Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five more sleeps to go and Mr Corbyn’s chances of winning a

13

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,990
    edited September 2015
    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    If so, it must be a good thing to be toxic. You poison all your rivals.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,934
    glw said:





    Corbyn isn't Miliband, and he is certainly not a repeat of Foot who was a patriot, great writer, serious thinker, and more than decent orator. Corbyn is a man whose inclinations are essentially anti-British. I genuinely can not fathom how anybody thinks he is what the Labour Party needs, never mind the country.

    Which is why this is potentially an extinction event for Labour. The next election will be an ABC election across vast swathes of England and Wales. Millions of people will unite to make sure this dangerous, anti-British nutter is kept as far away from power as is possible. They will calculate if that means the effective death of the Labour Party then so be it.

    In my opinion.
  • glw said:

    JWisemann said:

    RobD said:

    JWisemann said:

    The Tories wiped out the lib dems in England and Scotland, and labour in Scotland, by poisoning them with their own toxicity, I admire them for their absolute shameless deviousness and lack of scruples, if for nothing else.

    The Tories did no such thing. It was the voters.
    Yes, voters who were disgusted at the lib dems and labour standing beside the Tories abandoned them in droves, allowing the Tories through the back door on a pathetic proportion of the vote.
    So you you are now blaming your own kind for the disaster. Of course the real reason was that Labour had an unelectable leader, something its possibly about to repeat with knobs on.
    Indeed, knobs, bells, the whole caboodle.

    Corbyn isn't Miliband, and he is certainly not a repeat of Foot who was a patriot, great writer, serious thinker, and more than decent orator. Corbyn is a man whose inclinations are essentially anti-British. I genuinely can not fathom how anybody thinks he is what the Labour Party needs, never mind the country.
    Speaking to a Corbyn supporter recently, they said they thought that Labour under Miliband was Tory-lite which is why no one bothered voting for them. And all politicians are "phoneys" - therefore Corbyn with his straight speaking will cut through and therefore has a good chance of being elected.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567
    edited September 2015
    Plato said:

    Just for @HYUFD twitter.com/Andy4Leader/status/640985474602008576

    Putting the Lib Dems to shame!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2015

    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    notme said:

    http://labourlist.org/2015/09/labour-lost-because-they-had-no-clear-alternative-to-tory-austerity-corbyn-holds-final-regional-rally-in-key-margina/

    Someone needs to break it to Labourlist that the game has changed. In 2010 Nuneaton was a key marginal with a 2,000 Con majority, Labour would be expecting it to fall in their lap. Now it is a 5,000 Con majority. It is no longer a 'key marginal'.

    It's a mindset they need to get into. They went backwards a few months ago, and they need to work out why.

    Lest we forget labour increased its vote in England, by more than the Tories did off the back of stitching up their own mates.
    It would be amusing if Corbyn further increased the vote, but did even worse because even more than Ed M he piled up votes in safe seats and lost them elsewhere. Maybe we'd finally get voting reform as even the victors felt things were getting ridiculous?
    Is there any evidence that EdM piled up votes in safe seats? From what I can remember the Labour vote didn't really go anywhere.
    I've taken a look at those seats where Labour polled 50%+ in 2010 and 2015. There were 76 such seats in 2010 and 106 in 2015.

    In 2010 they polled a total of 1,721,030 votes in those 76 seats which was 20.00% of the 8,606,563 votes Labour polled overall.

    In 2015 they polled a total of 2,657,457 votes in the 106 seats where they polled more 50%+ which was 28.43% of the 9,347,304 votes Labour polled overall.

    So by that definition Labour piled up considerably more votes in safe seats as defined by constituencies where they polled 50%+. But I'm not sure that's a fair comparison because if you compare 106 seats with 76 seats you're always going to get a higher proportion of the total number of votes cast.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11QE57smiTTefgOGeWIbnipZRmTPOkwpaKNHV_Cyx4T0/edit#gid=0
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kTlIUxSGQy4omeetoPMkMvlBnD-5Z0o_I2hb82n5ho4/edit#gid=0

    An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    Spoiler alert.










    Labour lost, badly. With Corbyn, they are going to lose even more badly.
    If they get the same number of extra seats in England as they did this year next time, the Tories are out of government.

  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Off topic. US Presidential. Interesting article from Juan Williams. Don't be put off by the Fox News label - he is a black democrat and a very strong critic of the GOP. In the article, he warns that BlackLivesMatter could so undermine black faith in all politics, and estrange the black community's natural political allies, that it could significantly suppress black turnout in the Presidential election, obviously to the detriment of the Dem candidate.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/252672-juan-williams-blacklivesmatter-is-playing-with-fire
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,056
    edited September 2015
    kle4 said:

    I want to see angry crowds outside BBC headquarters demanding resignations for this biased coverage, otherwise the Cornynistas are letting down their reputation as being crazies. Hell, restricting it to bitching on Twitter is child's play, I expect more from them if I am to believe Corbyn and his movement are different and transformative.

    I think this goes to the heart of the left's problems at the moment. They are always getting very angry about things, and in response are going onto Twitter or Facebook to say how very angry they are, and that people should DO SOMETHING! Have a campaign! Sign an online petition! Go on a march!

    They would do it themselves, except they just need to nip out to the deli to get some organic prosciutto and ciabatta for Rosehip and Tarquin. Oh, and the march? They're taking Arabella to see 'A day in the death of Joe Egg' whilst it's on, but they'll be there in spirit, and keep up with what's going on from within the theatre via Twitter.

    Compare with the many CND marches, or the way the Greenham and Faslane ladies applied constant pressure. They were obsessives.

    Basically: the left are as lazy as the right nowadays. :)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567
    edited September 2015
    JWisemann said:

    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    Spoiler alert.










    Labour lost, badly. With Corbyn, they are going to lose even more badly.
    If they get the same number of extra seats in England as they did this year next time, the Tories are out of government.

    Found a youtube video you may be interested in:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROKXlvYMKQc
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,934
    edited September 2015



    Speaking to a Corbyn supporter recently, they said they thought that Labour under Miliband was Tory-lite which is why no one bothered voting for them. And all politicians are "phoneys" - therefore Corbyn with his straight speaking will cut through and therefore has a good chance of being elected.

    They are deluding themselves. We may be in an "anti-politics" mood generally, but if 2015 tells us anything it is that in the end, the English will vote for their own interests (and particularly their own financial interests)

    The idea that voters across England and Wales would risk their security and their country with a raging mad leftie like Jeremy Corbyn is for the birds,

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567
    AndyJS said:

    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    notme said:

    http://labourlist.org/2015/09/labour-lost-because-they-had-no-clear-alternative-to-tory-austerity-corbyn-holds-final-regional-rally-in-key-margina/

    Someone needs to break it to Labourlist that the game has changed. In 2010 Nuneaton was a key marginal with a 2,000 Con majority, Labour would be expecting it to fall in their lap. Now it is a 5,000 Con majority. It is no longer a 'key marginal'.

    It's a mindset they need to get into. They went backwards a few months ago, and they need to work out why.

    Lest we forget labour increased its vote in England, by more than the Tories did off the back of stitching up their own mates.
    It would be amusing if Corbyn further increased the vote, but did even worse because even more than Ed M he piled up votes in safe seats and lost them elsewhere. Maybe we'd finally get voting reform as even the victors felt things were getting ridiculous?
    Is there any evidence that EdM piled up votes in safe seats? From what I can remember the Labour vote didn't really go anywhere.
    I've taken a look at those seats where Labour polled 50%+ in 2010 and 2015. There were 76 such seats in 2010 and 106 in 2015.

    In 2010 they polled a total of 1,721,030 votes in those 76 seats which was 20.00% of the 8,606,563 votes Labour polled overall.

    In 2015 they polled a total of 2,657,457 votes in the 106 seats where they polled more 50%+ which was 28.43% of the 9,347,304 votes Labour polled overall.

    So by that definition Labour piled up considerably more votes in safe seats as defined by constituencies where they polled 50%+. But I'm not sure that's a fair comparison because if you compare 106 seats with 76 seats you're always going to get a higher proportion of the total number of votes cast.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11QE57smiTTefgOGeWIbnipZRmTPOkwpaKNHV_Cyx4T0/edit#gid=0
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kTlIUxSGQy4omeetoPMkMvlBnD-5Z0o_I2hb82n5ho4/edit#gid=0

    An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.
    2010 - 22,645 votes/constituency above 50%
    2015 - 25,070 votes/constituency above 50%

    Could be due to demographics though. Would be interesting to look at the data on individual seats if you have it? 2010 vote share plotted against change in share of vote between 2010 and 2015 should do it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,379
    Plato said:
    Indeed, though the net score would be even better
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    I'm a patriot, and like a lot of other patriots, I'm disgusted at the people who have flogged off most of our state assets to foreigners and sent our troops off to be killed in pointless wars that have no bearing on our country's security other than to make it worse.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,454

    And all politicians are "phoneys" - therefore Corbyn with his straight speaking will cut through and therefore has a good chance of being elected.

    Ah the same "logic" as the kippers.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    GIN1138 said:



    Speaking to a Corbyn supporter recently, they said they thought that Labour under Miliband was Tory-lite which is why no one bothered voting for them. And all politicians are "phoneys" - therefore Corbyn with his straight speaking will cut through and therefore has a good chance of being elected.

    They are deluding themselves. We may be in an "anti-politics" mood generally, but if 2015 tells us anything it is that in the end, the English will vote for their own interests (and particularly their own financial interests)

    The idea that voters across England and Wales would risk their security and their country with a raging mad leftie like Jeremy Corbyn is for the birds,

    They're not entirely deluding themselves. They are right that people do want a politician that is straight talking and answers questions. It's just that the people also want someone who shares their values. Anjem Choudhary is straight talking, but everyone still hates him.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2015
    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.
  • MP_SE said:

    MP_SE said:

    Mike Gapes lying about the rights of EU citizens in this country and UK citizens in the EU post-Brexit. Typical Europhile spreading lies. Noone will be booted out.

    Did you get this exercised when Steven Woolfe lied about Sainsburys?
    Spreading lies doesn't help anyone. Some lies are worse than others.

    I am sure we will hear non-stop from Europhiles that all EU citizens will be kicked out of the UK after a Brexit and also all UK citizens will be booted out of the EU after a Brexit. This will be one of the Stay campaigns few arguments for remaining in the EU. An argument which is completely false.
    The big lie from everybody is that there will be a big change whether it be for good or bad. It will be little difference. Being part of the EEA leaves us just as connected to the EU and following its rules including immigration and free movement of labour as now. But everything is a hostage to fortune if we make a change. Not least being required to join Schengen. Or not. Who knows?

    PS
    If Panorama is doing a job on Corbyn (? - I've not seen it) then they are also kicking the nation's favorite republican with the other boot as well by its hagiography of our monarch (complete with a choir of angels) just finishing.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    JEO said:

    Tory rebels just defeated Cameron on purdah. Good. It's the governments fault for not limiting the EU's spending.

    The Tories abilities to get anything through this parliament is looking shakier and shakier.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Isn't it just :wink:
    RobD said:

    Plato said:

    Just for @HYUFD twitter.com/Andy4Leader/status/640985474602008576

    Putting the Lib Dems to shame!
  • isam said:

    MP_SE said:

    Mike Gapes lying about the rights of EU citizens in this country and UK citizens in the EU post-Brexit. Typical Europhile spreading lies. Noone will be booted out.

    Did you get this exercised when Steven Woolfe lied about Sainsburys?
    Didn't he make a mistake rather than lie?

    A lie is when you pretend to have done something you haven't rather than confuse one person for another isn't it?
    If the story is as related, then he didn't lie, but he's a sh*t. He made a very embarrassing mistake, and then, rather than admit the mistake, tried to claim credit where none was due.

    Not a lie, but rather dishonest behaviour that could damage a company.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567

    MP_SE said:

    MP_SE said:

    Mike Gapes lying about the rights of EU citizens in this country and UK citizens in the EU post-Brexit. Typical Europhile spreading lies. Noone will be booted out.

    Did you get this exercised when Steven Woolfe lied about Sainsburys?
    Spreading lies doesn't help anyone. Some lies are worse than others.

    I am sure we will hear non-stop from Europhiles that all EU citizens will be kicked out of the UK after a Brexit and also all UK citizens will be booted out of the EU after a Brexit. This will be one of the Stay campaigns few arguments for remaining in the EU. An argument which is completely false.
    The big lie from everybody is that there will be a big change whether it be for good or bad. It will be little difference. Being part of the EEA leaves us just as connected to the EU and following its rules including immigration and free movement of labour as now. But everything is a hostage to fortune if we make a change. Not least being required to join Schengen. Or not. Who knows?

    PS
    If Panorama is doing a job on Corbyn (? - I've not seen it) then they are also kicking the nation's favorite republican with the other boot as well by its hagiography of our monarch (complete with a choir of angels) just finishing.
    I also enjoyed the juxtaposition of the two shows. Any events planned for Wed, I read the Palace wants to keep everything low-key.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Plato said:
    I guess they got the Liberals to do the graph for them.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567
    Dair said:

    JEO said:

    Tory rebels just defeated Cameron on purdah. Good. It's the governments fault for not limiting the EU's spending.

    The Tories abilities to get anything through this parliament is looking shakier and shakier.
    Something? Maybe. Anything? No.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,960
    JEO said:

    Tory rebels just defeated Cameron on purdah. Good. It's the governments fault for not limiting the EU's spending.

    Worth noting that at what is probably his time of greatest strength, personally speaking, Cameron cannot control his rebels. That LD buffer being gone has made some things harder.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Thanks for putting another PB Dullerati myth to rest.

  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    This Panorama programme is a fookin disgrace.

    How can this be broadcast in the middle of the leadership election.

    Oh dear, what shame. Ha ha ha.

    Have you not noticed Panorama doing this kind of thing to everyone else, or is it different when it's a hatchet job on the Tories?
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited September 2015
    JWisemann said:

    I'm a patriot, and like a lot of other patriots, I'm disgusted at the people who have flogged off most of our state assets to foreigners and sent our troops off to be killed in pointless wars that have no bearing on our country's security other than to make it worse.

    A patriot who licks the boots of Hamas and Hezbollah?

    Still you're right about Blair and Labour sending British soldiers to die in far away places to boost their egos. History will not be kind.
  • AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Is that only for English seats? If not Scotland would skew that analysis
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Dair said:

    JEO said:

    Tory rebels just defeated Cameron on purdah. Good. It's the governments fault for not limiting the EU's spending.

    The Tories abilities to get anything through this parliament is looking shakier and shakier.
    Keep talking the tablets.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    It's astonishing that the more Cameron moves away from (real) public sentiment on refugees the more it benefits the Tories because Labour (and the SNP) continue to attack him for not doing enough! I can't instantly think of an occasion when media narrative has been so detached from public opinion.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,121

    isam said:

    MP_SE said:

    Mike Gapes lying about the rights of EU citizens in this country and UK citizens in the EU post-Brexit. Typical Europhile spreading lies. Noone will be booted out.

    Did you get this exercised when Steven Woolfe lied about Sainsburys?
    Didn't he make a mistake rather than lie?

    A lie is when you pretend to have done something you haven't rather than confuse one person for another isn't it?
    If the story is as related, then he didn't lie, but he's a sh*t. He made a very embarrassing mistake, and then, rather than admit the mistake, tried to claim credit where none was due.

    Not a lie, but rather dishonest behaviour that could damage a company.
    It is a shame that politicians, and people who follow politics, would rather spin and squirm than ever admit making a mistake or being wrong. I wonder if it really is such a vote loser?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    watford30 said:

    JWisemann said:

    I'm a patriot, and like a lot of other patriots, I'm disgusted at the people who have flogged off most of our state assets to foreigners and sent our troops off to be killed in pointless wars that have no bearing on our country's security other than to make it worse.

    A patriot who licks the boots of Hamas and Hezbollah?
    Your mate Corby isn't a patriot. He has no idea what patriotism is. He wants to destroys our country. or more to the point let us be invaded by commies.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    watford30 said:

    JWisemann said:

    I'm a patriot, and like a lot of other patriots, I'm disgusted at the people who have flogged off most of our state assets to foreigners and sent our troops off to be killed in pointless wars that have no bearing on our country's security other than to make it worse.

    A patriot who licks the boots of Hamas and Hezbollah?

    Still you're right about Blair and Labour sending British soldiers to die in far away places to boost their egos. History will not be kind.
    No, just not one who licks the boots of the Israelis, who are disliked by most people in this country. Hezbollah and Hamas have nothing to do with us.
  • JWisemann said:

    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    Spoiler alert.

    Labour lost, badly. With Corbyn, they are going to lose even more badly.
    If they get the same number of extra seats in England as they did this year next time, the Tories are out of government.
    Funny that - The Smith Commission - quoted by The Guardian says ''The study highlights the enormous scale of the problem facing the party, saying that with boundary changes it will need to gain more than 100 seats across the country to get a majority in 2020.''
    On your scenario the only way Labour would be 'in government' would be in coalition with the Scottish Nationalists. Not the most brilliant way to win those seats in England as I'm sure you will agree.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    watford30 said:

    This Panorama programme is a fookin disgrace.

    How can this be broadcast in the middle of the leadership election.

    Oh dear, what shame. Ha ha ha.

    Have you not noticed Panorama doing this kind of thing to everyone else, or is it different when it's a hatchet job on the Tories?
    Give an equivalent example.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082

    JWisemann said:

    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    Spoiler alert.

    Labour lost, badly. With Corbyn, they are going to lose even more badly.
    If they get the same number of extra seats in England as they did this year next time, the Tories are out of government.
    Funny that - The Smith Commission - quoted by The Guardian says ''The study highlights the enormous scale of the problem facing the party, saying that with boundary changes it will need to gain more than 100 seats across the country to get a majority in 2020.''
    On your scenario the only way Labour would be 'in government' would be in coalition with the Scottish Nationalists. Not the most brilliant way to win those seats in England as I'm sure you will agree.
    I said the Tories would be out of government, I made no further conjecture.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    JWisemann said:

    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    Spoiler alert.










    Labour lost, badly. With Corbyn, they are going to lose even more badly.
    If they get the same number of extra seats in England as they did this year next time, the Tories are out of government.

    That may have concerned me before Labour decided it would be a good idea to commit electoral suicide, now it's just funny.

    Suck it up, it's going to be a long journey back from the disaster jezza, is about to unleash.
  • Isn't is sad that this board has to put up with anti-semites?

  • isam said:

    isam said:

    MP_SE said:

    Mike Gapes lying about the rights of EU citizens in this country and UK citizens in the EU post-Brexit. Typical Europhile spreading lies. Noone will be booted out.

    Did you get this exercised when Steven Woolfe lied about Sainsburys?
    Didn't he make a mistake rather than lie?

    A lie is when you pretend to have done something you haven't rather than confuse one person for another isn't it?
    If the story is as related, then he didn't lie, but he's a sh*t. He made a very embarrassing mistake, and then, rather than admit the mistake, tried to claim credit where none was due.

    Not a lie, but rather dishonest behaviour that could damage a company.
    It is a shame that politicians, and people who follow politics, would rather spin and squirm than ever admit making a mistake or being wrong. I wonder if it really is such a vote loser?
    To a certain extent I suppose it's human nature to deny a silly mistake, and something compounded when admitting it might be spread over the media. But is shows a certain good character trait to be able to do so, even if you laugh it off. He just compounded the mistake in an even more silly way.

    In some jobs, it is vital to admit when you've made a mistake, as a failure to have the mistake corrected could cost lives.

    I only hope I have the strength of character to do so when I make a silly mistake. But we'll never know, as I never will. Ahem.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,960
    JWisemann said:

    watford30 said:

    JWisemann said:

    I'm a patriot, and like a lot of other patriots, I'm disgusted at the people who have flogged off most of our state assets to foreigners and sent our troops off to be killed in pointless wars that have no bearing on our country's security other than to make it worse.

    A patriot who licks the boots of Hamas and Hezbollah?

    Still you're right about Blair and Labour sending British soldiers to die in far away places to boost their egos. History will not be kind.
    No, just not one who licks the boots of the Israelis, who are disliked by most people in this country. Hezbollah and Hamas have nothing to do with us.
    You're actively turning me from Palestinian sympathizer to an Israeli hardliner by the hour, I regret to say.

    Good night to all.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,936
    watford30 said:

    This Panorama programme is a fookin disgrace.

    How can this be broadcast in the middle of the leadership election.



    Have you not noticed Panorama doing this kind of thing to everyone else.
    No enlighten me
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,027

    Isn't is sad that this board has to put up with anti-semites?

    the left usually finds someone to blame and sadly it's usually the same people they find.
  • alex. said:

    It's astonishing that the more Cameron moves away from (real) public sentiment on refugees the more it benefits the Tories because Labour (and the SNP) continue to attack him for not doing enough! I can't instantly think of an occasion when media narrative has been so detached from public opinion.

    Is there a slip of the pen there - do you mean 'moves closer to' ? I for one am missing your point here.

    On a related topic - I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing. Lets hope there is more where our national security demands it.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    notme said:

    http://labourlist.org/2015/09/labour-lost-because-they-had-no-clear-alternative-to-tory-austerity-corbyn-holds-final-regional-rally-in-key-margina/

    Someone needs to break it to Labourlist that the game has changed. In 2010 Nuneaton was a key marginal with a 2,000 Con majority, Labour would be expecting it to fall in their lap. Now it is a 5,000 Con majority. It is no longer a 'key marginal'.

    It's a mindset they need to get into. They went backwards a few months ago, and they need to work out why.

    Lest we forget labour increased its vote in England, by more than the Tories did off the back of stitching up their own mates.
    It would be amusing if Corbyn further increased the vote, but did even worse because even more than Ed M he piled up votes in safe seats and lost them elsewhere. Maybe we'd finally get voting reform as even the victors felt things were getting ridiculous?
    Is there any evidence that EdM piled up votes in safe seats? From what I can remember the Labour vote didn't really go anywhere.
    I've taken a look at those seats where Labour polled 50%+ in 2010 and 2015. There were 76 such seats in 2010 and 106 in 2015.

    In 2010 they polled a total of 1,721,030 votes in those 76 seats which was 20.00% of the 8,606,563 votes Labour polled overall.

    In 2015 they polled a total of 2,657,457 votes in the 106 seats where they polled more 50%+ which was 28.43% of the 9,347,304 votes Labour polled overall.

    So by that definition Labour piled up considerably more votes in safe seats as defined by constituencies where they polled 50%+. But I'm not sure that's a fair comparison because if you compare 106 seats with 76 seats you're always going to get a higher proportion of the total number of votes cast.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11QE57smiTTefgOGeWIbnipZRmTPOkwpaKNHV_Cyx4T0/edit#gid=0
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kTlIUxSGQy4omeetoPMkMvlBnD-5Z0o_I2hb82n5ho4/edit#gid=0

    An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.
    2010 - 22,645 votes/constituency above 50%
    2015 - 25,070 votes/constituency above 50%

    Could be due to demographics though. Would be interesting to look at the data on individual seats if you have it? 2010 vote share plotted against change in share of vote between 2010 and 2015 should do it.
    Here's the data:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ous-515p8pAjIE3W-EL3rYLpCxizILWOaIAIBjvPMmg/edit#gid=0
  • JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    Spoiler alert.

    Labour lost, badly. With Corbyn, they are going to lose even more badly.
    If they get the same number of extra seats in England as they did this year next time, the Tories are out of government.
    Funny that - The Smith Commission - quoted by The Guardian says ''The study highlights the enormous scale of the problem facing the party, saying that with boundary changes it will need to gain more than 100 seats across the country to get a majority in 2020.''
    On your scenario the only way Labour would be 'in government' would be in coalition with the Scottish Nationalists. Not the most brilliant way to win those seats in England as I'm sure you will agree.
    I said the Tories would be out of government, I made no further conjecture.
    Before the election you said anyone who was betting on the Tories getting 300 plus MPs was living in a fantasy world
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Is that only for English seats? If not Scotland would skew that analysis
    That includes Scottish seats. I'll do it for England and Wales only.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    Is flight path calling me an anti-Semite for saying I don't kowtow to Israel, unlike the self proclaimed patriots here?
    Bizarre.

    The Tories are the least patriotic of all the parties, having sold most of the country to foreigners.
  • Classic Sun front page tomorrow

    Wham Bam thank you Cam

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COVJuIrWgAE7rH7.jpg
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    alex. said:

    It's astonishing that the more Cameron moves away from (real) public sentiment on refugees the more it benefits the Tories because Labour (and the SNP) continue to attack him for not doing enough! I can't instantly think of an occasion when media narrative has been so detached from public opinion.

    Is there a slip of the pen there - do you mean 'moves closer to' ? I for one am missing your point here.

    On a related topic - I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing. Lets hope there is more where our national security demands it.
    No, away from. The numbers of refugees that the UK is prepared to accept is steadily rising.

  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    JWisemann said:

    Is flight path calling me an anti-Semite for saying I don't kowtow to Israel, unlike the self proclaimed patriots here?
    Bizarre.

    The Tories are the least patriotic of all the parties, having sold most of the country to foreigners.

    It's got more to do with your blind faith that the Israelis are disliked by most British people that gives you away.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567
    JWisemann said:

    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Thanks for putting another PB Dullerati myth to rest.

    Decided to spend the time to plot it.

    http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png

    Least absolute deviation fit shows a slight trend of increasing change in vote share as a function of 2010 vote share (which suggests pilling up of votes in safe seats). Correlation isn't strong given the large amount of scatter.
    Red dots indicate Scottish constituencies, which I removed from the fit.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    edited September 2015

    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    Spoiler alert.

    Labour lost, badly. With Corbyn, they are going to lose even more badly.
    If they get the same number of extra seats in England as they did this year next time, the Tories are out of government.
    Funny that - The Smith Commission - quoted by The Guardian says ''The study highlights the enormous scale of the problem facing the party, saying that with boundary changes it will need to gain more than 100 seats across the country to get a majority in 2020.''
    On your scenario the only way Labour would be 'in government' would be in coalition with the Scottish Nationalists. Not the most brilliant way to win those seats in England as I'm sure you will agree.
    I said the Tories would be out of government, I made no further conjecture.
    Before the election you said anyone who was betting on the Tories getting 300 plus MPs was living in a fantasy world
    As I say, I fatally underestimated the Tories' ability to destroy their own friends and allies. Not a trick they can play again any time soon though. Even geniuses get the odd call wrong.
    Even PB Tories are correct occasionally by accident.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    Spoiler alert.

    Labour lost, badly. With Corbyn, they are going to lose even more badly.
    If they get the same number of extra seats in England as they did this year next time, the Tories are out of government.
    Funny that - The Smith Commission - quoted by The Guardian says ''The study highlights the enormous scale of the problem facing the party, saying that with boundary changes it will need to gain more than 100 seats across the country to get a majority in 2020.''
    On your scenario the only way Labour would be 'in government' would be in coalition with the Scottish Nationalists. Not the most brilliant way to win those seats in England as I'm sure you will agree.
    I said the Tories would be out of government, I made no further conjecture.
    I think you're forgetting the 25 seats the Tories will pick up in Scotland ...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567
    AndyJS said:

    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    notme said:

    http://labourlist.org/2015/09/labour-lost-because-they-had-no-clear-alternative-to-tory-austerity-corbyn-holds-final-regional-rally-in-key-margina/

    Someone needs to break it to Labourlist that the game has changed. In 2010 Nuneaton was a key marginal with a 2,000 Con majority, Labour would be expecting it to fall in their lap. Now it is a 5,000 Con majority. It is no longer a 'key marginal'.

    It's a mindset they need to get into. They went backwards a few months ago, and they need to work out why.

    Lest we forget labour increased its vote in England, by more than the Tories did off the back of stitching up their own mates.
    It would be amusing if Corbyn further increased the vote, but did even worse because even more than Ed M he piled up votes in safe seats and lost them elsewhere. Maybe we'd finally get voting reform as even the victors felt things were getting ridiculous?
    Is there any evidence that EdM piled up votes in safe seats? From what I can remember the Labour vote didn't really go anywhere.
    I've taken a look at those seats where Labour polled 50%+ in 2010 and 2015. There were 76 such seats in 2010 and 106 in 2015.

    In 2010 they polled a total of 1,721,030 votes in those 76 seats which was 20.00% of the 8,606,563 votes Labour polled overall.

    In 2015 they polled a total of 2,657,457 votes in the 106 seats where they polled more 50%+ which was 28.43% of the 9,347,304 votes Labour polled overall.

    So by that definition Labour piled up considerably more votes in safe seats as defined by constituencies where they polled 50%+. But I'm not sure that's a fair comparison because if you compare 106 seats with 76 seats you're always going to get a higher proportion of the total number of votes cast.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11QE57smiTTefgOGeWIbnipZRmTPOkwpaKNHV_Cyx4T0/edit#gid=0
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kTlIUxSGQy4omeetoPMkMvlBnD-5Z0o_I2hb82n5ho4/edit#gid=0

    An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.
    2010 - 22,645 votes/constituency above 50%
    2015 - 25,070 votes/constituency above 50%

    Could be due to demographics though. Would be interesting to look at the data on individual seats if you have it? 2010 vote share plotted against change in share of vote between 2010 and 2015 should do it.
    Here's the data:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ous-515p8pAjIE3W-EL3rYLpCxizILWOaIAIBjvPMmg/edit#gid=0
    Thanks! Before I saw this I had already grabbed it from here:

    http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/2015-general-election-results-data-released-by-the-bes/
  • glwglw Posts: 10,454
    JWisemann said:

    Even PB Tories are correct occasionally by accident.

    PB Tories have a rather good track record over the last few years, and I would expect even the dimmest supporters of the Lib Dems, SNP, and Labour to have realised that by now.
  • JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    Spoiler alert.

    Labour lost, badly. With Corbyn, they are going to lose even more badly.
    If they get the same number of extra seats in England as they did this year next time, the Tories are out of government.
    Funny that - The Smith Commission - quoted by The Guardian says ''The study highlights the enormous scale of the problem facing the party, saying that with boundary changes it will need to gain more than 100 seats across the country to get a majority in 2020.''
    On your scenario the only way Labour would be 'in government' would be in coalition with the Scottish Nationalists. Not the most brilliant way to win those seats in England as I'm sure you will agree.
    I said the Tories would be out of government, I made no further conjecture.
    Before the election you said anyone who was betting on the Tories getting 300 plus MPs was living in a fantasy world
    As I say, I fatally underestimated the Tories' ability to destroy their own friends and allies. Not a trick they can play again any time soon though. Even geniuses get the odd call wrong.
    Even PB Tories are correct occasionally by accident.
    Whereas you've never been right.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    Is flight path calling me an anti-Semite for saying I don't kowtow to Israel, unlike the self proclaimed patriots here?
    Bizarre.

    The Tories are the least patriotic of all the parties, having sold most of the country to foreigners.

    It's got more to do with your blind faith that the Israelis are disliked by most British people that gives you away.
    I'm going on polling, actually.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited September 2015
    RobD said:

    JWisemann said:

    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Thanks for putting another PB Dullerati myth to rest.

    Decided to spend the time to plot it.

    http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png

    Least absolute deviation fit shows a slight trend of increasing change in vote share as a function of 2010 vote share (which suggests pilling up of votes in safe seats). Correlation isn't strong given the large amount of scatter.
    Red dots indicate Scottish constituencies, which I removed from the fit.
    While not what you were wanting to look at, the Scottish seats shows how accurately the Ashcroft polling allowed the prediction of Scottish results with such a strong negative correlation between 2010 share and 2015 change.

    And also what a ridiculous outlier Edinburgh South is.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567
    MTimT said:

    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    Spoiler alert.

    Labour lost, badly. With Corbyn, they are going to lose even more badly.
    If they get the same number of extra seats in England as they did this year next time, the Tories are out of government.
    Funny that - The Smith Commission - quoted by The Guardian says ''The study highlights the enormous scale of the problem facing the party, saying that with boundary changes it will need to gain more than 100 seats across the country to get a majority in 2020.''
    On your scenario the only way Labour would be 'in government' would be in coalition with the Scottish Nationalists. Not the most brilliant way to win those seats in England as I'm sure you will agree.
    I said the Tories would be out of government, I made no further conjecture.
    I think you're forgetting the 25 seats the Tories will pick up in Scotland ...
    I think we've found the pessimist!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567
    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    JWisemann said:

    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Thanks for putting another PB Dullerati myth to rest.

    Decided to spend the time to plot it.

    http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png

    Least absolute deviation fit shows a slight trend of increasing change in vote share as a function of 2010 vote share (which suggests pilling up of votes in safe seats). Correlation isn't strong given the large amount of scatter.
    Red dots indicate Scottish constituencies, which I removed from the fit.
    While not what you were wanting to look at, the Scottish seats shows how accurately the Ashcroft polling allowed the prediction of Scottish results with such a strong negative correlation between 2010 share and 2015 change.
    Yeah, I was quite shocked by how badly they did. I think it acts to level the vote share across Scotland (i.e. about 20-30% in every seat)?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,990
    alex. said:

    alex. said:

    It's astonishing that the more Cameron moves away from (real) public sentiment on refugees the more it benefits the Tories because Labour (and the SNP) continue to attack him for not doing enough! I can't instantly think of an occasion when media narrative has been so detached from public opinion.

    Is there a slip of the pen there - do you mean 'moves closer to' ? I for one am missing your point here.

    On a related topic - I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing. Lets hope there is more where our national security demands it.
    No, away from. The numbers of refugees that the UK is prepared to accept is steadily rising.

    Not really. The number runs at 10-20,000 a year.
  • I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.

    Shocking scenes :D
  • kle4 said:

    JEO said:

    Tory rebels just defeated Cameron on purdah. Good. It's the governments fault for not limiting the EU's spending.

    Worth noting that at what is probably his time of greatest strength, personally speaking, Cameron cannot control his rebels. That LD buffer being gone has made some things harder.
    The vote was about the issue of timing for bringing forward the details of what purdah was going to be. Shockingly vital vote.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567
    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    JWisemann said:

    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Thanks for putting another PB Dullerati myth to rest.

    Decided to spend the time to plot it.

    http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png

    Least absolute deviation fit shows a slight trend of increasing change in vote share as a function of 2010 vote share (which suggests pilling up of votes in safe seats). Correlation isn't strong given the large amount of scatter.
    Red dots indicate Scottish constituencies, which I removed from the fit.
    While not what you were wanting to look at, the Scottish seats shows how accurately the Ashcroft polling allowed the prediction of Scottish results with such a strong negative correlation between 2010 share and 2015 change.

    And also what a ridiculous outlier Edinburgh South is.
    Yeah, I just spent the time to look up what that point was!! What happened there?
  • glwglw Posts: 10,454
    SeanT said:

    Corbynism is to Labour as Jihadism is to Islam. A bizarre, unexpected but unfortunately potent appeal to the most primitive verities.

    They get more like a cult every day, I don't think we have ever seen anything quite like this in UK politics, even Farage's fans are a bit more down to earth.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,546
    edited September 2015
    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    JWisemann said:

    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Thanks for putting another PB Dullerati myth to rest.

    Decided to spend the time to plot it.

    http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png

    Least absolute deviation fit shows a slight trend of increasing change in vote share as a function of 2010 vote share (which suggests pilling up of votes in safe seats). Correlation isn't strong given the large amount of scatter.
    Red dots indicate Scottish constituencies, which I removed from the fit.
    While not what you were wanting to look at, the Scottish seats shows how accurately the Ashcroft polling allowed the prediction of Scottish results with such a strong negative correlation between 2010 share and 2015 change.

    And also what a ridiculous outlier Edinburgh South is.
    Yeah, I just spent the time to look up what that point was!! What happened there?
    The SNP candidate was a vile Cybernat troll.

    Hard to believe the voters rejected him

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/snp-candidate-sorry-over-twitter-trolling-1-3751958
  • glw said:

    SeanT said:

    Corbynism is to Labour as Jihadism is to Islam. A bizarre, unexpected but unfortunately potent appeal to the most primitive verities.

    They get more like a cult every day, I don't think we have ever seen anything quite like this in UK politics, even Farage's fans are a bit more down to earth.
    Steady on....
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.

    Shocking scenes :D
    The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.

    Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    JWisemann said:

    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Thanks for putting another PB Dullerati myth to rest.

    Decided to spend the time to plot it.

    http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png

    Least absolute deviation fit shows a slight trend of increasing change in vote share as a function of 2010 vote share (which suggests pilling up of votes in safe seats). Correlation isn't strong given the large amount of scatter.
    Red dots indicate Scottish constituencies, which I removed from the fit.
    While not what you were wanting to look at, the Scottish seats shows how accurately the Ashcroft polling allowed the prediction of Scottish results with such a strong negative correlation between 2010 share and 2015 change.

    And also what a ridiculous outlier Edinburgh South is.
    Yeah, I just spent the time to look up what that point was!! What happened there?
    The SNP candidate was a vile Cybernat troll.

    Hard to believe the voters rejected him

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/snp-candidate-sorry-over-twitter-trolling-1-3751958
    I thought that behaviour was par for SNPers? :D
  • I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.

    Shocking scenes :D
    The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.

    Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
    I want to see the legal advice.

    I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.

    Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567

    I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.

    Shocking scenes :D
    The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.

    Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
    Aren't they using a prerogative power while doing this sort of thing? Voting in Parliament is merely a courtesy.
  • Surprised that Syrian refugees have smartphones? Sorry to break this to you, but you're an idiot

    You don't need to be a white westerner to own a relatively cheap piece of technology

    http://ind.pn/1UxdDoY
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    JWisemann said:

    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Thanks for putting another PB Dullerati myth to rest.

    Decided to spend the time to plot it.

    http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png

    Least absolute deviation fit shows a slight trend of increasing change in vote share as a function of 2010 vote share (which suggests pilling up of votes in safe seats). Correlation isn't strong given the large amount of scatter.
    Red dots indicate Scottish constituencies, which I removed from the fit.
    While not what you were wanting to look at, the Scottish seats shows how accurately the Ashcroft polling allowed the prediction of Scottish results with such a strong negative correlation between 2010 share and 2015 change.
    Yeah, I was quite shocked by how badly they did. I think it acts to level the vote share across Scotland (i.e. about 20-30% in every seat)?
    Not looked at the underlying numbers but there's still a bit of spread on Labour share but maybe the band you indicate is about right (it's obviously much narrower now.

    The main point I was making was about polling.

    In general, everything polled about the 2015 general election was accurate with one single exception. The comparative share between Labour/UKIP/Liberal/Green was accurate, the turnout expectation was accurate (slight increase) the Scottish prediction was accurate, the higher Scottish turnout was accurate.

    Everything was spot on with the sole exception of the Tory Share.

    And yet, people still pop up in threads here and posts elsewhere saying that polling is suddenly unreliable and of no use. Clearly, that's bollocks.
  • Dair said:

    JEO said:

    Tory rebels just defeated Cameron on purdah. Good. It's the governments fault for not limiting the EU's spending.

    The Tories abilities to get anything through this parliament is looking shakier and shakier.
    Only if their own rebel.

    Getting the known europhile David Lidington to propose the purdah amendment - with legalistic mumbo-jumbo to sell it on smooth continuation of EU business - was never going to go down well.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567
    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    JWisemann said:

    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Thanks for putting another PB Dullerati myth to rest.

    Decided to spend the time to plot it.

    http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png

    Least absolute deviation fit shows a slight trend of increasing change in vote share as a function of 2010 vote share (which suggests pilling up of votes in safe seats). Correlation isn't strong given the large amount of scatter.
    Red dots indicate Scottish constituencies, which I removed from the fit.
    While not what you were wanting to look at, the Scottish seats shows how accurately the Ashcroft polling allowed the prediction of Scottish results with such a strong negative correlation between 2010 share and 2015 change.
    Yeah, I was quite shocked by how badly they did. I think it acts to level the vote share across Scotland (i.e. about 20-30% in every seat)?
    Not looked at the underlying numbers but there's still a bit of spread on Labour share but maybe the band you indicate is about right (it's obviously much narrower now.

    The main point I was making was about polling.

    In general, everything polled about the 2015 general election was accurate with one single exception. The comparative share between Labour/UKIP/Liberal/Green was accurate, the turnout expectation was accurate (slight increase) the Scottish prediction was accurate, the higher Scottish turnout was accurate.

    Everything was spot on with the sole exception of the Tory Share.

    And yet, people still pop up in threads here and posts elsewhere saying that polling is suddenly unreliable and of no use. Clearly, that's bollocks.
    Polling in Scotland may be good, but in England it turned out to be pretty naff!
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    JWisemann said:

    Floater said:

    Dear god, they really cant be that mad can they?
    off topic, did I really see a poster claim our aims and those of Hezbollah match????

    Yes - Hezbollah want ISIS destroyed, and so, we claim, do we. The west has made peace with Iran now and the Shia forces in Syria and Iraq have to be seen as the preferable option to genocidal Sunni extremism funded by Cameron's pals in Saudi Arabia.
    You think we should have common cause with Hezbollah? its a view I suppose

    Take a closer look at Hezbollah, most would be appalled by what they found.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    JWisemann said:

    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Thanks for putting another PB Dullerati myth to rest.

    Decided to spend the time to plot it.

    http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png

    Least absolute deviation fit shows a slight trend of increasing change in vote share as a function of 2010 vote share (which suggests pilling up of votes in safe seats). Correlation isn't strong given the large amount of scatter.
    Red dots indicate Scottish constituencies, which I removed from the fit.
    While not what you were wanting to look at, the Scottish seats shows how accurately the Ashcroft polling allowed the prediction of Scottish results with such a strong negative correlation between 2010 share and 2015 change.

    And also what a ridiculous outlier Edinburgh South is.
    Yeah, I just spent the time to look up what that point was!! What happened there?
    The guy actually had a ground campaign and door knocking team (which he had built up historically because it was the tightest Labour marginal in Scotland - over the Libs in 2010). This let him successfully run a Tactical Vote drive.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    Surprised that Syrian refugees have smartphones? Sorry to break this to you, but you're an idiot

    You don't need to be a white westerner to own a relatively cheap piece of technology

    http://ind.pn/1UxdDoY

    Most people living on the streets in this country have them too.

    On that topic, when are Bono and Geldof going to offer to house some homeless from this country, or are they insignificant in the quest for self publicity?
  • Front pages all cover the 2 dead Brits - Disappointed the SUN’s does not just say: SPLAT.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @foxinsoxuk

    'The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.'


    Was it Syria or the new country called Islamic State ?

    You think the PM / Military should ask permission to kill known terrorists ?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    JWisemann said:

    AndyJS said:

    continued from the previous post:

    ...An alternative would be to take Labour's 100 best seats by vote share.

    Using that method (which means looking at seats where Labour polled 50.45%+ in 2015 and 47.71%+ in 2010), the percentages would be 27.04% in 2015 and 25.76% in 2010, not such a big difference.

    Thanks for putting another PB Dullerati myth to rest.

    Decided to spend the time to plot it.

    http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png

    Least absolute deviation fit shows a slight trend of increasing change in vote share as a function of 2010 vote share (which suggests pilling up of votes in safe seats). Correlation isn't strong given the large amount of scatter.
    Red dots indicate Scottish constituencies, which I removed from the fit.
    While not what you were wanting to look at, the Scottish seats shows how accurately the Ashcroft polling allowed the prediction of Scottish results with such a strong negative correlation between 2010 share and 2015 change.

    And also what a ridiculous outlier Edinburgh South is.
    Yeah, I just spent the time to look up what that point was!! What happened there?
    The SNP candidate was a vile Cybernat troll.

    Hard to believe the voters rejected him

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/snp-candidate-sorry-over-twitter-trolling-1-3751958
    I thought that behaviour was par for SNPers? :D
    Being completely innocent of what he was accused of by Unionists. Yep par for the course.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    RobD said:

    MTimT said:

    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    saddened said:

    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    It's a strange type of toxicity that only affects other parties and causes your own vote to go up.

    Yes, 1 in 4 of the UK population doesn't find the Tories toxic, but they managed to find a way to work the 3/4 who do to their advantage too. Devious.
    Spoiler alert.

    Labour lost, badly. With Corbyn, they are going to lose even more badly.
    If they get the same number of extra seats in England as they did this year next time, the Tories are out of government.
    Funny that - The Smith Commission - quoted by The Guardian says ''The study highlights the enormous scale of the problem facing the party, saying that with boundary changes it will need to gain more than 100 seats across the country to get a majority in 2020.''
    On your scenario the only way Labour would be 'in government' would be in coalition with the Scottish Nationalists. Not the most brilliant way to win those seats in England as I'm sure you will agree.
    I said the Tories would be out of government, I made no further conjecture.
    I think you're forgetting the 25 seats the Tories will pick up in Scotland ...
    I think we've found the pessimist!
    :)
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    N
    Floater said:

    JWisemann said:

    Floater said:

    Dear god, they really cant be that mad can they?
    off topic, did I really see a poster claim our aims and those of Hezbollah match????

    Yes - Hezbollah want ISIS destroyed, and so, we claim, do we. The west has made peace with Iran now and the Shia forces in Syria and Iraq have to be seen as the preferable option to genocidal Sunni extremism funded by Cameron's pals in Saudi Arabia.
    You think we should have common cause with Hezbollah? its a view I suppose

    Take a closer look at Hezbollah, most would be appalled by what they found.

    I wasn't saying we should have common cause, I was saying we incontrovertibly do have common cause, whether we like it or not. I don't like Hezbollah, as an atheist liberal, but compared to ISIS they are practically saints.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,546
    edited September 2015
    SeanT said:

    I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.

    Shocking scenes :D
    The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.

    Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
    I want to see the legal advice.

    I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.

    Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
    Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.

    That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.

    And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
    Oh behave you great dribbling moron and stop acting like a Cybernat.

    I'm not condemning the attacks in fact am supportive of them.

    I like to see legal advice on this basis from a professional/creative point of view.

    You're talking to someone who spent far too long reading about Roger Casement
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2015
    England and Wales, Labour's top 100 seats by vote share:

    2010: top 100 seats are those where Labour polled 45.35%+. They received 2,120,267 out of 7,571,035 votes in England & Wales, which is 28.00%

    2015: top 100 seats are those where Labour polled 50.45%+. They received 2,527,384 out of 8,640,157 in England & Wales, which is 29.25%.

    Not much difference.

    Doing it the other way, looking at those constituencies where Labour polled 50%+:

    2010: 56 seats. 1,254,944 out of 7,571,035 = 16.58%
    2015: 106 seats. 2,657,457 out of 8,640,157 = 30.76%.

    So it depends how you look at it. Labour almost doubled the number of seats in England & Wales where they polled 50%+ so in that sense they piled up more votes in safe seats.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    Where's my apology for being called antisemitic for saying being patriotic wasn't the same thing as being subservient to Israel? It's a bit rich even for this bunch of buffoons.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Sean_F said:

    alex. said:

    alex. said:

    It's astonishing that the more Cameron moves away from (real) public sentiment on refugees the more it benefits the Tories because Labour (and the SNP) continue to attack him for not doing enough! I can't instantly think of an occasion when media narrative has been so detached from public opinion.

    Is there a slip of the pen there - do you mean 'moves closer to' ? I for one am missing your point here.

    On a related topic - I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing. Lets hope there is more where our national security demands it.
    No, away from. The numbers of refugees that the UK is prepared to accept is steadily rising.

    Not really. The number runs at 10-20,000 a year.
    I'm not going to exaggerate the extent to which Govt policy is changing, if at all. However the way it is coming across in the media is that it is slightly moving towards a position of increasing numbers. But as I say it is doing little harm when Labour/SNP are so completely out of step with real public opinion, who probably accept that if Cameron is moving at all it is against his better judgement.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567

    SeanT said:

    I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.

    Shocking scenes :D
    The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.

    Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
    I want to see the legal advice.

    I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.

    Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
    Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.

    That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.

    And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
    Oh behave you great dribbling moron and stop acting like a Cybernat.

    I'm not condemning the attacks in fact am supportive of them.

    I like to see legal advice on this basis from a professional/creative point of view.
    "creative".. a very Appleby-esque word to use. :D
  • AndyJS said:

    England and Wales, Labour's top 100 seats by vote share:

    2010: top 100 seats are those where Labour polled 45.35%+. They received 2,120,267 out of 7,571,035 votes in England & Wales, which is 28.00%

    2015: top 100 seats are those where Labour polled 50.45%+. They received 2,527,384 out of 8,640,157 in England & Wales, which is 29.25%.

    Not much difference.

    Doing it the other way, looking at those constituencies where Labour polled 50%+:

    2010: 56 seats. 1,254,944 out of 7,571,035 = 16.58%
    2015: 106 seats. 2,657,457 out of 8,640,157 = 30.76%.

    So it depends how you look at it. Labour almost doubled the number of seats in England & Wales where they polled 50%+ so in that sense they piled up more votes in safe seats.

    Thank you.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.

    Shocking scenes :D
    The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.

    Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
    I want to see the legal advice.

    I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.

    Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
    Killing traitorous jihadi scum is fine by me; but the precedent of doing it in the one place in the world that parliament voted against bombing? There is a slippery slope here if a PM and military can make acts of war against the expressed will of Parliament. Well dodgy!
  • I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.

    Shocking scenes :D
    The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.

    Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
    I want to see the legal advice.

    I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.

    Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
    Killing traitorous jihadi scum is fine by me; but the precedent of doing it in the one place in the world that parliament voted against bombing? There is a slippery slope here if a PM and military can make acts of war against the expressed will of Parliament. Well dodgy!
    I agree is why I want to see the legal advice.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited September 2015
    RobD said:

    Dair said:


    Not looked at the underlying numbers but there's still a bit of spread on Labour share but maybe the band you indicate is about right (it's obviously much narrower now.

    The main point I was making was about polling.

    In general, everything polled about the 2015 general election was accurate with one single exception. The comparative share between Labour/UKIP/Liberal/Green was accurate, the turnout expectation was accurate (slight increase) the Scottish prediction was accurate, the higher Scottish turnout was accurate.

    Everything was spot on with the sole exception of the Tory Share.

    And yet, people still pop up in threads here and posts elsewhere saying that polling is suddenly unreliable and of no use. Clearly, that's bollocks.

    Polling in Scotland may be good, but in England it turned out to be pretty naff!
    But that's really not true.

    It predicted the relative share between Labour, Liberal, UKIP and Green.
    It predicted the turnout.
    It predicted the wipeout of the Liberals in the South West despite much guffawing that their cockroach like survability would save them.

    Everything in the polling leading up to GE2015 except for the Tory share.
  • SeanT said:

    I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.

    Shocking scenes :D
    The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.

    Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
    I want to see the legal advice.

    I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.

    Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
    Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.

    That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.

    And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
    Quite. The Prime Minister has the authority under the Crown to use ultimate force to act in armed defence of British subjects, and our national interest, whenever there is an imminent threat to our well-being from those that mean us harm.

    To claim that this is bringing back the death penalty by the back door would be similar to saying the same of the SAS storming of the Iranian embassy in 1980.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @TSE

    'I agree is why I want to see the legal advice.'

    Self defence.
  • I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.

    Shocking scenes :D
    The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.

    Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
    I want to see the legal advice.

    I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.

    Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
    Killing traitorous jihadi scum is fine by me; but the precedent of doing it in the one place in the world that parliament voted against bombing? There is a slippery slope here if a PM and military can make acts of war against the expressed will of Parliament. Well dodgy!
    I don't see how self-professed combatants in a war can have any complaint if the people they are trying to kill get in first.
    The vote in Parliament was against bombing Assad, not ISIS.

  • RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing.

    Shocking scenes :D
    The RAF drone was over Raqqa in Syria. I thought parliament had rejected airstrikes there.

    Much as I am in favour of turning Jihadis into stains on the wall, expanding our military over the border in direct contradiction of a vote in parliament is quite a precedent.
    I want to see the legal advice.

    I want to see how the government authorised an extra judicial execution.

    Perhaps this how to bring back the death penalty via the back door.
    Who gives the tiniest of flying fucks. These "British" fuckers went to join ISIS well AFTER we knew ISIS were beheading, raping, slaving, exploding, torturing and genociding their way across the Middle East, all in the name of attacking the West, in time.

    That would be reason enough to wipe them out, with a UK drone, here and now. They are seriously dangerous traitors. But on top of that they explicitly threatened the UK in videos and tried to recruit more UK terrorists specifically to kill Britons in Britain.

    And you bleat about "extra judicial executions"? You ludicrous, dribbling twit.
    Oh behave you great dribbling moron and stop acting like a Cybernat.

    I'm not condemning the attacks in fact am supportive of them.

    I like to see legal advice on this basis from a professional/creative point of view.
    "creative".. a very Appleby-esque word to use. :D
    Roger Casement is one of my favourite legal cases, he was someone who was hanged on a comma.

    At Casement's highly publicised trial for treason, the prosecution had trouble arguing its case. Casement's crimes had been carried out in Germany and the Treason Act 1351 seemed to apply only to activities carried out on English (or, arguably, British) soil.

    A close reading of the Act allowed for a broader interpretation: the court decided that a comma should be read in the unpunctuated original Norman-French text, crucially altering the sense so that "in the realm or elsewhere" referred to where acts were done and not just to where the "King's enemies" may be.[33][34] This led to the claim[by whom?] that Casement was "hanged on a comma".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Casement
  • Sean_F said:

    alex. said:

    alex. said:

    It's astonishing that the more Cameron moves away from (real) public sentiment on refugees the more it benefits the Tories because Labour (and the SNP) continue to attack him for not doing enough! I can't instantly think of an occasion when media narrative has been so detached from public opinion.

    Is there a slip of the pen there - do you mean 'moves closer to' ? I for one am missing your point here.

    On a related topic - I for one applaud the PM's policy on the drone bombing. Lets hope there is more where our national security demands it.
    No, away from. The numbers of refugees that the UK is prepared to accept is steadily rising.

    Not really. The number runs at 10-20,000 a year.
    Unlike almost all other parts of our immigration system, the asylum aspect is under relatively good control.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,567
    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:


    Not looked at the underlying numbers but there's still a bit of spread on Labour share but maybe the band you indicate is about right (it's obviously much narrower now.

    The main point I was making was about polling.

    In general, everything polled about the 2015 general election was accurate with one single exception. The comparative share between Labour/UKIP/Liberal/Green was accurate, the turnout expectation was accurate (slight increase) the Scottish prediction was accurate, the higher Scottish turnout was accurate.

    Everything was spot on with the sole exception of the Tory Share.

    And yet, people still pop up in threads here and posts elsewhere saying that polling is suddenly unreliable and of no use. Clearly, that's bollocks.

    Polling in Scotland may be good, but in England it turned out to be pretty naff!
    But that's really not true.

    It predicted the relative share between Labour, Liberal, UKIP and Green.
    It predicted the turnout.
    It predicted the wipeout of the Liberals in the South West despite much guffawing that their cockroach like survability would save them.
    Unfortunately, it couldn't predict the Tory share (the largest party). Nor did it see the majority coming (near certainty of a hung parliament etc.). Both seem rather important.
Sign In or Register to comment.