Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?
J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16) CON 24% (+1) LAB 38% (-2) LDM 8% (-1) GRN 3% (-2) RFM 25% (+7)
Bit of a shocker I thought.
EDIT - THIS IS A POLL OF GB NEWS VIEWERS
Lol!!
Was just going to clarify that key point.
Seems bonkers that Labour has such a lead with GB News fans!
Incredible really. Those are similar percentages to the Goodwin poll from a few days ago.
It seems to imply there are changes from 14-16 June. Why are they doing regular polling of such a tiny population?
Maybe it's the total viewership of GB news
I smelt a rat when I saw that it had been commissioned by GB News.The smell of the rat increased when I looked at Table 3 to find that no less than 41% of the sample had a favourable opinion of Sunak, and it turned into a pretty foul smell when I realised that no less than 49% of the sample population was (despite reweighting) planning to vote for Reform or the Conservatives, matching the total for LLG.
If it's a sample drawn from GB News viewers, that would explain a lot. The problem is that the association between GB News viewing and voting behaviour is probably stronger than the association between voting and pretty well any other factor used to try and reweight the poll. As in a lot of other polling, reweighting is not a panacea that can transform a badly skewed sample. It's not a problem for GB News of course, rather it's produced the result that it was designed to, ramping Reform to pander to their audience.
I'm surprised that an international company like JL Partners are prepared to risk their reputation with such stuff.
When are we expecting the next effort by Goodwin's PutinPolling, by the way?
Without Brexit, there are * a lot* of decisions taken pre 2015 that would have hurt the Conservatives, by now.
1. Poor candidate selection 2. Making younger voters, who are now getting older, bear the brunt of austerity, while exempting pensioners. 3. Prioritising keeping house prices high over building new homes. 4. Keeping interest rates too low for too long 5. Defence and justice cuts. 6. Trebling student fees.
And of course, there would be fall out from Covid and Ukraine.
Yep I agree with that, plus it just being time for a change.
However that would have produced the normal change of Government we experience in the electoral cycle and not predictions of Tory wipe outs. OK it might not happen, but damn it everyone is talking about it, which in itself is unique.
Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France.
Can anyone advise how to read a twix thread without subscribing to X?
My constituency is Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner in NW London. It is neck and neck both in the polls and in smarket betting, but I have had no leaflets - not a single one. And no campaigners on my doorbell. 🤷♂️
I don’t think Sunak deserves to lose his seat . He hasn’t helped himself but the Tories problems started with Partygate and further imploded with Truss .
I’m still incredulous at the list of Tories who yearn for the return of Bozo , it’s like they just think the country is going to forget he’s a proven pathological liar who would have served a long Commons suspension if he hadn’t resigned to avoid that .
If Tories still think he’s part of the solution then they’re utterly deluded .
I think the Tories problems started with Brexit that then led to Boris. Nothing else.
Truss was just a blip and Sunak is just the unfortunate sod who inherited the mess.
Brexit and Boris - Nothing else. The combination may well have destroyed the party.
Brexit fundamentally is the cause but Johnson's 2019 win was actually long term a disaster for the party as it removed it even further from its core support. It worked because of Jeremy Corbyn.
I agree but just to clarify:
Boris won in 2019 for 2 reasons:
1) Get Brexit done 2) Corbyn
But 'Get Brexit done' was the main reason. Remember in 2017 Corbyn was there then. May ran a disastrous election admittedly which didn't help, but Corbyn was there still. The big Tory majority was in 2019 and the big difference was 'Get Brexit done'
So Boris only got to be PM because of the shambles after Brexit caused by the cocked up Brexit. And Boris primarily won in 2019 on the basis of getting Brexit done. All else stems from that.
Yes but. Get Brexit done. What that meant to the electorate was deal with the manifold, manifest problems of a country which is going backwards. What that meant to Boris was cobble together any old Brexit, divert funds and contracts to my cronies. Lie. Shag about. Ignore the issues. And I'll get away with it and everyone will love me because I Got Brexit Done. A similar delusion infected the rest of the Tory Party. Some of them haven't been disabused of the notion even yet.
The Gloucestershire captain did a Sunak this morning. He won the toss, decided to bowl, and now Yorkshire are 295/0.
Anyone know what the record first class opening partnership is when put into bat?
Surely that’s doing a Nasser Hussain?
Nah. To "do a Sunak" is now in the vernacular for making a monumental error of judgement. It transcends Hussain's mistake in Brisbane - and Australia only put on 67 for the first wicket then.
Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France.
Can anyone advise how to read a twix thread without subscribing to X?
Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France.
Can anyone advise how to read a twix thread without subscribing to X?
I asked the question last week that while a lot of focus has been the numbers of people coming into the UK, there is an awful lot of people leaving. Who are they, and have been been quietly suffering a wealth and brain drain. The answer is yes.
The UK is no longer attractive to high net worth individuals, both looking to move to the UK and those who currently in the UK are leaving. As they pay 30% of the tax take, means more tax for everybody else to pay.
Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France.
Can anyone advise how to read a twix thread without subscribing to X?
Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France.
I don’t think Sunak deserves to lose his seat . He hasn’t helped himself but the Tories problems started with Partygate and further imploded with Truss .
I’m still incredulous at the list of Tories who yearn for the return of Bozo , it’s like they just think the country is going to forget he’s a proven pathological liar who would have served a long Commons suspension if he hadn’t resigned to avoid that .
If Tories still think he’s part of the solution then they’re utterly deluded .
I think the Tories problems started with Brexit that then led to Boris. Nothing else.
Truss was just a blip and Sunak is just the unfortunate sod who inherited the mess.
Brexit and Boris - Nothing else. The combination may well have destroyed the party.
Brexit fundamentally is the cause but Johnson's 2019 win was actually long term a disaster for the party as it removed it even further from its core support. It worked because of Jeremy Corbyn.
I agree but just to clarify:
Boris won in 2019 for 2 reasons:
1) Get Brexit done 2) Corbyn
But 'Get Brexit done' was the main reason. Remember in 2017 Corbyn was there then. May ran a disastrous election admittedly which didn't help, but Corbyn was there still. The big Tory majority was in 2019 and the big difference was 'Get Brexit done'
So Boris only got to be PM because of the shambles after Brexit caused by the cocked up Brexit. And Boris primarily won in 2019 on the basis of getting Brexit done. All else stems from that.
Yes but. Get Brexit done. What that meant to the electorate was deal with the manifold, manifest problems of a country which is going backwards. What that meant to Boris was cobble together any old Brexit, divert funds and contracts to my cronies. Lie. Shag about. Ignore the issues. And I'll get away with it and everyone will love me because I Got Brexit Done. A similar delusion infected the rest of the Tory Party. Some of them haven't been disabused of the notion even yet.
I have to say, as a brexiteer - and a onetime Boris supporter - I find it hard to argue with this. He was a grave disappointment, like the rest of his party. Yes Covid yes Ukraine but still
It’s actually worse for me to admit this because I genuinely believe he has political talent and he’s certainly a good campaigner, he’s definitely smart and he had that big majority…..
Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France.
Can anyone advise how to read a twix thread without subscribing to X?
I asked the question last week that while a lot of focus has been the numbers of people coming into the UK, there is an awful lot of people leaving. Who are they, and have been been quietly suffering a wealth and brain drain. The answer is yes.
The UK is no longer attractive to high net worth individuals, both looking to move to the UK and those who currently in the UK are leaving. As they pay 30% of the tax take, means more tax for everybody else to pay.
Yes. The implications for the UK tax base are horrendous. And Labour will make it worse
Mandy's comments about MRP's are worthy of a little more than dismissal?
Has anyone published a really comprehensive study of their accuracy across the board and in all elections since their inception? Was it just that one YouGov last time which hit bullseye? An analysis in one place from most to least accurate MRPs would be great.
Re GB News viewer poll. That will shut up Jon Sopel who claimed that its viewers are dominated by Reform voters and thus shows that it is a dangerous propaganda channel. And that BBC / ITV viewer breakdowns much more in line with national polling so perfectly balanced. Strangely he also forgot to mention Ch4 News viewer are massively bias to left wing parties, but that isn't a dangerous propaganda news outlet in his book.
The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.
This graph says otherwise. Look at the dates.
For once, William, we're in agreement.
Blair/Brown perpetuated Thatcher's bigger mistakes. There's a lesson there for the 'continuity of policy in the first term' crew.
The first year of your first term is when you set the agenda for the rest of that term - and the next, if you're both competent and lucky.
Labour don't want too many young people owning homes though and becoming Tories
That sort of nonsense us part of the problem.
If it were true, why didn't they restart building council houses ?
They just copied Thatcher on housing.
Changing circumstances though - Thatcher didn't have population growth, Labour did.
We had sufficient new housing builds happening in the eighties and early 90s that people could get their own property. Its from the late 90s onwards that the problem became bad.
You're making excuses for what was poor policy. Thatcher sold council houses - and pocketed most of the proceeds. It was part of the sell assets to finance current spending that's been tested to destruction over the following decades.
I won't go into MIRAS etc, which helped fuel the house price boom.
Its not poor policy, its great policy that enabled people to own their own homes.
Had construction kept pace with population growth and demographic change then others could and should have subsequently too.
It makes no difference whether homes are privately owned or council owned, the problem is we do not have enough homes in this country. We need to build, build, build millions more.
Sold at a massive loss to the taxpayer, makes Brown's gold sell-off look like small change.
Nonsense. Best fielder in the world, very useful at boundary hitting and very experienced at the death. His competition in this tournament, is Mark Wood, who has been poor, the pace on seems very nice for batters in the WI conditions and Sam Curran is looking very easy to hit. Topley has also been way below his best.
I drop Curran and bring in Jacks, for an extra top quality smasher.
I think I would have taken Luke Wood or Tymal Mills if you wanted extra left arm pace option. Curran has been below his best for quite a while.
The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.
Tell that to the hundreds of thousand dead and maimed Iraqis we helped cause.
Whatever else you can lay at the door of this Government, nothing - and I mean NOTHING - will ever come close to that obscenity from your "greatest government".
The Tories supported the Iraq War.
It was the LibDems who opposed it.
IDS supported it.
Ken Clark did not.
"Ken Clark[e] did not." You present that as, what, evidence that the Tories weren't enthusiastic participants in this horror. Well, look at these figures:
Party, % voted for war, votes for - votes against UUP 100.0% 6 - 0 DUP 100.0% 5 - 0 Independent Conservative 100.0% 1 - 0 Conservative 98.6% 146 - 2 Labour 75.1% 254 - 84 ------ SDLP 0.0% 0 - 1 Independent Community and Health Concern 0.0% 0 - 1 SNP 0.0% 0 - 5 Lib Dem 0.0% 0 - 52
3 Labour tellers, 1 Conservative.
Guess what? Ken Clarke wasn't among the voters. So he wasn't even among the three Conservatives (2 + 1 teller) who said no.
As you can see from the above figures the Conservatives were even more enthusiastic for the war than even Labour were
My question is, have they ever apologised for this? Labour did.
I have access behind the i paywall. There's no more detail there though about VI in Richmond. It also discloses that: "Sir Keir Starmer’s constituents were also polled, and the Labour leader is unsurprisingly set to win his Holborn and St Pancras seat convincingly with 54 per cent of voters there backing him." TBH, in present circumstances, 54% seems quite low for a safe Labour seat, but there's no detail about who is getting the rest.
Also both small polls: "Survation, a member of the British Polling Council, interviewed 507 adults in Richmond and 502 in Holborn between 12 and 21 June by telephone and online."
Re GB News viewer poll. That will shut up Jon Sopel who claimed that its viewers are dominated by Reform voters and thus shows that it is a dangerous propaganda channel. And that BBC / ITV viewer breakdowns much more in line with national polling so perfectly balanced. Strangely he also forgot to mention Ch4 News viewer are massively bias to left wing parties, but that isn't a dangerous propaganda news outlet in his book.
I overheard a GB News lady talking on the train the other day. She was saying that most of their viewers vote Labour, and was claiming that they get a wide range of viewpoints on the channel. I rarely watch it so don’t know if there is much/any truth in her claim?
Labour: 5 Tory:0 RekUK:1 Ashfield Indy: 6 (Including a Survey of Residents, and a "Independent Local News". The latter looks like it has 2 or 3 sub-constituency area editions.) LibDem:0 Green:0
Just skimmed the AI news paper - very dodgy barcharts.
Misleading use of data or proportions, just flat out wrong data?
In past elections all the barcharts I received were accurate, it was disappointing.
Misleading presentation of last GE election.
Out of proportion obvs, and an egregious presentation of Con 19231, Ash Ind 13,498 and Lab 11,971 as "Lee 19231, Jason 13498, Labour 7260 behind). With bars that would roughly match 19231, 17000 and 6000 respectively.
Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?
J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16) CON 24% (+1) LAB 38% (-2) LDM 8% (-1) GRN 3% (-2) RFM 25% (+7)
Bit of a shocker I thought.
EDIT - THIS IS A POLL OF GB NEWS VIEWERS
Tories only 1% behind Reform with GB news viewers not bad for Rishi, Labour on 38% with GB news viewers not bad for Starmer either.
If Farage can't even win GB news viewers by a landslide who should be his core vote, who can he win?
Now just get the target in a little under 20 overs and we will be fine for the SF 👍
We're playing those titans of world cricket, the United States.
It's the equivalent of us going into halftime 3 up against San Marino or Gibraltar.
The same United States who beat Pakistan and ran South Africa very close, and qualified for the Super 8s? Your post is pretty patronising TBH. Uncharacteristic of you and pretty ill-informed.
In any case, England can only beat what is put in front of them.
Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?
J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16) CON 24% (+1) LAB 38% (-2) LDM 8% (-1) GRN 3% (-2) RFM 25% (+7)
Bit of a shocker I thought.
EDIT - THIS IS A POLL OF GB NEWS VIEWERS
Tories only 1% behind Reform with GB news viewers not bad for Rishi, Labour on 38% with GB news viewers not bad for Starmer either.
If Farage can't even win GB news viewers by a landslide who should be his core vote, who can he win?
Re GB News viewer poll. That will shut up Jon Sopel who claimed that its viewers are dominated by Reform voters and thus shows that it is a dangerous propaganda channel. And that BBC / ITV viewer breakdowns much more in line with national polling so perfectly balanced. Strangely he also forgot to mention Ch4 News viewer are massively bias to left wing parties, but that isn't a dangerous propaganda news outlet in his book.
I overheard a GB News lady talking on the train the other day. She was saying that most of their viewers vote Labour, and was claiming that they get a wide range of viewpoints on the channel. I rarely watch it so don’t know if there is much/any truth in her claim?
I don't really watch it, but I thinks its a weird channel. They have the really weirdo presenters, who seem to have the cult following (and the boreathon everything is woke), but and then a lot of very centrist used to be on Sky News types like Stephen Dixon. I think they do have discussion panels with a range of views, where range is extreme of both sides e.g. Novara News people for the left view.
TBH, I don't understand their business model at all. Maybe they are attracting Red Wall Labour type people, I don't know?
I don’t think Sunak deserves to lose his seat . He hasn’t helped himself but the Tories problems started with Partygate and further imploded with Truss .
I’m still incredulous at the list of Tories who yearn for the return of Bozo , it’s like they just think the country is going to forget he’s a proven pathological liar who would have served a long Commons suspension if he hadn’t resigned to avoid that .
If Tories still think he’s part of the solution then they’re utterly deluded .
I think the Tories problems started with Brexit that then led to Boris. Nothing else.
Truss was just a blip and Sunak is just the unfortunate sod who inherited the mess.
Brexit and Boris - Nothing else. The combination may well have destroyed the party.
Brexit fundamentally is the cause but Johnson's 2019 win was actually long term a disaster for the party as it removed it even further from its core support. It worked because of Jeremy Corbyn.
I agree but just to clarify:
Boris won in 2019 for 2 reasons:
1) Get Brexit done 2) Corbyn
But 'Get Brexit done' was the main reason. Remember in 2017 Corbyn was there then. May ran a disastrous election admittedly which didn't help, but Corbyn was there still. The big Tory majority was in 2019 and the big difference was 'Get Brexit done'
So Boris only got to be PM because of the shambles after Brexit caused by the cocked up Brexit. And Boris primarily won in 2019 on the basis of getting Brexit done. All else stems from that.
Yes, this take is also mine. Brexit (with help from Corbyn) delivered power to the gravely unsuitable Johnson and that has led to this. A denuded of quality, narrow minded, exhausted by squabbling Tory Party.
I don’t think Sunak deserves to lose his seat . He hasn’t helped himself but the Tories problems started with Partygate and further imploded with Truss .
I’m still incredulous at the list of Tories who yearn for the return of Bozo , it’s like they just think the country is going to forget he’s a proven pathological liar who would have served a long Commons suspension if he hadn’t resigned to avoid that .
If Tories still think he’s part of the solution then they’re utterly deluded .
I think the Tories problems started with Brexit that then led to Boris. Nothing else.
Truss was just a blip and Sunak is just the unfortunate sod who inherited the mess.
Brexit and Boris - Nothing else. The combination may well have destroyed the party.
Brexit fundamentally is the cause but Johnson's 2019 win was actually long term a disaster for the party as it removed it even further from its core support. It worked because of Jeremy Corbyn.
I agree but just to clarify:
Boris won in 2019 for 2 reasons:
1) Get Brexit done 2) Corbyn
But 'Get Brexit done' was the main reason. Remember in 2017 Corbyn was there then. May ran a disastrous election admittedly which didn't help, but Corbyn was there still. The big Tory majority was in 2019 and the big difference was 'Get Brexit done'
So Boris only got to be PM because of the shambles after Brexit caused by the cocked up Brexit. And Boris primarily won in 2019 on the basis of getting Brexit done. All else stems from that.
Yes but. Get Brexit done. What that meant to the electorate was deal with the manifold, manifest problems of a country which is going backwards. What that meant to Boris was cobble together any old Brexit, divert funds and contracts to my cronies. Lie. Shag about. Ignore the issues. And I'll get away with it and everyone will love me because I Got Brexit Done. A similar delusion infected the rest of the Tory Party. Some of them haven't been disabused of the notion even yet.
I have to say, as a brexiteer - and a onetime Boris supporter - I find it hard to argue with this. He was a grave disappointment, like the rest of his party. Yes Covid yes Ukraine but still
It’s actually worse for me to admit this because I genuinely believe he has political talent and he’s certainly a good campaigner, he’s definitely smart and he had that big majority…..
And he absolutely spaffed it all up the wall
I think the difference between Mayor Boris and PM Boris was that Mayor Boris' consort was a clever and astute lawyer and PM Boris' consort was nut nut.
Paris aside, on each of my recent visits to France - and I’ve been all over - Brittany, Normandy, Picardy, the Cevennes, Provence, Languedoc - I’ve been struck by the high quality of life. It’s not just the nicer weather - they have good health care, beautiful cities, agreeable food, excellent infrastructure, lots of holidays
They must have one of the highest “qualities of life” in the world. And I’m not just comparing them with fucked up old Britain. They seem to have a superior quality of life to almost anyone in europe (or the world?)
Yes they have problems - migration, crime, but still. Other countries have all that as well and often far worse
Yet the French are so discontented they are voting in their millions for a woman who says France is on the brink of ruin and forget about my Nazi dad only I can save you
WHY?
I’m around now and on the way to the greengrocers.
Good question. Statistically they aren’t doing that badly either. Their most deprived areas are nowhere near as deprived as the worst in Europe, and the average square mile of land in France is almost as pretty as the average square mile of Italy, but with things working more smoothly. Their birth rate is higher than most suggesting household optimism is holding up. But they are grumpy and discontented as hell.
I know many have tried to answer. I have a theory: France, like the French language, is a closed concept with rules. Other cultures - not all - are open source.
The French seem to assess their lives against a canonical notion of France and Frenchness. That involves the supremacy of the country’s constitution and history, its language, its wine, its social fabric. France must be the pinnacle or it is nothing. They find it wanting against this overly tough benchmark.
French is losing influence around the world because of its inflexibility. You don’t want a lingua Franca that you’re going to get constantly corrected on by the natives. French food and drink has also lost ground because of its inflexibility. France hasn’t integrated its migrant populations anywhere near as successfully as Britain because of the same fixed notion of integration that involves a migrant becoming canonically French.
So the people are grumpy. It’s as if France itself is held in an appellation controllee. It’s part of what makes it so charming to me but it means modern life will always be a disappointment.
Isn't it just inflation of expectation, a bit like America and indeed the UK too?
People bank the gains and soon forget, and it just fuels the demand for more as material desires can never be satisfied.
That’s one way to describe it, but I would say it is of a different sort. America and Britain want to be great, the best, world leading, and their people get cross when they’re not (or even, in the USA’s case, when they are). But France requires itself to be the best in a very specific way.
Let’s return to the appellation contrôlée example. An American wine wants to win the best in class trophy or get 98 from Robert Parker. A French wine wants to exhibit “typicity”. Before it can think of winning anything it first must prove it is precisely as you would expect of a wine from that slope in that region.
And rightly so!
Sante! 🍷
If you talk to the small producers, they are a lot less full of that bullshit. They leave it to outfits like Laroche.
That’s the Laroche winery outside Chablis, where Goldfinger is planning Grand Slam.
There are some small producers who have freed themselves a bit of that bullshit, but they are treated as brave pioneers. I remember the column inches devoted to a maverick group of vignerons who had dared to plant Syrah and Viognier in one small vineyard in Beaujolais. It was the most exciting thing ever.
There are also plenty of small producers who absolutely exude the bullshit because they know what side their bread is buttered (though note I do think typicity has its place, we need more of it in English wine).
Saffron Grange is fucking great. I also have a brewer friend who is seriously considering distilling Calvados from English Wine.
When Calvados a Normandy is superior apple jack, or alternatively pear brandy?
I don’t think Sunak deserves to lose his seat . He hasn’t helped himself but the Tories problems started with Partygate and further imploded with Truss .
I’m still incredulous at the list of Tories who yearn for the return of Bozo , it’s like they just think the country is going to forget he’s a proven pathological liar who would have served a long Commons suspension if he hadn’t resigned to avoid that .
If Tories still think he’s part of the solution then they’re utterly deluded .
I think the Tories problems started with Brexit that then led to Boris. Nothing else.
Truss was just a blip and Sunak is just the unfortunate sod who inherited the mess.
Brexit and Boris - Nothing else. The combination may well have destroyed the party.
Brexit fundamentally is the cause but Johnson's 2019 win was actually long term a disaster for the party as it removed it even further from its core support. It worked because of Jeremy Corbyn.
I agree but just to clarify:
Boris won in 2019 for 2 reasons:
1) Get Brexit done 2) Corbyn
But 'Get Brexit done' was the main reason. Remember in 2017 Corbyn was there then. May ran a disastrous election admittedly which didn't help, but Corbyn was there still. The big Tory majority was in 2019 and the big difference was 'Get Brexit done'
So Boris only got to be PM because of the shambles after Brexit caused by the cocked up Brexit. And Boris primarily won in 2019 on the basis of getting Brexit done. All else stems from that.
Yes but. Get Brexit done. What that meant to the electorate was deal with the manifold, manifest problems of a country which is going backwards. What that meant to Boris was cobble together any old Brexit, divert funds and contracts to my cronies. Lie. Shag about. Ignore the issues. And I'll get away with it and everyone will love me because I Got Brexit Done. A similar delusion infected the rest of the Tory Party. Some of them haven't been disabused of the notion even yet.
I have to say, as a brexiteer - and a onetime Boris supporter - I find it hard to argue with this. He was a grave disappointment, like the rest of his party. Yes Covid yes Ukraine but still
It’s actually worse for me to admit this because I genuinely believe he has political talent and he’s certainly a good campaigner, he’s definitely smart and he had that big majority…..
And he absolutely spaffed it all up the wall
I think the difference between Mayor Boris and PM Boris was that Mayor Boris' consort was a clever and astute lawyer and PM Boris' consort was nut nut.
Also different job and he could palm off the boring stuff to the team around him. Boris London Mayor was rah rah rah come to London, its great, bring your business, bring your event etc. Being PM requires lots of tough decisions every day, and the spotlight is constantly on you. You can't get away with the lies as easy nor bonking around.
The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.
This graph says otherwise. Look at the dates.
For once, William, we're in agreement.
Blair/Brown perpetuated Thatcher's bigger mistakes. There's a lesson there for the 'continuity of policy in the first term' crew.
The first year of your first term is when you set the agenda for the rest of that term - and the next, if you're both competent and lucky.
Labour don't want too many young people owning homes though and becoming Tories
That sort of nonsense us part of the problem.
If it were true, why didn't they restart building council houses ?
They just copied Thatcher on housing.
Changing circumstances though - Thatcher didn't have population growth, Labour did.
We had sufficient new housing builds happening in the eighties and early 90s that people could get their own property. Its from the late 90s onwards that the problem became bad.
You're making excuses for what was poor policy. Thatcher sold council houses - and pocketed most of the proceeds. It was part of the sell assets to finance current spending that's been tested to destruction over the following decades.
I won't go into MIRAS etc, which helped fuel the house price boom.
Its not poor policy, its great policy that enabled people to own their own homes.
Had construction kept pace with population growth and demographic change then others could and should have subsequently too.
It makes no difference whether homes are privately owned or council owned, the problem is we do not have enough homes in this country. We need to build, build, build millions more.
Sold at a massive loss to the taxpayer, makes Brown's gold sell-off look like small change.
Well not really. Many things are a loss to the taxpayer but are justified on the grounds of achieving a policy goal or of redistribution. Council house salea.fall.into that bracket. Whereas Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed gamble which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currenct traders.
Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?
J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16) CON 24% (+1) LAB 38% (-2) LDM 8% (-1) GRN 3% (-2) RFM 25% (+7)
Bit of a shocker I thought.
That's a poll of 520 GB News viewers not of all voters.
Why is it Jos Buttler can hit a cricket fall further with one hand than I can do with two hands?
A few years ago he did a brilliant bit with Freddy Flintoff. He could out hit the giant man that is Flintoff by miles. He explained how traditional cricket technique is just wrong if you want to hit it a long way. Its wrist action and hips through the ball, more like a baseball or golf swing.
Livingstone later did a similar piece with KP and we all think KP was awesome at hitting it miles and again he was miles behind power / technique of Livingstone.
Why is it Jos Buttler can hit a cricket fall further with one hand than I can do with two hands?
A few years ago he did a brilliant bit with Freddy Flintoff. He could out hit the giant man that is Flintoff by miles. He explained how traditional cricket technique is just wrong if you want to hit it a long way. Its wrist action and hips through the ball, more like a baseball or golf swing.
A few years ago I stayed at the same hotel as the England cricket team and the biceps on Buttler etc were huge.
Why is it Jos Buttler can hit a cricket fall further with one hand than I can do with two hands?
A few years ago he did a brilliant bit with Freddy Flintoff. He could out hit the giant man that is Flintoff by miles. He explained how traditional cricket technique is just wrong if you want to hit it a long way. Its wrist action and hips through the ball, more like a baseball or golf swing.
A few years ago I stayed at the same hotel as the England cricket team and the biceps on Buttler etc were huge.
Professional athletes on the whole in the modern era are just absolute units. Its why when Stokes got into the punch up in Bristol he was lights out when he smacked the ex-squaddies.
Because everybody is like that you don't really realise unless you see them close up e.g. the rugby guys look large-ish, you see them with a normal human and its just crazy. Kyle Sincker looks like he should be on World's Strongest Man, and Joe Cokanasiga looks like he probably eat a normal human for breakfast.
Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?
J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16) CON 24% (+1) LAB 38% (-2) LDM 8% (-1) GRN 3% (-2) RFM 25% (+7)
Bit of a shocker I thought.
EDIT - THIS IS A POLL OF GB NEWS VIEWERS
Lol!!
Was just going to clarify that key point.
Seems bonkers that Labour has such a lead with GB News fans!
Incredible really. Those are similar percentages to the Goodwin poll from a few days ago.
It seems to imply there are changes from 14-16 June. Why are they doing regular polling of such a tiny population?
Maybe it's the total viewership of GB news
I smelt a rat when I saw that it had been commissioned by GB News.The smell of the rat increased when I looked at Table 3 to find that no less than 41% of the sample had a favourable opinion of Sunak, and it turned into a pretty foul smell when I realised that no less than 49% of the sample population was (despite reweighting) planning to vote for Reform or the Conservatives, matching the total for LLG.
If it's a sample drawn from GB News viewers, that would explain a lot. The problem is that the association between GB News viewing and voting behaviour is probably stronger than the association between voting and pretty well any other factor used to try and reweight the poll. As in a lot of other polling, reweighting is not a panacea that can transform a badly skewed sample. It's not a problem for GB News of course, rather it's produced the result that it was designed to, ramping Reform to pander to their audience.
I'm surprised that an international company like JL Partners are prepared to risk their reputation with such stuff.
When are we expecting the next effort by Goodwin's PutinPolling, by the way?
I don't think it reflects poorly on JL Partners at all. Lots of organisations commission polls of view intention of their members/viewers, e.g. of teachers, or farmers, etc, and JL Partners on twitter were clear that it was a poll of GB News viewers - i.e. of a subset of the population, rather than of the whole population.
The problem is that people on Wikipedia have decided to put this poll in the same table as all the other polls which are nationally representative polls. They're polls of different things and should not be in the same table.
Why is it Jos Buttler can hit a cricket fall further with one hand than I can do with two hands?
A few years ago he did a brilliant bit with Freddy Flintoff. He could out hit the giant man that is Flintoff by miles. He explained how traditional cricket technique is just wrong if you want to hit it a long way. Its wrist action and hips through the ball, more like a baseball or golf swing.
A few years ago I stayed at the same hotel as the England cricket team and the biceps on Buttler etc were huge.
You've obviously taken on board the comments about condescending posts then.
Why is it Jos Buttler can hit a cricket fall further with one hand than I can do with two hands?
A few years ago he did a brilliant bit with Freddy Flintoff. He could out hit the giant man that is Flintoff by miles. He explained how traditional cricket technique is just wrong if you want to hit it a long way. Its wrist action and hips through the ball, more like a baseball or golf swing.
A few years ago I stayed at the same hotel as the England cricket team and the biceps on Buttler etc were huge.
Blimey it’s all getting a bit homo-erotic on here this afternoon. Horse wanting to hawk tuah on Sir Keir, you salivating over Buttler’s biceps and how Livingstone can knock one out with one hand.
I've realised if the Tories do get gubbed on the 4th of July then that means I will be doing a lot of AV/electoral reform threads during the next parliament as the Tories will bang on about how unfair FPTP is .
I've realised if the Tories do get gubbed on the 4th of July then that means I will be doing a lot of AV/electoral reform threads during the next parliament as the Tories will bang on about how unfair FPTP is .
I am so excited.
You prepared to tell us what you think the result will be?
I've realised if the Tories do get gubbed on the 4th of July then that means I will be doing a lot of AV/electoral reform threads during the next parliament as the Tories will bang on about how unfair FPTP is .
I am so excited.
Youre assuming there are going to be some Tories left.
I've realised if the Tories do get gubbed on the 4th of July then that means I will be doing a lot of AV/electoral reform threads during the next parliament as the Tories will bang on about how unfair FPTP is .
I am so excited.
Youre assuming there are going to be some Tories left.
Yes, in Rutland County Council and the like. Still need voting systems.
I've realised if the Tories do get gubbed on the 4th of July then that means I will be doing a lot of AV/electoral reform threads during the next parliament as the Tories will bang on about how unfair FPTP is .
I am so excited.
Youre assuming there are going to be some Tories left.
Yes, in Rutland County Council and the like. Still need voting systems.
I didnt have you down as a card carrying Tory. Your desperate optimism will only lead to disappointment.
The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.
This graph says otherwise. Look at the dates.
For once, William, we're in agreement.
Blair/Brown perpetuated Thatcher's bigger mistakes. There's a lesson there for the 'continuity of policy in the first term' crew.
The first year of your first term is when you set the agenda for the rest of that term - and the next, if you're both competent and lucky.
Labour don't want too many young people owning homes though and becoming Tories
That sort of nonsense us part of the problem.
If it were true, why didn't they restart building council houses ?
They just copied Thatcher on housing.
Changing circumstances though - Thatcher didn't have population growth, Labour did.
We had sufficient new housing builds happening in the eighties and early 90s that people could get their own property. Its from the late 90s onwards that the problem became bad.
You're making excuses for what was poor policy. Thatcher sold council houses - and pocketed most of the proceeds. It was part of the sell assets to finance current spending that's been tested to destruction over the following decades.
I won't go into MIRAS etc, which helped fuel the house price boom.
Its not poor policy, its great policy that enabled people to own their own homes.
Had construction kept pace with population growth and demographic change then others could and should have subsequently too.
It makes no difference whether homes are privately owned or council owned, the problem is we do not have enough homes in this country. We need to build, build, build millions more.
Sold at a massive loss to the taxpayer, makes Brown's gold sell-off look like small change.
Well not really. Many things are a loss to the taxpayer but are justified on the grounds of achieving a policy goal or of redistribution. Council house salea.fall.into that bracket. Whereas Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed gamble which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currenct traders.
It wasn’t a gamble. It was once and forever asset allocation switch out of gold and into interest bearing foreign currency - ie reserves management not active in and out trading for 'profit' or 'loss'. Whether it was done as efficiently as it could have been is a separate question.
The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.
This graph says otherwise. Look at the dates.
For once, William, we're in agreement.
Blair/Brown perpetuated Thatcher's bigger mistakes. There's a lesson there for the 'continuity of policy in the first term' crew.
The first year of your first term is when you set the agenda for the rest of that term - and the next, if you're both competent and lucky.
Labour don't want too many young people owning homes though and becoming Tories
That sort of nonsense us part of the problem.
If it were true, why didn't they restart building council houses ?
They just copied Thatcher on housing.
Changing circumstances though - Thatcher didn't have population growth, Labour did.
We had sufficient new housing builds happening in the eighties and early 90s that people could get their own property. Its from the late 90s onwards that the problem became bad.
You're making excuses for what was poor policy. Thatcher sold council houses - and pocketed most of the proceeds. It was part of the sell assets to finance current spending that's been tested to destruction over the following decades.
I won't go into MIRAS etc, which helped fuel the house price boom.
Its not poor policy, its great policy that enabled people to own their own homes.
Had construction kept pace with population growth and demographic change then others could and should have subsequently too.
It makes no difference whether homes are privately owned or council owned, the problem is we do not have enough homes in this country. We need to build, build, build millions more.
Sold at a massive loss to the taxpayer, makes Brown's gold sell-off look like small change.
Well not really. Many things are a loss to the taxpayer but are justified on the grounds of achieving a policy goal or of redistribution. Council house salea.fall.into that bracket. Whereas Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed gamble which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currenct traders.
Though those former council houses are BTL now, so the same renters just with privatised revenue.
I've realised if the Tories do get gubbed on the 4th of July then that means I will be doing a lot of AV/electoral reform threads during the next parliament as the Tories will bang on about how unfair FPTP is .
I am so excited.
Youre assuming there are going to be some Tories left.
Yes, I was playing round with some extreme scenarios, and I reckon it is possible that Scotland will return more Tory MPs than the SNP.
I've realised if the Tories do get gubbed on the 4th of July then that means I will be doing a lot of AV/electoral reform threads during the next parliament as the Tories will bang on about how unfair FPTP is .
I am so excited.
Youre assuming there are going to be some Tories left.
Yes, I was playing round with some extreme scenarios, and I reckon it is possible that Scotland will return more Tory MPs than the SNP.
Thought you were going to end the sentence with “England” as I was reading it…
I've realised if the Tories do get gubbed on the 4th of July then that means I will be doing a lot of AV/electoral reform threads during the next parliament as the Tories will bang on about how unfair FPTP is .
I am so excited.
Youre assuming there are going to be some Tories left.
Yes, I was playing round with some extreme scenarios, and I reckon it is possible that Scotland will return more Tory MPs than the SNP.
I've realised if the Tories do get gubbed on the 4th of July then that means I will be doing a lot of AV/electoral reform threads during the next parliament as the Tories will bang on about how unfair FPTP is .
I am so excited.
Youre assuming there are going to be some Tories left.
Yes, in Rutland County Council and the like. Still need voting systems.
I didnt have you down as a card carrying Tory. Your desperate optimism will only lead to disappointment.
Not me. The Rutland Dinosaur (which I have seen, on a visit to the museum in Leicester).
The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
I still think he is seriously under threat as there's an undercurrent of rebellious former Tories eagerly wanting to make history, but Richmond is one of those seats that should never be in play, especially when a senior Minister is the MP.
Now it can be told. That back during the 2001 UK GE, yours truly absconded with a William Hague yardsign from a farm field in the vicinity of Richmond, Yorkshire. There were a fair number of such signs dotting the landscape in WH's then-constituency, where he was re-elected without difficulty.
So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
A lot of gossip on the Westminster grapevine that the election betting scandal may be about to take a devastating new turn for the Tories. 👀
I've heard similar.
Is this something that might see them Sunk?
Not the story I have heard.
Right now the story is for bets up to £100 and £3k matched on Betfair which as I said the other day is pretty low level.
Plus a lot of (political) journalists don't understand how the exchanges and spreads work so they are having to outsource stuff.
I was going to say, I'm not sure how this sinks them. Puts a few new holes in the superstructure sure, but HMS Tory is already looking like an Able Baker target. Sunak would have to have bet against himself to really hurt them.
I've realised if the Tories do get gubbed on the 4th of July then that means I will be doing a lot of AV/electoral reform threads during the next parliament as the Tories will bang on about how unfair FPTP is .
I am so excited.
Youre assuming there are going to be some Tories left.
Yes, in Rutland County Council and the like. Still need voting systems.
I have been eavesdropping for an hour in Spoons waiting for a very delayed friend and have yet to hear even a passing mention of the election.
This is a "chuck the buggers out" election but also a boring one, because we know the main result. Does that mean they average out, and we get an ordinary turnout, or does it mean a low turnout. I'm leaning towards low.
The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.
This graph says otherwise. Look at the dates.
For once, William, we're in agreement.
Blair/Brown perpetuated Thatcher's bigger mistakes. There's a lesson there for the 'continuity of policy in the first term' crew.
The first year of your first term is when you set the agenda for the rest of that term - and the next, if you're both competent and lucky.
Labour don't want too many young people owning homes though and becoming Tories
That sort of nonsense us part of the problem.
If it were true, why didn't they restart building council houses ?
They just copied Thatcher on housing.
Changing circumstances though - Thatcher didn't have population growth, Labour did.
We had sufficient new housing builds happening in the eighties and early 90s that people could get their own property. Its from the late 90s onwards that the problem became bad.
You're making excuses for what was poor policy. Thatcher sold council houses - and pocketed most of the proceeds. It was part of the sell assets to finance current spending that's been tested to destruction over the following decades.
I won't go into MIRAS etc, which helped fuel the house price boom.
Its not poor policy, its great policy that enabled people to own their own homes.
Had construction kept pace with population growth and demographic change then others could and should have subsequently too.
It makes no difference whether homes are privately owned or council owned, the problem is we do not have enough homes in this country. We need to build, build, build millions more.
Sold at a massive loss to the taxpayer, makes Brown's gold sell-off look like small change.
Well not really. Many things are a loss to the taxpayer but are justified on the grounds of achieving a policy goal or of redistribution. Council house salea.fall.into that bracket. Whereas Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed gamble which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currenct traders.
It wasn’t a gamble. It was once and forever asset allocation switch out of gold and into interest bearing foreign currency - ie reserves management not active in and out trading for 'profit' or 'loss'. Whether it was done as efficiently as it could have been is a separate question.
Fine. Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed "once and forever asset allocation switch" which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currency traders.
Comments
4 wickets in the first 5 balls of his over.
Now just get the target in a little under 20 overs and we will be fine for the SF 👍
If it's a sample drawn from GB News viewers, that would explain a lot. The problem is that the association between GB News viewing and voting behaviour is probably stronger than the association between voting and pretty well any other factor used to try and reweight the poll. As in a lot of other polling, reweighting is not a panacea that can transform a badly skewed sample. It's not a problem for GB News of course, rather it's produced the result that it was designed to, ramping Reform to pander to their audience.
I'm surprised that an international company like JL Partners are prepared to risk their reputation with such stuff.
When are we expecting the next effort by Goodwin's PutinPolling, by the way?
However that would have produced the normal change of Government we experience in the electoral cycle and not predictions of Tory wipe outs. OK it might not happen, but damn it everyone is talking about it, which in itself is unique.
You’re going to give yourself an aneurysm.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
I will be in Italy for a conference by the way so this is my first postal vote ever.... it feels weird not going to the booth.
Get Brexit done.
What that meant to the electorate was deal with the manifold, manifest problems of a country which is going backwards.
What that meant to Boris was cobble together any old Brexit, divert funds and contracts to my cronies. Lie. Shag about. Ignore the issues.
And I'll get away with it and everyone will love me because I Got Brexit Done.
A similar delusion infected the rest of the Tory Party.
Some of them haven't been disabused of the notion even yet.
https://nitter.poast.org/bswud/status/1804899087197564950
For alternate versions of nitter, see also
https://status.d420.de/
It's the equivalent of us going into halftime 3 up against San Marino or Gibraltar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6DSENMFVmg
The UK is no longer attractive to high net worth individuals, both looking to move to the UK and those who currently in the UK are leaving. As they pay 30% of the tax take, means more tax for everybody else to pay.
https://nitter.poast.org/bswud/status/1804899087197564950
Edit - already provided I see.
It’s actually worse for me to admit this because I genuinely believe he has political talent and he’s certainly a good campaigner, he’s definitely smart and he had that big majority…..
And he absolutely spaffed it all up the wall
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1770175108939681937.html
Has anyone published a really comprehensive study of their accuracy across the board and in all elections since their inception? Was it just that one YouGov last time which hit bullseye? An analysis in one place from most to least accurate MRPs would be great.
https://mcmansionhell.com/post/753995496320892928/the-motel-room-or-on-datedness
If we get the target in 18.4 overs or less we are in the SF (per Sky)
I drop Curran and bring in Jacks, for an extra top quality smasher.
I think I would have taken Luke Wood or Tymal Mills if you wanted extra left arm pace option. Curran has been below his best for quite a while.
You present that as, what, evidence that the Tories weren't enthusiastic participants in this horror. Well, look at these figures:
Party, % voted for war, votes for - votes against
UUP 100.0% 6 - 0
DUP 100.0% 5 - 0
Independent Conservative 100.0% 1 - 0
Conservative 98.6% 146 - 2
Labour 75.1% 254 - 84
------
SDLP 0.0% 0 - 1
Independent Community and Health Concern 0.0% 0 - 1
SNP 0.0% 0 - 5
Lib Dem 0.0% 0 - 52
3 Labour tellers, 1 Conservative.
Guess what? Ken Clarke wasn't among the voters. So he wasn't even among the three Conservatives (2 + 1 teller) who said no.
As you can see from the above figures the Conservatives were even more enthusiastic for the war than even Labour were
My question is, have they ever apologised for this? Labour did.
Also both small polls: "Survation, a member of the British Polling Council, interviewed 507 adults in Richmond and 502 in Holborn between 12 and 21 June by telephone and online."
Introducing Rudolf Otto to LEON is like feeding Cancale Renommée oysters to a kune-kune.
If Farage can't even win GB news viewers by a landslide who should be his core vote, who can he win?
In any case, England can only beat what is put in front of them.
Indeed if the Tories get 39% that is actually still higher than the 37% Hague got in the old Richmond seat when he was first elected in the 1989 by election when the SDP were closer than Labour are now with 32%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_(Yorks)_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
TBH, I don't understand their business model at all. Maybe they are attracting Red Wall Labour type people, I don't know?
We're going to shit the bed here.
It has worked.
Coincidence?
I think not.
https://x.com/Samfr/status/1804913573946114415
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/23/rishi-sunak-startup-fund-pulls-plug-dozens-companies/
Thanks for the kune-kune though. New one on me.
Labour’s Stella Creasy has windows smashed and ‘genocide’ graffiti daubed at office
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/23/labours-stella-creasy-has-windows-smashed-and-graffiti/
Livingstone later did a similar piece with KP and we all think KP was awesome at hitting it miles and again he was miles behind power / technique of Livingstone.
Because everybody is like that you don't really realise unless you see them close up e.g. the rugby guys look large-ish, you see them with a normal human and its just crazy. Kyle Sincker looks like he should be on World's Strongest Man, and Joe Cokanasiga looks like he probably eat a normal human for breakfast.
The problem is that people on Wikipedia have decided to put this poll in the same table as all the other polls which are nationally representative polls. They're polls of different things and should not be in the same table.
Yawn.
At least it might scare off the Putin-bots.
https://x.com/oflynnsocial/status/1804914132581220559
A lot of gossip on the Westminster grapevine that the election betting scandal may be about to take a devastating new turn for the Tories. 👀
I am so excited.
Labour: 380-420 seats
Tories 80-150 seats
Lib Dems 30-70 seats
dave lawrence 🐟🐟🐠
@dave43law
5-1 on Sunak , evens on Shapps as he could have used 5 names 🤣🤣
Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?
The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.
From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.
So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
Right now the story is for bets up to £100 and £3k matched on Betfair which as I said the other day is pretty low level.
Plus a lot of (political) journalists don't understand how the exchanges and spreads work so they are having to outsource stuff.
https://www.rsllibdems.org.uk/news/article/big-gains-for-the-liberal-democrats
The times they are a changing...
This is a "chuck the buggers out" election but also a boring one, because we know the main result. Does that mean they average out, and we get an ordinary turnout, or does it mean a low turnout. I'm leaning towards low.