Do Republican politicians even want to be Senators these days? – politicalbetting.com

noneoftheabove said:

geoffw said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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.

Scott_xP said:

🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Former ministers have broken ranks to describe how successive prime ministers, including Boris Johnson, withheld arms from Ukraine until just weeks before February’s invasion because of fears they might provoke Vladimir Putin https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-spent-seven-years-begging-three-pms-for-weapons-and-no-one-listened-58t5m9kkq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1650733937-1

CorrectHorseBattery said:

bigjohnowls said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This week’s @OpiniumResearch
@ObserverUK poll shows Labour’s lead actually dropping back from 4 points to 2.

Con 34% (n/c)
Lab 36% (-2)
Lib Dem 10% (n/c)
Green 8% (+1)

SKS fans please explain

Why don't I post a poll from two years ago like you did?

ping said:

HYUFD said:

ping said:

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.

Mexicanpete said:

xxxxx5 said:

@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?

Applicant said:

Stark_Dawning said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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.

noneoftheabove said:

geoffw said:

noneoftheabove said:

geoffw said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Poor poll for labour tonight

To drop 2% in this climate is astonishing

No.

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.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

bigjohnowls said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

bigjohnowls said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This week’s @OpiniumResearch
@ObserverUK poll shows Labour’s lead actually dropping back from 4 points to 2.

Con 34% (n/c)
Lab 36% (-2)
Lib Dem 10% (n/c)
Green 8% (+1)

SKS fans please explain

Why don't I post a poll from two years ago like you did?

When did i post a poll from 2 years ago.

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

Here we are:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

bigjohnowls said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

🇬🇧Johnson v Starmer

"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

Johnson is dead

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1411942926045831169/photo/1

You do know this is from 2021?

Are you okay?

From just a couple of days ago. You're embarrassing yourself.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This week’s @OpiniumResearch
@ObserverUK poll shows Labour’s lead actually dropping back from 4 points to 2.

Con 34% (n/c)
Lab 36% (-2)
Lib Dem 10% (n/c)
Green 8% (+1)

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Former ministers have broken ranks to describe how successive prime ministers, including Boris Johnson, withheld arms from Ukraine until just weeks before February’s invasion because of fears they might provoke Vladimir Putin https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-spent-seven-years-begging-three-pms-for-weapons-and-no-one-listened-58t5m9kkq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1650733937-1

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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Former ministers have broken ranks to describe how successive prime ministers, including Boris Johnson, withheld arms from Ukraine until just weeks before February’s invasion because of fears they might provoke Vladimir Putin https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-spent-seven-years-begging-three-pms-for-weapons-and-no-one-listened-58t5m9kkq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1650733937-1

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.

Sean_F said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Poor poll for labour tonight

To drop 2% in this climate is astonishing

No.

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.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This week’s @OpiniumResearch
@ObserverUK poll shows Labour’s lead actually dropping back from 4 points to 2.

Con 34% (n/c)
Lab 36% (-2)
Lib Dem 10% (n/c)
Green 8% (+1)

Sunil_Prasannan said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This week’s @OpiniumResearch
@ObserverUK poll shows Labour’s lead actually dropping back from 4 points to 2.

Con 34% (n/c)
Lab 36% (-2)
Lib Dem 10% (n/c)
Green 8% (+1)

FOUR MONTHS AND 17 DAYS SINCE THE LAST TORY POLL LEAD.

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Poor poll for labour tonight

To drop 2% in this climate is astonishing

No.

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.

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/CllrSimonHogg/status/1517877173432037376

They've got my vote.

Embarrassing we don't have a separate food bin.

Do you know what they mean by "carbon neutral"?

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?

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

noneoftheabove said:

geoffw said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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!’

bigjohnowls said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

bigjohnowls said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This week’s @OpiniumResearch
@ObserverUK poll shows Labour’s lead actually dropping back from 4 points to 2.

Con 34% (n/c)
Lab 36% (-2)
Lib Dem 10% (n/c)
Green 8% (+1)

SKS fans please explain

Why don't I post a poll from two years ago like you did?

When did i post a poll from 2 years ago.

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

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Poor poll for labour tonight

To drop 2% in this climate is astonishing

No.

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.

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Former ministers have broken ranks to describe how successive prime ministers, including Boris Johnson, withheld arms from Ukraine until just weeks before February’s invasion because of fears they might provoke Vladimir Putin https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-spent-seven-years-begging-three-pms-for-weapons-and-no-one-listened-58t5m9kkq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1650733937-1

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?

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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

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.

bigjohnowls said:

GIN1138 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This week’s @OpiniumResearch
@ObserverUK poll shows Labour’s lead actually dropping back from 4 points to 2.

Con 34% (n/c)
Lab 36% (-2)
Lib Dem 10% (n/c)
Green 8% (+1)

Nothing much to say about this LOL!

GIN1138 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

This week’s @OpiniumResearch
@ObserverUK poll shows Labour’s lead actually dropping back from 4 points to 2.

Con 34% (n/c)
Lab 36% (-2)
Lib Dem 10% (n/c)
Green 8% (+1)

Nothing much to say about this LOL!

CHB/ Pete has declared Opiniums new methodology to blame and would prefer Opinium to return to the methodology Opinium believe is flawed.

Because it cant be right that SKS has over egged Party Gate

Theuniondivvie said:

Fuck.
The honest answer is no.

https://twitter.com/dmk1793/status/1517822204083331074?s=21&t=hMqkkEs3ue6qX2ZcUaULUg

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Former ministers have broken ranks to describe how successive prime ministers, including Boris Johnson, withheld arms from Ukraine until just weeks before February’s invasion because of fears they might provoke Vladimir Putin https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-spent-seven-years-begging-three-pms-for-weapons-and-no-one-listened-58t5m9kkq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1650733937-1

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.

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Former ministers have broken ranks to describe how successive prime ministers, including Boris Johnson, withheld arms from Ukraine until just weeks before February’s invasion because of fears they might provoke Vladimir Putin https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-spent-seven-years-begging-three-pms-for-weapons-and-no-one-listened-58t5m9kkq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1650733937-1

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?

Stuartinromford said:

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Former ministers have broken ranks to describe how successive prime ministers, including Boris Johnson, withheld arms from Ukraine until just weeks before February’s invasion because of fears they might provoke Vladimir Putin https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-spent-seven-years-begging-three-pms-for-weapons-and-no-one-listened-58t5m9kkq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1650733937-1

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?

Theuniondivvie said:

Fuck.
The honest answer is no.

https://twitter.com/dmk1793/status/1517822204083331074?s=21&t=hMqkkEs3ue6qX2ZcUaULUg

SussexJames said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fuck.
The honest answer is no.

https://twitter.com/dmk1793/status/1517822204083331074?s=21&t=hMqkkEs3ue6qX2ZcUaULUg

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.

Sandpit said:

xxxxx5 said:

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.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from John Rentoul

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1517918589570928649?t=uKUzuloGkvL4ObO-nh97cQ&s=19

Carnyx said:

SussexJames said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fuck.
The honest answer is no.

https://twitter.com/dmk1793/status/1517822204083331074?s=21&t=hMqkkEs3ue6qX2ZcUaULUg

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 ...

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Poor poll for labour tonight

To drop 2% in this climate is astonishing

No.

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.

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Poor poll for labour tonight

To drop 2% in this climate is astonishing

No.

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.

Sandpit said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Former ministers have broken ranks to describe how successive prime ministers, including Boris Johnson, withheld arms from Ukraine until just weeks before February’s invasion because of fears they might provoke Vladimir Putin https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-spent-seven-years-begging-three-pms-for-weapons-and-no-one-listened-58t5m9kkq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1650733937-1

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.

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting from John Rentoul

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1517918589570928649?t=uKUzuloGkvL4ObO-nh97cQ&s=19

Yep!

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.

Sandpit said:

Who dares wins…

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?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sandpit said:

Who dares wins…

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?

Don't you mean lost British businessmen.....

turbotubbs said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Poor poll for labour tonight

To drop 2% in this climate is astonishing

No.

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?

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Poor poll for labour tonight

To drop 2% in this climate is astonishing

No.

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?

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Poor poll for labour tonight

To drop 2% in this climate is astonishing

No.

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?

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

turbotubbs said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

MoonRabbit said:

Sean_F said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Poor poll for labour tonight

To drop 2% in this climate is astonishing

No.

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?

https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1517972372795670531?t=AdjiXBeI46BD9VXzoe-Abw&s=19

Prime Minister ‘plots early General Election to see off his rivals’: https://t.co/3hh46KV6O6

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Former ministers have broken ranks to describe how successive prime ministers, including Boris Johnson, withheld arms from Ukraine until just weeks before February’s invasion because of fears they might provoke Vladimir Putin https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-spent-seven-years-begging-three-pms-for-weapons-and-no-one-listened-58t5m9kkq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1650733937-1

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.