There's a remarkable large gap between the two NEV shares:
Sky NEV (Rallings & Thrasher methodology): Reform 27, Con 20, Lab 15, Green 14, LD 14, Ind 10
BBC PNS (Curtice / Fisher / English): Reform 26, Green 18, Lab 17, Con 17, LD 16
They agree the LDs were last, either alone or joint last. They agree Reform won most votes, they agree Labour failed to beat the Conservatives on NEV.
Where they disagree is on the Greens and Tories, Sky has the Tories a clear second with Labour just ahead of the Greens on NEV, the BBC had the Greens a narrow second
Well, on one the LDs are level with the Conservatives... and on the other they're six points behind. That's a massive difference.
The Tories are ahead of the LDs with both, just by 6% with Sky and 1% with the BBC NEV
You are correct, and I am wrong.
Still, on one the Conservatives get almost 50% more votes than the LDs, and on the other, they're practically level.
They can't both be right.
Neither is "right", they're both statistical predictions based on the votes cast last Thursday.
Still. The metric of X will resign if they don't come second on NEV is rather stymied by no one knowing for certain who came second. If the Greens got 18% and came second that's a stunningly good result. 14% and fifth disappointing.
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
A pathetic 5th finishing 214 seats behind the Tories closing the gap from 1218 at start of play.
momentum
Sure: the Greens made progress and gained a lot of seats. But these were also a near perfect election for them to stand in: the London Boroughs, Oxford, Bristol, Exeter - all places absolutely stuffed with students. They also fell back in places where their Gaza stance had previously been a differentiator.
Now, if I'm Polanski, am I unhappy? No. But I'm probably a little disappointed: 14% NEV is well below national opinion polls for the Greens.
Was 19 % and second place according to Curtice.
Curtice has them at 18%. Sky News at 14%.
I would like to see the workings on both those numbers.
Well indeed. I confess I've never really understood NEV. Firstly. There are two sets of figures, always different, occasionally, quite substantially. Such as this example. Then there is the fact that it extrapolates the votes of areas which haven't voted. One of the big takeaways was lack of any national pattern, with all Parties producing surprising results. Wouldn't it just be easier to total all the votes cast and see if it has gone up or down or whatever?
Yes it is easier. It is also less accurate.
None of it is especially accurate or useful given the volatility inherent in our politics and best part of 3 years to an election anyway.
It isn't though. It's more accurate. Because it would only count votes actually cast. And we wouldn't be wondering if the Greens came second or fifth, or whether the Tories were six ahead of the Lib Dems or level.
More accurate in terms of predicting national vote share.
What you are suggesting is more definitive in giving the party order for the local results but it is not more accurate for GE predictions. Some people had no voting in their area, some have 1 vote, others would have had multiple votes, this year I had 3 votes, other years I have 0.
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
A pathetic 5th finishing 214 seats behind the Tories closing the gap from 1218 at start of play.
momentum
Sure: the Greens made progress and gained a lot of seats. But these were also a near perfect election for them to stand in: the London Boroughs, Oxford, Bristol, Exeter - all places absolutely stuffed with students. They also fell back in places where their Gaza stance had previously been a differentiator.
Now, if I'm Polanski, am I unhappy? No. But I'm probably a little disappointed: 14% NEV is well below national opinion polls for the Greens.
Was 19 % and second place according to Curtice.
Curtice has them at 18%. Sky News at 14%.
I would like to see the workings on both those numbers.
Well indeed. I confess I've never really understood NEV. Firstly. There are two sets of figures, always different, occasionally, quite substantially. Such as this example. Then there is the fact that it extrapolates the votes of areas which haven't voted. One of the big takeaways was lack of any national pattern, with all Parties producing surprising results. Wouldn't it just be easier to total all the votes cast and see if it has gone up or down or whatever?
Yes it is easier. It is also less accurate.
None of it is especially accurate or useful given the volatility inherent in our politics and best part of 3 years to an election anyway.
It isn't though. It's more accurate. Because it would only count votes actually cast. And we wouldn't be wondering if the Greens came second or fifth, or whether the Tories were six ahead of the Lib Dems or level.
More accurate in terms of predicting national vote share.
What you are suggesting is more definitive in giving the party order for the local results but it is not more accurate for GE predictions. Some people had no voting in their area, some have 1 vote, others would have had multiple votes, this year I had 3 votes, other years I have 0.
And most had their vote invented. Seriously. Does anyone have a scooby how the SW would have voted. Would the Tory share in Devon behave like Hampshire or Sussex? Or completely differently?
Why not party X has seen their vote rise/fall by x %?
Still. The metric of X will resign if they don't come second on NEV is rather stymied by no one knowing for certain who came second. If the Greens got 18% and came second that's a stunningly good result. 14% and fifth disappointing.
I always thought the idea that this would all come down to NEV predictions was for the birds.
The fact of the matter is that vibes are more important than votes. It was clear long before last Thursday that Badenoch had done enough to keep her job for now, and that the focus would be on Labour.
Still. The metric of X will resign if they don't come second on NEV is rather stymied by no one knowing for certain who came second. If the Greens got 18% and came second that's a stunningly good result. 14% and fifth disappointing.
I bought three "Roman coins" found in Britain, from a metal detectorist, to go on my Wondersill (TM)
They are very humble things, which is why the trio cost me £10 total. But when you dig it into them, they become evermore fascinating
First is the Gloria Exercitvs (c 330-341 AD) - a Constantinian "follis/nummus"
This was minted at the end of a century of debasement. Cheap bronze with a hint of silver, now gone. It would have bought a loaf of decent bread, an evening at the baths, a cup of wine in a tavern, or a small portion of olives or cheese. The kind of coin a soldier would toss to a beggar. A tiny but brilliant insight into Roman life in the late Empire
Second is a Gallic Empire radiate (c 270-274 AD) - an antoninianus of Tetricus or similar
This also came at the end of a period of debasement. Brilliantly, and however, it was the right coin to buy one bunk-up in a cheap army brothel (judging by rates in Britain at the time). So it fits my history
Third isn't even Roman at all. The guy on eBay misidentified it. The last coin is a Nuremberg jeton from the 17th century. And it's not even a coin, it's a token for calculation: a merchant or tax collector in some half-timbered German hall would push these tokens around squares representing units - tens, hundreds, thousands, to do his sums. How did it end up in a muddy British field?
All that for £10. Cost of a London pint
I honestly recommend looking for metal detectorist "job lots". They find so much stuff they don't really check what it is, unless it glints of silver or gold, so they sell it in modest bulk, and you can find amazing things, by looking harder
*goes back on eBay*
A week ago they were delivered to someone by Amazon drone. That’s how they ended up in a muddy field, where your detectorist found them and sold them to you.
“We have to face up to the fact every single one of them is fucking useless. Andy’s strategy has been a disaster. Angela has bottled it. Ed clearly a hiding to nothing. Wes is AWOL. God knows what Catherine West is doing. I am not quite sure how we ended up here.”
A 'policy' of drift. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
If you are a teacher in an academy school (not local authority maintained) can you be a councillor for that council area?
Yes only civil servants and local council workers and judges and police (apart from Parish councils) can't
Depends how senior a Civil Servant you are. When I started working in an Education quango I could stand for a council that didn't have an education authority.
You can be a teacher or a contractor for work done within the local authority provided the authority is not the employer. We had a Cumbria County Council Officer whose work was contracted out to Crapita and when that happened he was elected a right thinking councillor. However when the contract failed and was brought back in house he ceased to be a member and so there was a by-election. All this in the four years I was a county councillor.
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
A pathetic 5th finishing 214 seats behind the Tories closing the gap from 1218 at start of play.
momentum
Sure: the Greens made progress and gained a lot of seats. But these were also a near perfect election for them to stand in: the London Boroughs, Oxford, Bristol, Exeter - all places absolutely stuffed with students. They also fell back in places where their Gaza stance had previously been a differentiator.
Now, if I'm Polanski, am I unhappy? No. But I'm probably a little disappointed: 14% NEV is well below national opinion polls for the Greens.
Was 19 % and second place according to Curtice.
Curtice has them at 18%. Sky News at 14%.
I would like to see the workings on both those numbers.
Well indeed. I confess I've never really understood NEV. Firstly. There are two sets of figures, always different, occasionally, quite substantially. Such as this example. Then there is the fact that it extrapolates the votes of areas which haven't voted. One of the big takeaways was lack of any national pattern, with all Parties producing surprising results. Wouldn't it just be easier to total all the votes cast and see if it has gone up or down or whatever?
Yes it is easier. It is also less accurate.
None of it is especially accurate or useful given the volatility inherent in our politics and best part of 3 years to an election anyway.
It isn't though. It's more accurate. Because it would only count votes actually cast. And we wouldn't be wondering if the Greens came second or fifth, or whether the Tories were six ahead of the Lib Dems or level.
More accurate in terms of predicting national vote share.
What you are suggesting is more definitive in giving the party order for the local results but it is not more accurate for GE predictions. Some people had no voting in their area, some have 1 vote, others would have had multiple votes, this year I had 3 votes, other years I have 0.
And most had their vote invented. Seriously. Does anyone have a scooby how the SW would have voted. Would the Tory share in Devon behave like Hampshire or Sussex? Or completely differently?
Why not party X has seen their vote rise/fall by x %?
I don't think it important as I don't think current voter intention is that important for a 2029 GE. But for those that do, NEV is the best modelling available - it is imperfect at the best of times (stable, consistent) and worse this year with added volatility and localisation, but it is still better than the alternatives. A bit like Starmer's government perhaps.
I bought three "Roman coins" found in Britain, from a metal detectorist, to go on my Wondersill (TM)
They are very humble things, which is why the trio cost me £10 total. But when you dig it into them, they become evermore fascinating
First is the Gloria Exercitvs (c 330-341 AD) - a Constantinian "follis/nummus"
This was minted at the end of a century of debasement. Cheap bronze with a hint of silver, now gone. It would have bought a loaf of decent bread, an evening at the baths, a cup of wine in a tavern, or a small portion of olives or cheese. The kind of coin a soldier would toss to a beggar. A tiny but brilliant insight into Roman life in the late Empire
Second is a Gallic Empire radiate (c 270-274 AD) - an antoninianus of Tetricus or similar
This also came at the end of a period of debasement. Brilliantly, and however, it was the right coin to buy one bunk-up in a cheap army brothel (judging by rates in Britain at the time). So it fits my history
Third isn't even Roman at all. The guy on eBay misidentified it. The last coin is a Nuremberg jeton from the 17th century. And it's not even a coin, it's a token for calculation: a merchant or tax collector in some half-timbered German hall would push these tokens around squares representing units - tens, hundreds, thousands, to do his sums. How did it end up in a muddy British field?
All that for £10. Cost of a London pint
I honestly recommend looking for metal detectorist "job lots". They find so much stuff they don't really check what it is, unless it glints of silver or gold, so they sell it in modest bulk, and you can find amazing things, by looking harder
*goes back on eBay*
I'm going to recommend the brilliant History of English podcast again. Stupendous both in terms of scale and ambition.
Hmmm... it still doesn't *really* give us that much information, other than explaining that it's England only.
Professor Curtice (PBUH) himself doesn't know.
Matt Singh in the past has said he thinks it is to do with the way Professor Curtice adjusts for parties not standing in every seat/putting up enough candidates in multi member seats.
My own hunch it is to do with reallocations of the various independents.
The reason I lean towards Professor Curtice's numbers is that his methodology underpins the exit poll which in recent years has been spot on.
Hmmm... it still doesn't *really* give us that much information, other than explaining that it's England only.
Professor Curtice (PBUH) himself doesn't know.
Matt Singh in the past has said he thinks it is to do with the way Professor Curtice adjusts for parties not standing in every seat/putting up enough candidates in multi member seats.
My own hunch it is to do with reallocations of the various independents.
The reason I lean towards Professor Curtice's numbers is that his methodology underpins the exit poll which in recent years has been spot on.
And to be honest both are estimates. And both may be wrong. They do, however, give us some data. And what they tell us is that no-one has a scooby of who wins the next GE.
Any update on the "distraught" Welsh supply teacher who got in the Senedd for Reform? Has he discovered the £80k salary and handful of staff to be slightly more appealing than zero hours contracts in education, yet?
I think distraught was a characterisation not his words.
There's also the case of the new SNP MSP who's only allowed to be in the country for half his term unless he gets a new visa. Is MSP 'skilled'?
Green MSP, if you’re capable of telling the difference. Trans as well!
I think they are a PhD student, possibly graduate now? AIUI they were looking for an extension of their existing education visa.
Students elected to student union positions can usually get a sabbatical from their studies, including a visa extension when needed. Maybe the same applies????
As above, get on with it then. Honestly they are so useless at this. I know the Tories can be OTT with defenestrations, but this would probably have been over by now if it were them.
There aren't any. He never had a base of Stamerites in the first place. Deep down they all know he needs to go. They can't agree on who. If Burnham were an MP it would be happening now. I said at the time that blocking him from G+D was the worst decision ever made by a light year by Starmer. From a pretty impressive list.
Life is short. You can either drink your morning (and afternoon) espessos out of mass produced cups which have zero noom or you can spend £10 and drink it out of something handmade in 1805 and every time you do it you get a tiny little buzz of gratification, quite apart from the coffee. They are perfectly proportioned for espresso
Hmmm... it still doesn't *really* give us that much information, other than explaining that it's England only.
Professor Curtice (PBUH) himself doesn't know.
Matt Singh in the past has said he thinks it is to do with the way Professor Curtice adjusts for parties not standing in every seat/putting up enough candidates in multi member seats.
My own hunch it is to do with reallocations of the various independents.
The reason I lean towards Professor Curtice's numbers is that his methodology underpins the exit poll which in recent years has been spot on.
It seems to me this is spot on because an intelligently designed survey is asking actual people what they actually did on that actual day in quite large numbers. This is unlike all other polling. It's expensive and it is finding out something real.
Life is short. You can either drink your morning (and afternoon) espessos out of mass produced cups which have zero noom or you can spend £10 and drink it out of something handmade in 1805 and every time you do it you get a tiny little buzz of gratification, quite apart from the coffee. They are perfectly proportioned for espresso
Don't touch the first and third - the second is likely genuine.
Any update on the "distraught" Welsh supply teacher who got in the Senedd for Reform? Has he discovered the £80k salary and handful of staff to be slightly more appealing than zero hours contracts in education, yet?
I think distraught was a characterisation not his words.
There's also the case of the new SNP MSP who's only allowed to be in the country for half his term unless he gets a new visa. Is MSP 'skilled'?
Did I read that right, that an Indian student, not a UK citizen and in the UK on a non-working temp visa, got elected as an MSP?
How many ineligibles or undesirables were elected last week, many of whom were only supposed to be paper candidates?
For some strange reason, it's a lot easier to be a candidate than a voter.
I like the fact he's here as a student, thansk to the generous welcome of the United Kingdom, and his show of gratitude is to try and destroy the country between lectures
Next time I go on assignment abroad I might try the same, I'm off to Italy for a week quite soon, thanks to the Italian taxpayer, and on the Thursday I might attempt to break south Tyrol from Rome, to show how much I appreciate their hospitality
THROW THESE PEOPLE OUT
Your robust support for free speech is noted.
Aren't you concerned that at, some point in the future, it is your views that will be ruled illegal?
I said nothing about legality or otherwise. I am just remarking on his quite incredible rudeness, lack of gratitude, and overall wankiness
Literally gets a visa to come to a lovely, generous, welcoming country and study, uses it to try and break up the country. Are we the only nation that tolerates this kind of twattery?
it's one thing allowing foreign nationals a vote, quite another allowing them to stand for elected office. I don't think it particularly controversial to require at least permanent leave to remain, preferably nationality for both.
(Of course, Reform believe in handing control to a billionaire donor with Thai dual nationality.)
I note the the eligibility to be a candidate to become a councillor has always been broader than the eligibility to vote. You can stand on the basis of working in the council area, but that won't get you a vote.
Life is short. You can either drink your morning (and afternoon) espessos out of mass produced cups which have zero noom or you can spend £10 and drink it out of something handmade in 1805 and every time you do it you get a tiny little buzz of gratification, quite apart from the coffee. They are perfectly proportioned for espresso
Don't touch the first and third - the second is likely genuine.
After all this fannying around, it better be worth it Andy...
I'm quite enjoying the fannying around, actually. I'd happily see this drag on for another three months. It feels almost like that brief period in September 2022 (?) where lots happened in two days, only all the time. As a spectator sport it's exhilerating.
Though quite honestly, when Burnham looks at the time the previous five incumbents had in office, you wonder why he finds the idea of it so appealing.
Life is short. You can either drink your morning (and afternoon) espessos out of mass produced cups which have zero noom or you can spend £10 and drink it out of something handmade in 1805 and every time you do it you get a tiny little buzz of gratification, quite apart from the coffee. They are perfectly proportioned for espresso
Don't touch the first and third - the second is likely genuine.
There aren't any. He never had a base of Stamerites in the first place. Deep down they all know he needs to go. They can't agree on who. If Burnham were an MP it would be happening now. I said at the time that blocking him from G+D was the worst decision ever made by a light year by Starmer. From a pretty impressive list.
Not the worst decision from his pov though. He does not want to be removed and (as you say) the absence of Burnham is hampering it.
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
Catherine West has backed down for seemingly no logical reason I can understand.
She was bluffing, just trying to nudge the big names? Either that or now persuaded to wait for Burnham.
Quiet word from Ange, who is going to ensure there is now a Cabinet challenge to Starmer- if not by herself. She wants to wait for Burnham. A promisse of Chancellor from Andy mebbe?
Anyway, Starmer is gone this year, most likely by Conference.
OK, so next thing: how exactly does Andy get back in?
He doesn't, he'll lose the by-election to the Greens. And Reform will take the GM Mayoralty. Absolute Cinema
He missed his chance - if he wanted to be PM this parliament he should have stood at the GE. He decided to carry on as GM Mayor instead and Starmer is right to hold him to that.
The sooner Labour realise Burnham isn't going to be able to save them the better (and he wouldn't anyway, IMO he will be worse than Starmer). Then they would be able to choose one of the available options now, then shut up. But they won't.
The Greens and Reform have the Big Mo, there is no safe seat he can land in now.
Burnham polls better than Polanski or Farage and the Greens were a pathetic fifth on seats won last week
A pathetic 5th finishing 214 seats behind the Tories closing the gap from 1218 at start of play.
momentum
Sure: the Greens made progress and gained a lot of seats. But these were also a near perfect election for them to stand in: the London Boroughs, Oxford, Bristol, Exeter - all places absolutely stuffed with students. They also fell back in places where their Gaza stance had previously been a differentiator.
Now, if I'm Polanski, am I unhappy? No. But I'm probably a little disappointed: 14% NEV is well below national opinion polls for the Greens.
Was 19 % and second place according to Curtice.
Curtice has them at 18%. Sky News at 14%.
I would like to see the workings on both those numbers.
Well indeed. I confess I've never really understood NEV. Firstly. There are two sets of figures, always different, occasionally, quite substantially. Such as this example. Then there is the fact that it extrapolates the votes of areas which haven't voted. One of the big takeaways was lack of any national pattern, with all Parties producing surprising results. Wouldn't it just be easier to total all the votes cast and see if it has gone up or down or whatever?
Yes it is easier. It is also less accurate.
None of it is especially accurate or useful given the volatility inherent in our politics and best part of 3 years to an election anyway.
It isn't though. It's more accurate. Because it would only count votes actually cast. And we wouldn't be wondering if the Greens came second or fifth, or whether the Tories were six ahead of the Lib Dems or level.
Comments
Andy Burnham drops of out conference appearance in London tomorrow. Follows similar last-minute drop-out on Saturday.
If the Greens got 18% and came second that's a stunningly good result.
14% and fifth disappointing.
What you are suggesting is more definitive in giving the party order for the local results but it is not more accurate for GE predictions. Some people had no voting in their area, some have 1 vote, others would have had multiple votes, this year I had 3 votes, other years I have 0.
Seriously. Does anyone have a scooby how the SW would have voted.
Would the Tory share in Devon behave like Hampshire or Sussex?
Or completely differently?
Why not party X has seen their vote rise/fall by x %?
The fact of the matter is that vibes are more important than votes. It was clear long before last Thursday that Badenoch had done enough to keep her job for now, and that the focus would be on Labour.
If not it's a frame on this page https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ljrp76ywxo
Reform 26%
Green 18%
Lab 17%
Con 17%
Libem 16%
A proper mishmash rainbow.
https://historyofenglishpodcast.com
Matt Singh in the past has said he thinks it is to do with the way Professor Curtice adjusts for parties not standing in every seat/putting up enough candidates in multi member seats.
My own hunch it is to do with reallocations of the various independents.
The reason I lean towards Professor Curtice's numbers is that his methodology underpins the exit poll which in recent years has been spot on.
Labour is the landslide winner on that measurement.
The juice is definitely not worth the squeeze.
https://x.com/i/status/2053858544294707225
Getting rid of Starmer isn’t a Civil War. It’s a…
Special Political Operation.
He never had a base of Stamerites in the first place.
Deep down they all know he needs to go. They can't agree on who.
If Burnham were an MP it would be happening now.
I said at the time that blocking him from G+D was the worst decision ever made by a light year by Starmer.
From a pretty impressive list.
The Georgians drank their coffee short and sweet - espresso sized shots. So they handmade absolutely exquisite "coffee cans". Tiny little cups
They made so many you can also buy these on eBay very easily, and they are INSANELY cheap
Here's a few
https://ebay.us/m/DG8INp
Made in 1815. Battle of Waterloo. More than 200 years old. Gorgeous
£19
Or this one
https://ebay.us/m/wJf8Wb
Royal Derby. Around 1820
£27
Or this
https://ebay.us/m/1fn4Dr
Simple, elegant, almost modernist. 1805!
£10
Life is short. You can either drink your morning (and afternoon) espessos out of mass produced cups which have zero noom or you can spend £10 and drink it out of something handmade in 1805 and every time you do it you get a tiny little buzz of gratification, quite apart from the coffee. They are perfectly proportioned for espresso
What took her so long?
(Of course, Reform believe in handing control to a billionaire donor with Thai dual nationality.)
I note the the eligibility to be a candidate to become a councillor has always been broader than the eligibility to vote. You can stand on the basis of working in the council area, but that won't get you a vote.
No one is faking these to make £10
Though quite honestly, when Burnham looks at the time the previous five incumbents had in office, you wonder why he finds the idea of it so appealing.
NEW THREAD