsetting Putin. Johnson has also been key to getting Biden and the Americans involved, against a domestic background of not wanting to get involved in more foreign wars.
yes the usual “compared to Germany and France Boris is leading the world against Putin etc”. No Boris wasn’t quoting Zelenskyy, Boris genuinely believes what he said at PMQs - he is deluded enough to think he is leading the world in fight against Putin.
No we havn’t done too bad in supplying arms, though we were slow at first on sanctions and on oligarch’s and still not got it good on those needing refuge after fleeing, but that’s basically because under Petal this is the most useless home office EVER - that’s not just me saying it, that’s what her cabinet colleagues told her!
What has Boris and his government actually done that tops the doggedness and bravery of the Poles or the financial largess of the US? In fact, when you discount for pain and exposure to Russia Gas, have we really outstripped the EU?
The only world this lazy lying oaf Boris is leading is the world of delusion in his own head. The opposition party leaders should now pick him up on that claim at next PMQs and call him out as over egging it.
It’s called soft power, and the UK still has f***loads of it in Ukraine.
Amongst all the horrors, this has been one of the quietly satisfying points about this conflict. Whilst Germany and France were quite happy to suck up to Putin over the last decade, the UK were training the army in Ukraine to fight him. The Ukrainians understand that, and many people in England would rather not come to terms with it, they profoundly dislike the idea that we could have been doing something right (for a change).
There’s a range of polls showing closer gap and lower Labour scores, yougovs, Kantor and now this opinonion that are not poor for Labour but fools gold for Tories, because they have greens on unrealistic 7s and 8s. I’m sorry Big G but you don’t know how to read the polls across the companies in the bigger picture at the moment. But it’s simple really, let me teach you. You do two things. Firstly, if Greens 7 take off 3 give to labour if they 8 take off 4 give to Labour and BINGO - it now looks just like polls from the other companies. Secondly total lab, Libdem and green together to come to 54 or 55, and you find 9 point labour leads produce that same 54 or 55 total as the 3 and 2 leads from other pollsters.
At first glance it looks like all the polling companies can’t be right because the lab to Tory gap is so different, but in their defence I suggest this theory, Libdem and green hard to poll correctly because their pockets of support are not uniform national swing changes. So when the green and Libdem figures are higher than other pollsters it’s invariably at expense of Labours lead.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Your thesis only works if tactical voting occurs
By any definition tonight's poll is poor for labour when some were forecasting 20% leads nailed on
In any case, I'm sceptical about the idea of just lumping the Labour, Green, and Lib Dem vote shares all together.
This is an unpopular government, but not an unusally unpopular government.
Then you are clueless in how elections work. People never vote positively they vote negatively. They don’t vote for, they vote against, which is why the 55% average I quoted WILL mean tactical voting and Tory losses that seat calculators struggle to show you.
Forget 97, I’m giving you 2005 and 1992 to prove you are wrong.
Firstly 2005, how does that result happen if you are ruling out tactical anti Tory vote on a massive scale when the climate is right for it?
secondly, how do you think 92 happened. Labour leads in polls, great by election and local election results all the way up to election, and then crushing defeat? The answers easy let me explain it to you. In the years up to the election Labour didn’t get positive votes for, the votes were against government, or more importantly not even a vote, a sitting on hands. The 92 result was negative vote against Labour, fearful of economy, tax policy, and defence in their hands, the no longer sitting on hands but using the vote against Labour.
Incidentally, this same MoonRabbit theory means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then the local elections results are meaningless as GE guide and no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time.
I have quite a bit of knowledge about how elections work, thank you. I've contested quite a few, either as a candidate, or as an organiser.
In every general election in my lifetime, the combined vote share for Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens have exceeded the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives have won more than half of those same elections.
I don’t mind your patronising response, so typical of PB, because you didn’t attwck or prove my theory wrong at all.
Basically you can’t, because you know I am right.
2005 there was massive anti Tory tactical vote to produce those seat totals from the popular vote share. You know I’m right.
1992. The stay at home vote from previous things such as locals came out to stop labour they feared in government. You know I am right.
And my theory doesn’t just work retrospectively, it can predict the future.
Yes this same MoonRabbit theory of tactical votes, including stay at home votes and coming out to stop someone winning not positive for the other parties, means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then coming local elections results are meaningless as GE guide, no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time as a GE guide.
I want to see specifics of actual churn. I want to see proof what degree it’s stay at home voters disproportion from a particular party, but evidence those who voted Boris last election now vote Labour just two years later not merely staying home.
Without that evidence I dare you to draw conclusion it’s bad result for Tories, because if it’s just hand sitters stay at home votes putting Tories say 7% behind Labour nationally, that merely points possibility 1992 happening all over again at next election.
You started with the ad hominem attack on me. My response was restrained, and in no way patronising.
Okay, I’ll concede that mate. 👍🏻
I’ll also wouldn’t mind if you could use that knowledge about elections, to prove my theory about the 2005 and 1992 elections is actually wrong. Because if I am right about what happened then and why, it shows what things to look for in predicting future elections.
Were you not saying we would shortly be having a snap general election?
A weeks a long time in politics, let alone last month.
Labour didn’t have to go in 1970, but lured into by good locals.
I stand by what I said on basis the Tory’s have war gamed every month left of this term for the best moment to have election, 2023 2024 are completely ruled out by stagflation and recession and double digit poll deficits so you see the point that if there was enough war bounce left this May then June, before three years of economic pain hurts voters so much isn’t such a bad idea. You see my point?
Comments
The 1992 election had Major as a fresh new face. Are you saying that we're likely to have a new Tory leader this time too?
If we don't want that then we should withdraw from the relevant human rights treaties, not blame asylum seekers for making choices that we promised them were a choice.
Indeed why not criticise Germany who have sold their economy to Russia and done everything to be evasive in helping Ukraine
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
Oh i know 2 years ago.
How do you explain SKS still in negative territory and Lab only 2% ahead
Opinium methodology?
Pathetic mate Pathetic you are going to be suicidal come GE 2024 when SKS does far worse than 2017
Sure, we didn’t spend the last few years shipping every surplus weapon in the arsenal to Kiev, but the UK has been one of the best performers in Europe (in sharp contrast to France and especially Germany) when it comes to helping out Ukraine.
Usual sh!t-stirring media, one expects better of the Sunday Times.
I’ve explained the higher green figures come from companies showing lower Labour leads. For example the Kantor 3% lead you say is poor for Labour and the techne 7% lead both total the 55% for the shared votes. The 11% lead only 58% anti Tory vote total.
Which means I agree with second thing you said, my theory only works in elections with tactical voting between labour, But this is exactly the situation we are in, this is exactly where we are when trying to guess the next GE from the polls we are today being given, by appreciating the mood is right for that tactical element, not least because Corbyn is gone and it’s now Boris and his team that’s hated.
In short, 20% lead isn’t going to happen. But a labour lead of 5 or 6 in the next general election could happen. And tactical interchange between the labour and green vote will happen in GE, so it’s sensible to interpret the polling companies with high green figures in this way.
This is an unpopular government, but not an unusally unpopular government.
Maybe it was the right policy at the time, in an attempt to avoid the large-scale war now being fought, but as a description of what happened it hardly merits an "exclusive" tag, given that the facts are well-known.
I think you will find there are more of us who hold SKS in poor regard than you would like though.
They've got my vote.
Embarrassing we don't have a separate food bin.
Despite the atrocious few weeks the conservatives have had, and Boris in particular , average 34/35% polling is remarkable and I can only suggest the public are weary of partygate and want full attention on the cost of living crisis by all parties
July 2021 was not 2 years ago.
You're embarrassing yourself.
Stop making stuff up.
There's a sign outside Kings Cross about a development proud of being "carbon neutral", which then confusingly goes on to say that it's a step towards their ambition of being "net zero". Looking at it from a simple-minded maths perspective I would have expected the two to be synonymous, but it would seem that "carbon neutral" is not as good as "net zero", and somehow also a lot easier to achieve.
So, does it mean anything specific beyond being a superficially attractive slogan?
Because it cant be right that SKS has over egged Party Gate
How can you claim asylum in the UK?
You have to prove you're a genuine asylum seeker.
How?
By not claiming asylum in the UK.
We know Opinium have changed their methodology and we'll see if this represents a genuine shift in opinion or it's just an outlier but some on here build it up as being the most important poll ever reported.
As to what will happen in May. @xxxxx5 has a view, it's not one I've heard before but there you go. I suspect we'll see Conservative abstention rather than a direct flight to Labour and while that will cost Conservative councillors their seats it may not worry Government as much because it will show those voters are there to be regained in the next couple of years.
My final thought is those viewing the Parliament through the prism of others and treating this as a traditional mid term and expecting the usual swingback forget what an unusual Parliament has been with the virus and now a major conflict. This Parliament won't play like the others - I haven't a clue how it will play out but assuming there's going to be a swingback may be unwise.
Forget 97, I’m giving you 2005 and 1992 to prove you are wrong.
Firstly 2005, how does that result happen if you are ruling out tactical anti Tory vote on a massive scale when the climate is right for it?
secondly, how do you think 92 happened. Labour leads in polls, great by election and local election results all the way up to election, and then crushing defeat? The answers easy let me explain it to you. In the years up to the election Labour didn’t get positive votes for, the votes were against government, or more importantly not even a vote, a sitting on hands. The 92 result was negative vote against Labour, fearful of economy, tax policy, and defence in their hands, the no longer sitting on hands but using the vote against Labour.
Incidentally, this same MoonRabbit theory means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then the local elections results are meaningless as GE guide and no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time.
‘You drowned, you’re a genuine asylum seeker!’
In every general election in my lifetime, the combined vote share for Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens have exceeded the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives have won more than half of those same elections.
So flying could be 'carbon neutral' if it emits (net) no more than a car / boat making the same journey.
I do hope nobody has been doing this...
The honest answer is no.
https://twitter.com/dmk1793/status/1517822204083331074?s=21&t=hMqkkEs3ue6qX2ZcUaULUg
Basically you can’t, because you know I am right.
2005 there was massive anti Tory tactical vote to produce those seat totals from the popular vote share. You know I’m right.
1992. The stay at home vote from previous things such as locals came out to stop labour they feared in government. You know I am right.
And my theory doesn’t just work retrospectively, it can predict the future.
Yes this same MoonRabbit theory of tactical votes, including stay at home votes and coming out to stop someone winning not positive for the other parties, means the election in two weeks is a meaningless result for predicting the next General Election, unless the pebble counters can show us actual transfer of votes, people voting different not merely sitting on their hands and not voting, then coming local elections results are meaningless as GE guide, no one on PB or MPs in parliament should pay any attention to it in two weeks time as a GE guide.
I want to see specifics of actual churn. I want to see proof what degree it’s stay at home voters disproportion from a particular party, but evidence those who voted Boris last election now vote Labour just two years later not merely staying home.
Without that evidence I dare you to draw conclusion it’s bad result for Tories, because if it’s just hand sitters stay at home votes putting Tories say 7% behind Labour nationally, that merely points possibility 1992 happening all over again at next election.
Edit: I googled "difference between carbon neutral and net zero" and it gave various results including this one: https://ecometrica.com/carbon-neutral-net-zero/
Dem counterfactuals.
1) To admit past mistakes
2) To try and correct those mistakes
3) Make sure we help Ukraine
4) To make sure Putin understands that we will no longer appease him
5) That we are prepared for Putin's next target(s)
Absolutely spot on Stodge, this is exactly what I have been trying to explain to PB tonight.
How can we know? Who can actually give it to us, the degree the result is stay at home Tories ready to come out for Boris again at next election, or 2019 Tory voters are now voting Labour in large numbers? This major election event, all the money spent on it, will we actually get thst key piece of information killing spin stone dead, or just endless spin leaving us in the dark about what actually happened?
Oh, and if they hadn’t noticed, 3-5 are very much being implemented right now.
And why is he trying to stab Boris tonight?
I don’t understand this.
No you are not Boris, you delusional Buffoon. 😠. You are in fact doing nothing different than any other leader of Tory’s today would do, and no different than Starmer would do if PM in this crisis. In fact if we had a less lazy and more trustworthy PM than you Boris, we could expect an even better job of it actually going on behind the scenes.
Does anyone on PB want to agree with Boris, he is leading the world in the fight against Putin?
He’s getting delusional on this isn’t he?
Michael Fallon.
Boris has certainly been leading the European response, with Macron in election mode and that prat in Germany more worried about upsetting Putin. Johnson has also been key to getting Biden and the Americans involved, against a domestic background of not wanting to get involved in more foreign wars.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1517918589570928649?t=uKUzuloGkvL4ObO-nh97cQ&s=19
It’s the concentration on Village gossip, rather than issues that matter to normal people. Labour had the opportunity last week to force a debate on inflation, minimum wage or cost of living, but instead decided to have a go at the PM personally because his wife bought him a birthday cake two years ago.
I don’t know how many times I’ve said this now, but everyone needs to get off Twitter and look at what’s happening in the real world.
The real world doesn’t live in Zone 1, drives to work and is watching petrol prices.
Edit: in both cases there is no net addition to the atmosphere of the gases in question.
No we havn’t done too bad in supplying arms, though we were slow at first on sanctions and on oligarch’s and still not got it good on those needing refuge after fleeing, but that’s basically because under Petal this is the most useless home office EVER - that’s not just me saying it, that’s what her cabinet colleagues told her!
What has Boris and his government actually done that tops the doggedness and bravery of the Poles or the financial largess of the US? In fact, when you discount for pain and exposure to Russia Gas, have we really outstripped the EU?
The only world this lazy lying oaf Boris is leading is the world of delusion in his own head. The opposition party leaders should now pick him up on that claim at next PMQs and call him out as over egging it.
From the Male on Sunday...
I’ll also wouldn’t mind if you could use that knowledge about elections, to prove my theory about the 2005 and 1992 elections is actually wrong. Because if I am right about what happened then and why, it shows what things to look for in predicting future elections.
It was crass when Gordon Brown claimed he was saving the world, it’s crass and cringeworthy to hear it from Boris too.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18352800/prince-andrew-lunged-at-former-aide/
The party itself isn't as important as the other things you mention, sure. But telling the truth does matter a lot. After all, if the party (let alone the others that we know happened) isn't that important, why did Johnson go to the trouble of not making a full confession from the off? Why is the extent of the problem having to be dragged out of him?
I've said before that my take on Johnson is that he's an overgrown schoolboy. And one of the things that schoolboys do when they've been caught out (copy of Big and Bouncy in their locker, that sort of thing) is to make it as painful and humiliating as possible to bring them to justice, even when they've been caught bang to rights.
It's the same MO that Johnson and Cummings used in 2019, and Johnson and Patel are trying over the Rwanda plan. "Sure, you can stop us. But if you do, loads of people will hate you for stopping us in an underhand way. And if you don't, loads of other people will hate you for being weak and failing to stop us when you could have." Clever politics, but it tends to lead to Dick Dastardly-style behaviour that distracts from good government.
The PM could stop Partygate tomorrow, if he wanted to. All he has to do is tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But if he insists on clinging on by his fingernails, he doesn't get to complain if the doorframe gets scratched.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10746503/Putin-hunts-SAS-Ukraine-Russia-launches-probe-British-elite-specialists-sabotage.html
So what do we think happens, if Russian forces in Ukraine encounter some random British special forces on a training mission?
Labour didn’t have to go in 1970, but lured into by good locals.
I stand by what I said on basis the Tory’s have war gamed every month left of this term for the best moment to have election, 2023 2024 are completely ruled out by stagflation and recession and double digit poll deficits so you see the point that if there was enough war bounce left this May then June, before three years of economic pain hurts voters so much isn’t such a bad idea. You see my point?
Prime Minister ‘plots early General Election to see off his rivals’: https://t.co/3hh46KV6O6