One week on and betting markets remain utterly convinced about Starmer winning a majority

Mexicanpete said:

Gardenwalker said:

Mexicanpete said:

On LBC, former Theresa May SPAD Tom Swarbrick, is very perplexed by Labour's stance on Diane Abbott. NEC's Mish Ramen calls the entitled white Starmer Labour leadership racist because of the Party's treatment of PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott.

Sixteen unions demand PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott is reinstated.

Could PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott can deliver a Tory victory?

No, but so far at least Keir has fumbled this.
Abbott should be free to stand, indeed hasn’t he implied as much?

This is essentially trivia, save what it tells us about Keir’s judgement (so far, not great).

If Starmer lets Mrs Entitled -Bonkers stand, he really does have poor judgement.

It is confected nonsense by the media, but it has definitely derailed Starmer. Good on the BBC, good on Victoria Derbyshire.

It has “derailed” Starmer.

Whatever you say.

FFS, give it a rest. Your desperation is embarrassing.

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise

However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.

A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.

Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.

And there is, as yet, no trend

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good afternoon

Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response

It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.

Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.

There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:

1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up.
2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying.
3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it?
4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.

I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise

However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.

A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.

Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.

And the trend at the moment is Labour 45% or higher
Tories 26% or lower

And the Tory party is at the point that seats start to disintegrate 26% gives the Toris 108 seats, 25% 96, 24% 84, 23% 49..

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise

However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.

A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.

Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.

And there is, as yet, no trend

Stability is in itself a trend.

Stability is what I expect, the other option is swingback and that didn't occur in 1997 so why would it occur now when the Tories are in a worse state then they were then..

geoffw said:

SandyRentool said:

Diane Abbott anecdote:

Wor Lass once spotted Ms Abbott in the cafe at John Lewis in Sloane Square, and went over to say hello to her. The response was anything but warm and friendly.

Peter Jones

delete - twas wrong. it's still Peter Jones..

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise

However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.

A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.

Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.

And the trend at the moment is Labour 45% or higher
Tories 26% or lower

And the Tory party is at the point that seats start to disintegrate 26% gives the Toris 108 seats, 25% 96, 24% 84, 23% 49..

If Ian Dale chooses wisely he could be leader by the end of July

Chris said:

Anabobazina said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.

Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?

yep - because the margin of error is 2% so it's perfectly possible the old figure was out by 2% and the new one out 1% in the other direction...

Trend is the thing here...

Chris said:

Anabobazina said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.

Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?

Of course it is!

You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?

StaffordKnot said:

There are times when I think we on PB need to get out more. In the real world, most people don't know who Diane Abbott and most of those who do, don't care whether she stands or not. The thought that this is going to change the narrative of the election is simply fantasy.

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

Most people do know who she is. Youguv have recognition at 76%, but popularity at just 11% and disliked by 49%. It is obviously better for Labour if she does not stand.

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise

However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.

A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.

Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.

And there is, as yet, no trend

Stability is in itself a trend.

Stability is what I expect, the other option is swingback and that didn't occur in 1997 so why would it occur now when the Tories are in a worse state then they were then..

There was a closing of the gap from low to mid 20s to mid to high teens over the course of the 97 campaign (very broadly speaking) so a limited swingback occured

BartholomewRoberts said:

Chris said:

Anabobazina said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.

Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?

Of course it is!

You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?

Of corse MOE works in both directions. A Lab score of 50% is within MOE in that poll

BartholomewRoberts said:

Chris said:

Anabobazina said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.

Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?

Of course it is!

You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?

And 44 was lower end recently for YouGov so it's absolutely in line with their long term trend for Lab VI

BartholomewRoberts said:

Chris said:

Anabobazina said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.

Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?

Of course it is!

You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?

Well, treat those two figures as independent samples, and tell me how many standard deviations you think the difference represents.

GIN1138 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

JLP, Opinium and Savanta have all consistently had rather smaller (but still very healthy) Labour leads compared to the others. As yesterdays thread header explained this is due to the way these pollsters deal with "don't knows" compared to the others.

Reminds me quite a lot of 1997 when ICM stood alone as the only pollster with somewhat more modest Labour leads compared to the rest of the pack. In that election ICM was proved correct as Labour *ONLY* won with a 13% lead as opposed to the +20% lead most of the other pollsters were showing at the time.

Of course we won't know until 10pm on 4th July whether JLP, Opinium and Savanta have this right and Labour win with a landslide and the Tories are out of power for a decade or whether YouGov, People Polling, etc are correct and Labour wins with the biggest majority in British history and the Conservative Party is destroyed forever.

I looked at the assumptions that JLP made today and I don't think their assumptions stack up.

For instance the idea is that Tory inclined Don't knows will vote yet Labour ones won't which doesn't match the anti-Tory feeling I'm seeing elsewhere - I feel the opposite may well be true, and that is what the nowcast forecasts are all continually saying.

It's early days though - I suspect it won't be until a week after the manifestos appear that we know the real state of play - it wouldn't surprise me to see Labour on 48% with the Tories on 24% though..

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:

Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920

File under "who gives a shit"

Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

I don't agree with her, but if someone had made jokes about raping me I wouldn't like them being platformed either.

That Truss has such poor judgement and self respect to appear on his programme is not very surprising.

DM_Andy said:

AlsoLei said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good afternoon

Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response

It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.

Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.

There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:

1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up.
2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying.
3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it?
4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.

I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.

I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.

That also sounds reasonable - one of those situations were the two sides have completely misread each others positions.

In that case, the party's best bet is to roll over - it'll be her last election in any case. But if she is, for example, insisting on being able to support Corbyn, I can see why they're resisting.

Mexicanpete said:

Gardenwalker said:

Mexicanpete said:

On LBC, former Theresa May SPAD Tom Swarbrick, is very perplexed by Labour's stance on Diane Abbott. NEC's Mish Ramen calls the entitled white Starmer Labour leadership racist because of the Party's treatment of PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott.

Sixteen unions demand PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott is reinstated.

Could PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott can deliver a Tory victory?

No, but so far at least Keir has fumbled this.
Abbott should be free to stand, indeed hasn’t he implied as much?

This is essentially trivia, save what it tells us about Keir’s judgement (so far, not great).

If Starmer lets Mrs Entitled -Bonkers stand, he really does have poor judgement.

It is confected nonsense by the media, but it has definitely derailed Starmer. Good on the BBC, good on Victoria Derbyshire.

It offends peoples idea of natural justice. Nothing confected about it. On the wider point it doesn't help Labour if their tent is just made up of Srarmer clones.

............but beyond that there's something iconic about the first female black MP and Labour's heritage means a lot to plenty of people.

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:

Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920

File under "who gives a shit"

Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

I don't agree with her, but if someone had made jokes about raping me I wouldn't like them being platformed either.

Even if the quote is both correct and recent (and 2024 Carl is a very different man from 2018 Sargon), then the joke is really not about rape, it’s about her being unattractive to him.

Philips comes across as someone who’d happily shut down Roast Battle night at the Comedy Store.

RobD said:

We back?

Front too...

BartholomewRoberts said:

Chris said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Chris said:

Anabobazina said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.

Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?

Of course it is!

You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?

Well, treat those two figures as independent samples, and tell me how many standard deviations you think the difference represents.

That's not how statistics work.

Treating them as independent samples, they each have a range of results they can be within standard deviation MoE - and those ranges overlap meaning they are within MoE of each other.

You are incapable of calculating whether the difference between two independent samples is significant, and you are trying to tell me how statistics work?

God save us from opinionated Internet numbskulls!

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:

Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920

File under "who gives a shit"

Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.

bondegezou said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:

Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920

File under "who gives a shit"

Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

Do you think Truss should pal round with a conspiracy theorist who’s also bezzies with Tommy Robinson? Freedom of speech, sure, Truss can go talk to whoever she wants, but equally the Conservative Party could say that they don’t want her as a candidate if she thinks that’s appropriate.

Yes. I don't see the problem in any of this:

• Truss can do what she wants as far as this is concerned - freedom of speech.
• Philips can criticise her and call for her to be sacked - freedom of speech
• Sunak can sack (remove whip from) Truss if he believes her free speech has brought the party into disrepute etc; the voters in her constituency can sack her too
• Starmer can similarly sack Philips and her voters can too

geoffw said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise

However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.

A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.

Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.

And there is, as yet, no trend

Stability is in itself a trend.

Touchè

Accent aigu s'il vous plait

plaît

RobD said:

We back?

Or lay.

Tory omnishambles

SNP “hold my beer”

bonkers! the SNP successfully amends the motion on Michael Matheson then doesn’t vote for it. what a mess Swinney has made of the straightforward case of a fella caught rinsing his expenses then lying about it.

https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1795828176205299760

eek said:

Did we cover the President of Birmingham Young Conservatives quitting to join the Lib Dems

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/politics/2024/05/27/president-of-birmingham-young-conservatives-defects-to-liberal-democrats-days-after-election-called/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Surely a Young Conservative now is anyone under the age of 65?

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:

Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920

File under "who gives a shit"

Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

I don't agree with her, but if someone had made jokes about raping me I wouldn't like them being platformed either.

Even if the quote is both correct and recent (and 2024 Carl is a very different man from 2018 Sargon), then the joke is really not about rape, it’s about her being unattractive to him.

Philips comes across as someone who’d happily shut down Roast Battle night at the Comedy Store.

Yeah, right:

https://www.chronicle.gi/police-investigate-ukip-candidate-jess-phillips-rape-comments/

ToryJim said:

wooliedyed said:

Guido with the latest p0rn news, lol
He's so greasy and low rent

It’s also bad form to attack someone through their family.

Is that an attack on his family?

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Trump jury is getting their instructions from the judge - on reasonable doubt, no negative inference from defendant not testifying etc - I have to admit this one is not one I had considered, but I suppose everyone does draw inferences so you need to give some guidance.

Merchan just gave jurors the boilerplate instruction — given in many state and federal courts — about their power to draw inferences. The classic example: If you go to bed and the ground outside is dry, and you wake up and the ground outside is wet, you can infer that it rained overnight.

Prosceutors have asked the jury to draw some inferences about Trump's micromanaging nature to conclude that he certainly would have been aware of the specifics of Michael Cohen's efforts to pay off Stormy Daniels.

That great legal tradition of I reckon
They could also of course infer that as Cohen is a convicted liar that he cannot be trusted, its double edged

Convicted, of course, of lying on behalf of his boss.

TOPPING said:

89% is high but I continue to wonder why we on PB, who fight like cats in a sack about every nuance of possible political outcome, take "the betting markets" as somehow better informed.

Betting markets don't know jack.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Chris said:

Anabobazina said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

wooliedyed said:

New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May
Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19
🔵Conservative 26 (-1)
🔴Labour 45 (+1)
🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-)
🟢Green 5 (-1)
🟣Reform UK 11 (+1)
Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008

The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.

It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.

Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?

Of course it is!

You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?

I’m not sure he does!

Stuartinromford said:

Curious thing is that the nowcasters and the forecasters really ought to converge by polling day, but there's not much sign of that happening yet

Forecasters make assumptions to convert a nowcast into their forecast.

What happens if their assumptions are just outright invalid this time round I looked at the JLP assumptions and can give counter arguments for most of them, if that's true for JLP it's equally true for everyone else.

And remember the only difference between the nowcasters and the forecasters is that the nowcasters are expecting the collapse of the tory party, the forecasters are expecting a result that makes the 97 landslide look small.

All of the polls out in the last few days have been well within the MOE of their previous survey.

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

AlsoLei said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good afternoon

Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response

It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.

Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.

There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:

1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up.
2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying.
3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it?
4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.

I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.

I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.

They can’t keep her out of the party without a legal fight they’ll almost certainly lose, but also don’t want her campaigning for Corbyn the independent. That’s the naked politics, and it’s visible from space, which is why it backfired on Starmer.

Letting her stand and then suspending her if she campaigns for Corbyn seems simplest. No challenge there, you can't back someone running against the party.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This is some job change

Vincent Kompany goes from relegated Burnley to Bayern Munich head coach

Quite:

"Failed at Burnley, went to Bayern" is not something you expect to see.

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Curious thing is that the nowcasters and the forecasters really ought to converge by polling day, but there's not much sign of that happening yet

Forecasters make assumptions to convert a nowcast into their forecast.

What happens if their assumptions are just outright invalid this time round I looked at the JLP assumptions and can give counter arguments for most of them, if that's true for JLP it's equally true for everyone else.

And remember the only difference between the nowcasters and the forecasters is that the nowcasters are expecting the collapse of the tory party, the forecasters are expecting a result that makes the 97 landslide look small.

Yup. The closer that 'now' and 'election day' get, the less time there is for swingback to swing. Normally that ought to happen. Heck, Major got some swingback. But it isn't, and- like you say- maybe the dynamics of Con/Ref are going to prevent it happening.

Will Gething make it past 1.75 Trusses??

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

AlsoLei said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good afternoon

Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response

It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.

Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.

There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:

1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up.
2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying.
3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it?
4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.

I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.

I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.

They can’t keep her out of the party without a legal fight they’ll almost certainly lose, but also don’t want her campaigning for Corbyn the independent. That’s the naked politics, and it’s visible from space, which is why it backfired on Starmer.

Letting her stand and then suspending her if she campaigns for Corbyn seems simplest. No challenge there, you can't back someone running against the party.

It will emerge too late for the GE though, then Labour are in an Azhar Ali Rochdale position.

Has this slide deck (published yesterday) by More in Common been discussed?

https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/3rbhqx0m/weekly-webinar-1.pdf

One interesting slide is a focus on Conservative 2019 female don't knows. Conservative to undecided voters are overwhelmingly female - Whitby Woman.
72 per cent of those who voted Conservative in 2019 and now don’t know how they will vote are female. This group skews much older than the rest of the population and are likely to own their home. They are also much more small-c conservative than the rest of the country - coming largely from our Backbone Conservative and Loyal National segments - which supports the idea a large number are in fact disgruntled Conservatives.



Not the usual marginal picture, so may not have much impact?

StaffordKnot said:

noneoftheabove said:

StaffordKnot said:

There are times when I think we on PB need to get out more. In the real world, most people don't know who Diane Abbott and most of those who do, don't care whether she stands or not. The thought that this is going to change the narrative of the election is simply fantasy.

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

Most people do know who she is. Youguv have recognition at 76%, but popularity at just 11% and disliked by 49%. It is obviously better for Labour if she does not stand.

Two points:

They define Fame as “…the % of people who have heard of this topic.” That’s not the same as knowing who she is. Secondly, I think we need to question the respondent base. According to the table 24% know Gloria Del Piero. I’m a politics nerd and I had never heard of her!

You should watch more GB News, then you'd know.

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This is some job change

Vincent Kompany goes from relegated Burnley to Bayern Munich head coach

Quite:

"Failed at Burnley, went to Bayern" is not something you expect to see.

Choupo-Moting failed at Stoke, then went to PSG and Bayern winning 5 titles in a row.

noneoftheabove said:

Anabobazina said:

So what if Angela Rayner’s son is a porn star? He makes porn with his wife. Who cares? These curtain-twitchers need to get an effing life.

Was Rayners house ever used for commercial filming purposes? Did she pay business rates? We really could do with spending a few hundred K and taking some senior detectives off the rota for a month to find out.

😆 Lol!

Benpointer said:

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

AlsoLei said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good afternoon

Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response

It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.

Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.

There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:

1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up.
2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying.
3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it?
4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.

I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.

I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.

They can’t keep her out of the party without a legal fight they’ll almost certainly lose, but also don’t want her campaigning for Corbyn the independent. That’s the naked politics, and it’s visible from space, which is why it backfired on Starmer.

Letting her stand and then suspending her if she campaigns for Corbyn seems simplest. No challenge there, you can't back someone running against the party.

It will emerge too late for the GE though, then Labour are in an Azhar Ali Rochdale position.

Sure, but they expect to win enough overall that it won't matter, and she'll have burnt her bridges permanently.

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:

Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920

File under "who gives a shit"

Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.

From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.

I'll quote the double down.

And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

AlsoLei said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good afternoon

Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response

It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.

Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.

There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:

1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up.
2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying.
3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it?
4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.

I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.

I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.

They can’t keep her out of the party without a legal fight they’ll almost certainly lose, but also don’t want her campaigning for Corbyn the independent. That’s the naked politics, and it’s visible from space, which is why it backfired on Starmer.

The problem is that if the ability to support Corbyn is the actual sticking point, then it devolves to a special case of option 2- that it's Abbott who's acting maliciously.

If she became the PPC and then campaigned for Corbyn, she would automatically be kicked out of the party. So she'd be left standing as an independent, it would be too late to nominate an official Labour candidate.

So if that really is the suspicion, then the party are in the right. They'd win in the constituency no matter which of Abbott, Bramble, or Moema stands. Abbott can only win as Labour, or as an Independent with no Labour opponent.

Angela Rayner is brazenly guilty.
Of being an uppity working class woman who doesn't know her proper place.

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

Friday 5 July. Annual leave booked.

If you've got a drinking game planned, recommend you confine it to SNP losses or Lib Dem gains.

We would miss you if you went for Tory and Labour respectively and died of alcohol poisoning.

Tory gains will I think give you a couple of drinks as Scottish seat results came back..

I think the Abbott debacle (along with other mis-steps) shows Starmer’s political inexperience.

We’re about to replace one politically inexperienced technocrat with another. Both men are smart, both sincere in wanting to better the country’s lot, via different routes, both have been in front line politics for less than a decade.

That’s why I fear he relies too heavily on SPADs, who are “clever”.

I suspect we’re in for a bumpy ride.