Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Your point is?
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
Lol but the Tories were doing so much better in 1867! spinning right round right round right round....
Referring you to facts which you might find unpalatable is not spinning in any sense - but you appear determined to reveal the extent of your own ignorance.
Indeed. And the fact was that in 2001, the Conservatives elected IDS, who was never going lead the Tories to a general election win. This showed up in the opinion polls. Do you see the parallel?
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Your point is?
I refer you to my comment of 4.07.
Given your response consists of intellectually pathetic straw clutching, colour me unimpressed. Any 1st year history ug would be laughed out of a tutorial if they attempted to fit their opinion to a convenient fact, regardless of relevance. It's no better than Hunchman and his, crash is coming, look at the famous 86 year, 4 month cycle.
You seem to me to be living proof of thE Corbynite delusion.
Anecdote alert. I belong to a Creative Writing Group (15 OAP's) and for last week's meeting we were asked to do, inter alia, a political speech designed to be given to an unsympathetic audience. Not many took that option but one who did gave a rip-roaring pro-Labour speech, at the end of which someone said "What was wrong with that?" Most of us of us seemed happy with the sightly left of Corbyn agenda proposed.
Did you pay for it all at the end? Or did you expect someone else to foot the bill?
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
And they lost the next one. So not much to be joyful about on their end even with a 35%.
Must be some decent odds on Labmost seats for 2020 though.
But the Labour lead at the following election was 12% to 20% plus narrower than the polls were showing in Feb 2002!
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
Lol but the Tories were doing so much better in 1867! spinning right round right round right round....
Referring you to facts which you might find unpalatable is not spinning in any sense - but you appear determined to reveal the extent of your own ignorance.
Indeed. And the fact was that in 2001, the Conservatives elected IDS, who was never going lead the Tories to a general election win. This showed up in the opinion polls. Do you see the parallel?
No David. From memory IDS was not elected until Autumn 2001 . From the polling data there is no indication that Labour's lead surged following his election - Labour simply remained miles out in front by a margin far bigger than the Tories are presently enjoying! In the second half of 2002 Labour's lead did narrow - so IDS did ,perhaps, begin to make a positive impact.
Labour on 38% in England......pardon me for a second............hahahahahahaha!
1. I think you have put your finger on it - if you have even the slightest sense of humour, in 2016 four years ahead of the GE, hell, even the day before, why wouldn't you say Lab to a pollster?
And then sit back and enjoy.
2. Of course, reality check: the vast majority of normal Lab voters aren't aware of Jezza's shenanigans and remain Lab. They might take notice in the GE2020 campaign but ahead of that? Please refer to pt. 1.
Anecdote alert. I belong to a Creative Writing Group (15 OAP's) and for last week's meeting we were asked to do, inter alia, a political speech designed to be given to an unsympathetic audience. Not many took that option but one who did gave a rip-roaring pro-Labour speech, at the end of which someone said "What was wrong with that?" Most of us of us seemed happy with the sightly left of Corbyn agenda proposed.
Did you pay for it all at the end? Or did you expect someone else to foot the bill?
Me? Pay? It's the State's job to pay!
TBH I was quite surprised at what was done, and quite frankly, thought it was inappropriate.
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
Lol but the Tories were doing so much better in 1867! spinning right round right round right round....
Referring you to facts which you might find unpalatable is not spinning in any sense - but you appear determined to reveal the extent of your own ignorance.
Indeed. And the fact was that in 2001, the Conservatives elected IDS, who was never going lead the Tories to a general election win. This showed up in the opinion polls. Do you see the parallel?
No David. From memory IDS was not elected until Autumn 2001 . From the polling data there is no indication that Labour's lead surged following his election - Labour simply remained miles out in front by a margin far bigger than the Tories are presently enjoying! In the second half of 2002 Labour's lead did narrow - so IDS did ,perhaps, begin to make a positive impact.
That's new labour, led by Tony Blair? Autumn 2001... 911. Keep dreaming.
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
Lol but the Tories were doing so much better in 1867! spinning right round right round right round....
Referring you to facts which you might find unpalatable is not spinning in any sense - but you appear determined to reveal the extent of your own ignorance.
You mean like the way you ignore Martin Boon's comment that his own company's poll has got the Labour score wrong. Your trolling is getting ever more pathetic.
Janan Ganesh Our national parliament is debating whether to ban Trump cos some melts signed a petition. Can't get any more mickey mouse than that.
This petition idea is exposed as a joke.
It was always one of those things that sounds nice, but was bound to end up with some really stupid petitions garnering the necessary signatures. But parliamentarians are insecure, and worry they will not be seen as 'engaging' the public enough, so it is here to stay.
Not going to happen, but looking at those net favorability figures, Kasich should be the one the Dems should most fear.
Looking at the ideological bell curves, what strikes me is that what has happened is a skewing of both GOP and Dem curves, but the tails to the opposing ideology are still fat and fairly unchanged... Curious. Socially conservative blacks and Jews for the Dems and libertarians for the GOP?
Doesn't the low Republican positive score for Kasich indicate that he wouldn't motivate the base?
That's why I prefaced it with 'not going to happen'.
Kasich will not win the primaries because of that fact. But faced with either Hillary or Bernie in a general, he would win the centre. His inability to excite the GOP will hurt some, but:
Case 1: Running against Hillary. Here equally the Dems will not have an excited base and Kasich is so 'moderate' in US terms that his being the GOP candidate will not fire up the Dem base as Cruz or Trump would.
Case 2: Running against Bernie. Bernie will fire up the liberal wing of the Dems, but not the moderates, and he will turn off Independents, ensuring a bigger win for Kasich in that camp.
Net net, if Kasich could get the nomination, I would see him winning the General handily.
Interesting, thanks.
If you have a second, I'd be interested to know how you think Sanders comes across to a US audience. To me he seems too much of a denounce-bad-stuff politician, not at all executive or Presidential.
I think the general opinion here is that Bernie could not win - just too left wing for the general electorate. Goes down well with lefties and liberals, and he is a rock star on college campuses. But remind me, who actually votes?
To answer your question directly, I don't think most people get to the point of asking themselves whether he is presidential.
For those who don't like him, it is not an issue - his politics are too extreme.
For those who do like him, he is a rock star, so that's all that matters.
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
Lol but the Tories were doing so much better in 1867! spinning right round right round right round....
Referring you to facts which you might find unpalatable is not spinning in any sense - but you appear determined to reveal the extent of your own ignorance.
Indeed. And the fact was that in 2001, the Conservatives elected IDS, who was never going lead the Tories to a general election win. This showed up in the opinion polls. Do you see the parallel?
No David. From memory IDS was not elected until Autumn 2001 . From the polling data there is no indication that Labour's lead surged following his election - Labour simply remained miles out in front by a margin far bigger than the Tories are presently enjoying! In the second half of 2002 Labour's lead did narrow - so IDS did ,perhaps, begin to make a positive impact.
That's new labour, led by Tony Blair? Autumn 2001... 911. Keep dreaming.
Anecdote alert. I belong to a Creative Writing Group (15 OAP's) and for last week's meeting we were asked to do, inter alia, a political speech designed to be given to an unsympathetic audience. Not many took that option but one who did gave a rip-roaring pro-Labour speech, at the end of which someone said "What was wrong with that?" Most of us of us seemed happy with the sightly left of Corbyn agenda proposed.
Much would depend on the credibility of who was delivering it, what it said and in what context it was being delivered, though, wouldn't it?
Corbyn has a major back story and friends problem that means that voters will never give him the time of day, whatever he says. The identity of the leader is so important because it is he/she that drives the ability for a party to get a hearing. That's why EdM was such an obvious negative for Labour from the get-go and why Jezza is a total disaster now.
Janan Ganesh Our national parliament is debating whether to ban Trump cos some melts signed a petition. Can't get any more mickey mouse than that.
This petition idea is exposed as a joke.
It was always one of those things that sounds nice, but was bound to end up with some really stupid petitions garnering the necessary signatures. But parliamentarians are insecure, and worry they will not be seen as 'engaging' the public enough, so it is here to stay.
A pity some generally accepted public personalities cannot stand up and say that it's stupid and demeaning. A typically stupid new labour idea.
Janan Ganesh Our national parliament is debating whether to ban Trump cos some melts signed a petition. Can't get any more mickey mouse than that.
This petition idea is exposed as a joke.
It was always one of those things that sounds nice, but was bound to end up with some really stupid petitions garnering the necessary signatures. But parliamentarians are insecure, and worry they will not be seen as 'engaging' the public enough, so it is here to stay.
A pity some generally accepted public personalities cannot stand up and say that it's stupid and demeaning. A typically stupid new labour idea.
In principle its a good idea, its called democracy, as usual its stupid politicians who turn up to debate it. It proves they've nothing better to do with their time.
Not going to happen, but looking at those net favorability figures, Kasich should be the one the Dems should most fear.
Looking at the ideological bell curves, what strikes me is that what has happened is a skewing of both GOP and Dem curves, but the tails to the opposing ideology are still fat and fairly unchanged... Curious. Socially conservative blacks and Jews for the Dems and libertarians for the GOP?
Doesn't the low Republican positive score for Kasich indicate that he wouldn't motivate the base?
That's why I prefaced it with 'not going to happen'.
Kasich will not win the primaries because of that fact. But faced with either Hillary or Bernie in a general, he would win the centre. His inability to excite the GOP will hurt some, but:
Case 1: Running against Hillary. Here equally the Dems will not have an excited base and Kasich is so 'moderate' in US terms that his being the GOP candidate will not fire up the Dem base as Cruz or Trump would.
Case 2: Running against Bernie. Bernie will fire up the liberal wing of the Dems, but not the moderates, and he will turn off Independents, ensuring a bigger win for Kasich in that camp.
Net net, if Kasich could get the nomination, I would see him winning the General handily.
Interesting, thanks.
If you have a second, I'd be interested to know how you think Sanders comes across to a US audience. To me he seems too much of a denounce-bad-stuff politician, not at all executive or Presidential.
I think the general opinion here is that Bernie could not win - just too left wing for the general electorate. Goes down well with lefties and liberals, and he is a rock star on college campuses. But remind me, who actually votes?
To answer your question directly, I don't think most people get to the point of asking themselves whether he is presidential.
For those who don't like him, it is not an issue - his politics are too extreme.
For those who do like him, he is a rock star, so that's all that matters.
Thanks. That makes sense.
I'm wondering how a Sanders vs Trump general plays out. My instinct with US elections is that the candidate who would be least viable in Europe wins, and that is Trump.
Janan Ganesh Our national parliament is debating whether to ban Trump cos some melts signed a petition. Can't get any more mickey mouse than that.
When there are so many important things for Parliament to be discussing, this is a real example of decadence.
A pretentious sixth-form debating society which still thinks it can impose its disastrous, failed political correct experiment on the world...
Well said Sir, parliament is nothing more than a room full of toadying careerists, the majority of MPs could walk through their constituency without being recognised such is their impact. All they do is follow the instructions of the Whips, attend the odd surgery and make infantile noises and gestures at PMQs.
Now the phuicking idiots are debating something an American bloke said.
Not going to happen, but looking at those net favorability figures, Kasich should be the one the Dems should most fear.
Looking at the ideological bell curves, what strikes me is that what has happened is a skewing of both GOP and Dem curves, but the tails to the opposing ideology are still fat and fairly unchanged... Curious. Socially conservative blacks and Jews for the Dems and libertarians for the GOP?
Doesn't the low Republican positive score for Kasich indicate that he wouldn't motivate the base?
That's why I prefaced it with 'not going to happen'.
Kasich will not win the primaries because of that fact. But faced with either Hillary or Bernie in a general, he would win the centre. His inability to excite the GOP will hurt some, but:
Case 1: Running against Hillary. Here equally the Dems will not have an excited base and Kasich is so 'moderate' in US terms that his being the GOP candidate will not fire up the Dem base as Cruz or Trump would.
Case 2: Running against Bernie. Bernie will fire up the liberal wing of the Dems, but not the moderates, and he will turn off Independents, ensuring a bigger win for Kasich in that camp.
Net net, if Kasich could get the nomination, I would see him winning the General handily.
Interesting, thanks.
If you have a second, I'd be interested to know how you think Sanders comes across to a US audience. To me he seems too much of a denounce-bad-stuff politician, not at all executive or Presidential.
I think the general opinion here is that Bernie could not win - just too left wing for the general electorate. Goes down well with lefties and liberals, and he is a rock star on college campuses. But remind me, who actually votes?
To answer your question directly, I don't think most people get to the point of asking themselves whether he is presidential.
For those who don't like him, it is not an issue - his politics are too extreme.
For those who do like him, he is a rock star, so that's all that matters.
Thanks. That makes sense.
I'm wondering how a Sanders vs Trump general plays out. My instinct with US elections is that the candidate who would be least viable in Europe wins, and that is Trump.
LOL. Like your heuristic. But gives the same result as mine.
Janan Ganesh Our national parliament is debating whether to ban Trump cos some melts signed a petition. Can't get any more mickey mouse than that.
This petition idea is exposed as a joke.
It was always one of those things that sounds nice, but was bound to end up with some really stupid petitions garnering the necessary signatures. But parliamentarians are insecure, and worry they will not be seen as 'engaging' the public enough, so it is here to stay.
A pity some generally accepted public personalities cannot stand up and say that it's stupid and demeaning. A typically stupid new labour idea.
In principle its a good idea, its called democracy, as usual its stupid politicians who turn up to debate it. It proves they've nothing better to do with their time.
What a bunch of spanners MPs are, most of them merely functioning as case workers for a glorified Citizens Advice Bureau. Time to cull their numbers, and hard.
Janan Ganesh Our national parliament is debating whether to ban Trump cos some melts signed a petition. Can't get any more mickey mouse than that.
This petition idea is exposed as a joke.
It was always one of those things that sounds nice, but was bound to end up with some really stupid petitions garnering the necessary signatures. But parliamentarians are insecure, and worry they will not be seen as 'engaging' the public enough, so it is here to stay.
You could use it in a useful way to explain to Jeremy Corbyn that his idea of policy by democracy may be foolhardy. His concept of democratising policy is no different to the engaging the public in petitions.
Just because something is popular that is no guide to the merit of the idea. If the proposal was for 70% tax on bankers no doubt it would win a majority in the Corbynite Labour party, and be unhelpful to the nation as a whole. Until there is a recognition of the difference between popular and right we are going to be in a mess, but not such a large mess as Labour.
Edit - Just realised the flaw in my argument, Corbyn probably agrees with banning Trump, so his learning will be nil!
Janan Ganesh Our national parliament is debating whether to ban Trump cos some melts signed a petition. Can't get any more mickey mouse than that.
When there are so many important things for Parliament to be discussing, this is a real example of decadence.
A pretentious sixth-form debating society which still thinks it can impose its disastrous, failed political correct experiment on the world...
Well said Sir, parliament is nothing more than a room full of toadying careerists, the majority of MPs could walk through their constituency without being recognised such is their impact. All they do is follow the instructions of the Whips, attend the odd surgery and make infantile noises and gestures at PMQs.
Now the phuicking idiots are debating something an American bloke said.
I don't agree with that. For one thing PMQs is not at all typical of Parliamentary debates which are usually sober and thoughtful (and boring, so people don't watch). And the work in select committees is often excellent (but even more boring).
There's a lot that's good about our Parliamentary democracy imo.
This debate re Trump is demeaning to everyone in the UK..invite him in, make him welcome,ask questions ..see what he is like, how he responds..it may not work entirely to his advantage..but it stops the rest of us looking like free speech banning idiots.
I'm trying to, but failing. Perhaps you can explain how your comment applies to, let's see, Sir Edward Leigh, who has just spoken. Or to Philip Davies, who is also taking part.
But surely ICM - and the other pollsters - carry out appropriate adjustments to deal with that!
Yes but Boon is essentially saying that even with those adjustments they don't do enough to correct for the poor sample.
So telephone polls are seriously flawed, and online panel polling is serious flawed. It seems that the only method that works okay is expensive and intensive doorstep or face-to-face polling, and nobody is willing to pay for that to be done on a regular basis for voting intention polls.
Most people don't change how they vote from one election to the next. So maybe one solution to the polling problem would be to identify those people who might change their mind from the surveys and just concentrate on interviewing them face-to-face every so often.
"In principle its a good idea, its called democracy..."
Point of order, Mr. Chairman. That democracy is in itself a good idea is not universally accepted and the type we endure - that of the tyranny of the largest minority - is, arguably, only the least worst version of it.
I know what Churchill said, but the great man was not always correct and sometimes he was outright wrong.
ICM has found more Labour voters than Tories in it's raw numbers. The methodology is broken, completely broken.
Well looking at the detail Labour have a very high level of retention. It looks like a bunch of Corbynites are saying they voted Labour in 2015 and would vote Labour now.
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
Lol but the Tories were doing so much better in 1867! spinning right round right round right round....
Referring you to facts which you might find unpalatable is not spinning in any sense - but you appear determined to reveal the extent of your own ignorance.
Indeed. And the fact was that in 2001, the Conservatives elected IDS, who was never going lead the Tories to a general election win. This showed up in the opinion polls. Do you see the parallel?
No David. From memory IDS was not elected until Autumn 2001 . From the polling data there is no indication that Labour's lead surged following his election - Labour simply remained miles out in front by a margin far bigger than the Tories are presently enjoying! In the second half of 2002 Labour's lead did narrow - so IDS did ,perhaps, begin to make a positive impact.
Correct. IDS was elected in September 2001. And yes, he did narrow Labour's lead (which shot out after Blair's second landslide). But despite all that, IDS would never have won an election against Blair - his personal ratings and leadership failings were there for all to see. The MPs did see that and acted accordingly. Obviously, it was too late to win but Howard turned the tide at a point when the Lib Dems were seriously threatening to overtake the Tories in the polls.
Corbyn may well poll ok at the moment and may gain leads at some point. But when push comes to electoral shove, he'll lose. Very badly.
Important endorsement for Bernie Sanders from Tommy Chong.He is a Hall of Famer for the cannabis industry and speaks for a multi-billion dollar legal business in increasing parts of the USA,involving a large number of voters who would naturally support GOP-all the GOP candidates are on the wrong side of the winds of change flowing through the states.Tommy is suffering from rectal cancer and is using cannabis as a suppository.Expect strong support for Bernie in the many more states where medical cannabis has been legalised and expecially the senior vote. Bernie's policy on de-classification will get support across states but he is set to do very well in certain places. A Trump-Sanders contest is still possible once the votes get cast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction
This debate re Trump is demeaning to everyone in the UK..invite him in, make him welcome,ask questions ..see what he is like, how he responds..it may not work entirely to his advantage..but it stops the rest of us looking like free speech banning idiots.
Agree,the more these free speech banning idiots carry on,the more I hope Trump gets the top job.
There are going to be no winners from the Trump debate. The only way to not look like a complete fool is to not turn up to the debate. Richard is right, should have been a Tory three line whip to avoid the debate, let Labour and the Lib Dems make themselves look foolish.
There are going to be no winners from the Trump debate. The only way to not look like a complete fool is to not turn up to the debate. Richard is right, should have been a Tory three line whip to avoid the debate, let Labour and the Lib Dems make themselves look foolish.
This debate re Trump is demeaning to everyone in the UK..invite him in, make him welcome,ask questions ..see what he is like, how he responds..it may not work entirely to his advantage..but it stops the rest of us looking like free speech banning idiots.
Agree,the more these free speech banning idiots carry on,the more I hope Trump gets the top job.
Hopefully some good will come of this embarrassing episode – and ignore all future petitions.
They found nearly as many Lib Dem voters as UKIP voters as well.
They are calling and getting all those people who work in 9-5 (or less) jobs, most likely public sector (Ipsos have a terrible over-sampling problem with this group) and people like students.
If we invite Trump in..as we should..it would give us all in the UK the opportunity to ask him to explain in detail the wilder and more outrageous statements he has made on a number of fronts..It would give us in the UK a clearer picture of the man and as it would all be covered extensively the USA tv channels..it might also be the first opportunity for our American friends to hear what he has to say when under pressure from our famously disrespectful MSM
But surely ICM - and the other pollsters - carry out appropriate adjustments to deal with that!
Yes but Boon is essentially saying that even with those adjustments they don't do enough to correct for the poor sample.
So telephone polls are seriously flawed, and online panel polling is serious flawed. It seems that the only method that works okay is expensive and intensive doorstep or face-to-face polling, and nobody is willing to pay for that to be done on a regular basis for voting intention polls.
Most people don't change how they vote from one election to the next. So maybe one solution to the polling problem would be to identify those people who might change their mind from the surveys and just concentrate on interviewing them face-to-face every so often.
Phone polls were closer to GE2015 than online - um, ish!:
'Why are Conservative MPs engaging in this children's debate on Trump'
The same reason they are lining up to support the PM's so-called 'renegotiation' of our EU membership.
Really? How does that work?
It doesn't. And you are right. The whole thing is silly and if you do not agree with the topic(or even if you do) then stay away and do something useful.
Janan Ganesh Our national parliament is debating whether to ban Trump cos some melts signed a petition. Can't get any more mickey mouse than that.
This petition idea is exposed as a joke.
It was always one of those things that sounds nice, but was bound to end up with some really stupid petitions garnering the necessary signatures. But parliamentarians are insecure, and worry they will not be seen as 'engaging' the public enough, so it is here to stay.
A pity some generally accepted public personalities cannot stand up and say that it's stupid and demeaning. A typically stupid new labour idea.
In principle its a good idea, its called democracy, as usual its stupid politicians who turn up to debate it. It proves they've nothing better to do with their time.
What a bunch of spanners MPs are, most of them merely functioning as case workers for a glorified Citizens Advice Bureau. Time to cull their numbers, and hard.
Good to see some pbreds continue to use the 'right' opinion polls as a comfort blanket... don't tell them about May 2015! Leave 'em be if it makes 'em happy and content.
"In principle its a good idea, its called democracy..."
Point of order, Mr. Chairman. That democracy is in itself a good idea is not universally accepted and the type we endure - that of the tyranny of the largest minority - is, arguably, only the least worst version of it.
I know what Churchill said, but the great man was not always correct and sometimes he was outright wrong.
"Politics are almost as exciting as war, and – quite as dangerous … [I]n war, you can only be killed once. But in politics many times." - W. Churchill, 1906.
Not sure why people are debating whether Parliament should be debating Trump.
The law is clear, is it not the case that more than 100k signed a petition so Parliament should debate the issue. After that constitutional nicety is observed Parliament should do nothing more about it because it is stupid but unless we're going to repeal the 100k petition law then Parliament needs to follow through with this infantile debate.
Maybe we should discuss whether repealing the petition law should be on the table if this is the level of nonsense that is going to go through with it?
Not sure why people are debating whether Parliament should be debating Trump.
The law is clear, is it not the case that more than 100k signed a petition so Parliament should debate the issue. After that constitutional nicety is observed Parliament should do nothing more about it because it is stupid but unless we're going to repeal the 100k petition law then Parliament needs to follow through with this infantile debate.
Maybe we should discuss whether repealing the petition law should be on the table if this is the level of nonsense that is going to go through with it?
I think there is a sub-committee which can decide if the debate is a waste of time.
Not sure why people are debating whether Parliament should be debating Trump.
The law is clear, is it not the case that more than 100k signed a petition so Parliament should debate the issue. After that constitutional nicety is observed Parliament should do nothing more about it because it is stupid but unless we're going to repeal the 100k petition law then Parliament needs to follow through with this infantile debate.
Maybe we should discuss whether repealing the petition law should be on the table if this is the level of nonsense that is going to go through with it?
I think there is a sub-committee which can decide if the debate is a waste of time.
As it is this time. I wasn't aware of that, the sub-committee should have done its job if that is the case.
There is also meant to be screening before the petitions go online with many polls rejected as not within Parliament's review. This ought to have been one of them rejected as it isn't Parliament's job to ban one unique individual - they are meant to set laws determining what categories of people are banned (eg those who have been convicted of crimes for inciting violence, unlike Trump).
Not sure why people are debating whether Parliament should be debating Trump.
The law is clear, is it not the case that more than 100k signed a petition so Parliament should debate the issue. After that constitutional nicety is observed Parliament should do nothing more about it because it is stupid but unless we're going to repeal the 100k petition law then Parliament needs to follow through with this infantile debate.
Maybe we should discuss whether repealing the petition law should be on the table if this is the level of nonsense that is going to go through with it?
I think there is a sub-committee which can decide if the debate is a waste of time.
As it is this time. I wasn't aware of that, the sub-committee should have done its job if that is the case.
There is also meant to be screening before the petitions go online with many polls rejected as not within Parliament's review. This ought to have been one of them rejected as it isn't Parliament's job to ban one unique individual - they are meant to set laws determining what categories of people are banned (eg those who have been convicted of crimes for inciting violence, unlike Trump).
Yeah they do it from time to time, I think recently a petition to halt all immigration reached over 100k and the sub-committee decided not to debate it.
Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.
Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)
It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.
But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.
Lol but the Tories were doing so much better in 1867! spinning right round right round right round....
Referring you to facts which you might find unpalatable is not spinning in any sense - but you appear determined to reveal the extent of your own ignorance.
Indeed. And the fact was that in 2001, the Conservatives elected IDS, who was never going lead the Tories to a general election win. This showed up in the opinion polls. Do you see the parallel?
No David. From memory IDS was not elected until Autumn 2001 . From the polling data there is no indication that Labour's lead surged following his election - Labour simply remained miles out in front by a margin far bigger than the Tories are presently enjoying! In the second half of 2002 Labour's lead did narrow - so IDS did ,perhaps, begin to make a positive impact.
Correct. IDS was elected in September 2001. And yes, he did narrow Labour's lead (which shot out after Blair's second landslide). But despite all that, IDS would never have won an election against Blair - his personal ratings and leadership failings were there for all to see. The MPs did see that and acted accordingly. Obviously, it was too late to win but Howard turned the tide at a point when the Lib Dems were seriously threatening to overtake the Tories in the polls.
Corbyn may well poll ok at the moment and may gain leads at some point. But when push comes to electoral shove, he'll lose. Very badly.
IDS actually polled very close to the 32% Howard got in 2005 when he was ousted if not a fraction more, it was more the MPs mood and party unity which was boosted under the experienced Howard than any big poll boost
Not sure why people are debating whether Parliament should be debating Trump.
The law is clear, is it not the case that more than 100k signed a petition so Parliament should debate the issue. After that constitutional nicety is observed Parliament should do nothing more about it because it is stupid but unless we're going to repeal the 100k petition law then Parliament needs to follow through with this infantile debate.
Maybe we should discuss whether repealing the petition law should be on the table if this is the level of nonsense that is going to go through with it?
I think there is a sub-committee which can decide if the debate is a waste of time.
Given the Corbynistas ability to get tens of thousands of signatures in hours on any petition that fires their ire, then that committee is likely to be very busy whilst he is still leader...
Not sure why people are debating whether Parliament should be debating Trump.
The law is clear, is it not the case that more than 100k signed a petition so Parliament should debate the issue. After that constitutional nicety is observed Parliament should do nothing more about it because it is stupid but unless we're going to repeal the 100k petition law then Parliament needs to follow through with this infantile debate.
Maybe we should discuss whether repealing the petition law should be on the table if this is the level of nonsense that is going to go through with it?
I think there is a sub-committee which can decide if the debate is a waste of time.
As it is this time. I wasn't aware of that, the sub-committee should have done its job if that is the case.
There is also meant to be screening before the petitions go online with many polls rejected as not within Parliament's review. This ought to have been one of them rejected as it isn't Parliament's job to ban one unique individual - they are meant to set laws determining what categories of people are banned (eg those who have been convicted of crimes for inciting violence, unlike Trump).
At the risk of incurring Smithson Junior's wrath, this particular petition seems to me to be a mass virtue-signalling exercise by the signatories involved.
I suspect the proportion who didn't declare on social media that they had signed it to be rather small.
Jack Dromey is surely on course to get the Most Stupid Speech In The Stupid Debate prize.
Well, with that as set up, don't hold back - how bad could it have been?
From the Guardian live blog:
"In the current febrile climate, Isis needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump need Isis."
That is why he should not be allowed to come to this country, he says.
Imagine what would happen if he came to Birmingham or Glasgow and preached his message of hate, Dromey says.
He says having Trump in this country would undermine the safety of our communities. “That is not a risk I am prepared to take,” he says, adding that Trump should not be allowed within 1,000 miles of our shores.
"Donald Trump is free to be a fool. But he is not free to be a dangerous fool in Britain."
There are going to be no winners from the Trump debate. The only way to not look like a complete fool is to not turn up to the debate. Richard is right, should have been a Tory three line whip to avoid the debate, let Labour and the Lib Dems make themselves look foolish.
Dr. Prasannan, I'm more interested in Dromey's view of the UK. Does he think we have the right to exclude non-Britons from visiting other countries that are nearby? Or does he think we live on an island separate from all other nations by at least a thousand miles?
Dr. Prasannan, I'm more interested in Dromey's view of the UK. Does he think we have the right to exclude non-Britons from visiting other countries that are nearby? Or does he think we live on an island separate from all other nations by at least a thousand miles?
Is he, just possibly, an utter cretin?
He's always been an utter cretin. This is not new news.
Jack Dromey is surely on course to get the Most Stupid Speech In The Stupid Debate prize.
Well, with that as set up, don't hold back - how bad could it have been?
From the Guardian live blog:
"In the current febrile climate, Isis needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump need Isis."
That is why he should not be allowed to come to this country, he says.
Imagine what would happen if he came to Birmingham or Glasgow and preached his message of hate, Dromey says.
He says having Trump in this country would undermine the safety of our communities. “That is not a risk I am prepared to take,” he says, adding that Trump should not be allowed within 1,000 miles of our shores.
"Donald Trump is free to be a fool. But he is not free to be a dangerous fool in Britain."
1,000 miles? So Dromey wants to exclude him from the European continent?
So we can conclude from this that not only is Dromey a Remainer but that he also supports ever-closer union and a common EU asylum and immigration policy.
Either that, or he wants us to reconquer Ireland and France.
I think that there is a case to be made that golf and the insane outfits that should apparently be worn whilst indulging in it is a form of terrorism.
Not a very strong one though.
This is even more ridiculous than our elected representatives somehow conceiving that what they think is going to have some impact on the future of Syria. Its just embarrassing.
Comments
Our national parliament is debating whether to ban Trump cos some melts signed a petition. Can't get any more mickey mouse than that.
You seem to me to be living proof of thE Corbynite delusion.
Maomentum since GE 2015 can't be THAT big
The muslim immigrant son of a billionaire, or the white British bus driver
And then sit back and enjoy.
2. Of course, reality check: the vast majority of normal Lab voters aren't aware of Jezza's shenanigans and remain Lab. They might take notice in the GE2020 campaign but ahead of that? Please refer to pt. 1.
TBH I was quite surprised at what was done, and quite frankly, thought it was inappropriate.
Keep dreaming.
To answer your question directly, I don't think most people get to the point of asking themselves whether he is presidential.
For those who don't like him, it is not an issue - his politics are too extreme.
For those who do like him, he is a rock star, so that's all that matters.
I always enjoy Janan's wide volcabulary.
But what are 'melts'?
Corbyn has a major back story and friends problem that means that voters will never give him the time of day, whatever he says. The identity of the leader is so important because it is he/she that drives the ability for a party to get a hearing. That's why EdM was such an obvious negative for Labour from the get-go and why Jezza is a total disaster now.
ICM/Guardian National Poll CON 49 !!!% LAB 35% UKIP10% LDEM 6%
I'm wondering how a Sanders vs Trump general plays out. My instinct with US elections is that the candidate who would be least viable in Europe wins, and that is Trump.
Now the phuicking idiots are debating something an American bloke said.
Just because something is popular that is no guide to the merit of the idea. If the proposal was for 70% tax on bankers no doubt it would win a majority in the Corbynite Labour party, and be unhelpful to the nation as a whole. Until there is a recognition of the difference between popular and right we are going to be in a mess, but not such a large mess as Labour.
Edit - Just realised the flaw in my argument, Corbyn probably agrees with banning Trump, so his learning will be nil!
There's a lot that's good about our Parliamentary democracy imo.
The same reason they are lining up to support the PM's so-called 'renegotiation' of our EU membership.
Use your imagination Richard
"In principle its a good idea, its called democracy..."
Point of order, Mr. Chairman. That democracy is in itself a good idea is not universally accepted and the type we endure - that of the tyranny of the largest minority - is, arguably, only the least worst version of it.
I know what Churchill said, but the great man was not always correct and sometimes he was outright wrong.
"A person who needs to man up and grow a pair. Often the 'melt' will be approached by a member of the opposite sex, only to run away and cry"
He's an odd one.
Corbyn may well poll ok at the moment and may gain leads at some point. But when push comes to electoral shove, he'll lose. Very badly.
Bernie's policy on de-classification will get support across states but he is set to do very well in certain places.
A Trump-Sanders contest is still possible once the votes get cast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction
They found nearly as many Lib Dem voters as UKIP voters as well.
They are calling and getting all those people who work in 9-5 (or less) jobs, most likely public sector (Ipsos have a terrible over-sampling problem with this group) and people like students.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/596435872121278464
Something I've always wondered about:
"Why Are There Buttons On Tube Train Doors?"
http://londonist.com/2013/04/why-are-there-buttons-on-tube-train-doors
The law is clear, is it not the case that more than 100k signed a petition so Parliament should debate the issue. After that constitutional nicety is observed Parliament should do nothing more about it because it is stupid but unless we're going to repeal the 100k petition law then Parliament needs to follow through with this infantile debate.
Maybe we should discuss whether repealing the petition law should be on the table if this is the level of nonsense that is going to go through with it?
There is also meant to be screening before the petitions go online with many polls rejected as not within Parliament's review. This ought to have been one of them rejected as it isn't Parliament's job to ban one unique individual - they are meant to set laws determining what categories of people are banned (eg those who have been convicted of crimes for inciting violence, unlike Trump).
That sign's rather witty.
We have a winner !
I suspect the proportion who didn't declare on social media that they had signed it to be rather small.
"In the current febrile climate, Isis needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump need Isis."
That is why he should not be allowed to come to this country, he says.
Imagine what would happen if he came to Birmingham or Glasgow and preached his message of hate, Dromey says.
He says having Trump in this country would undermine the safety of our communities. “That is not a risk I am prepared to take,” he says, adding that Trump should not be allowed within 1,000 miles of our shores.
"Donald Trump is free to be a fool. But he is not free to be a dangerous fool in Britain."
The man's a fool or a knave.
Is he, just possibly, an utter cretin?
So we can conclude from this that not only is Dromey a Remainer but that he also supports ever-closer union and a common EU asylum and immigration policy.
Either that, or he wants us to reconquer Ireland and France.
Not a very strong one though.
This is even more ridiculous than our elected representatives somehow conceiving that what they think is going to have some impact on the future of Syria. Its just embarrassing.