Part 2 1987 campaign began with some big Tory leads of up to 18% - some talk of an increased majority and Labour losing second place to the Alliance. In the event, Labour ran a polished campaign and reduced the Tory lead to 4% - 7% a week before Polling day - though the Tories finally pulled away to lead by circa 12%. 1992 was a disaster for the pollsters with none predicting the 7.6% Tory lead.There were serious methodological problems which hid the fact that the Tories were almost certainly ahead throughout the campaign - and there is no strong evidence of a big last minute swing back. 1997 did actually see a Tory recovery despite the Labour landslide - a bit like 1979 in reverse. 2001 saw a second Labour landslide , but again the margin in vote share of circa 9.5% - was a fair bit smaller than predicted throughout the campaign. 2005 saw some swing to the Tory Opposition during the campaign but not of great magnitude. In 2010 Labour had staged quite a recovery in the weeks prior to the campaign. The Debates and Cleggmania threw everything into the air for a while - though the Tories evetually led by circa 7% though failing to win a majority. Very little swing between Tory and Labour in the campaign itself overall.
2005 was all MoE stuff in the polls. The basic pattern was the Tories in the low thirties and Labour in the mid-thirties - although at least one (BPIX, 15th April) had the Tories one point ahead. And that was the result. So they don't match your claims.
I really don't see any evidence in what you're putting forward for your claims that campaigns 'usually favour the opposition.'
In 2015, 2010, 2005, indeed in 2001 - where the Tories were expected to make some net gains and in effect did not - 1997, 1992 the campaigns clearly favoured the government and your special pleading on 1992 isn't convincing (it is believed as many as 25% of Sun readers, for example, did change their minds during the campaign, which is why the Tories won by such an unexpectedly large margin). It is the more bewildering that you explain 1992 in terms of a polling failure and 1987 in terms of a campaign success for Labour when you are evaluating exactly the same phenomenon! For everything else, margins of error account for it, back to February 1974. Which was the date I put forward making the earlier ones irrelevant (and I'm not sold on your claims about 1959, for example).
2017 was highly unusual in a number of ways. Given how febrile and unstable politics is, it may be that the pattern will be repeated. But it isn't likely if past form is any guide.
Like a lot of things, there are a lot of variable.
Here are three things that might exert upwards pressure:
1. If the pound weakens, it will increase inflation because a lot of what people spend their money on is imported. However, this impact will be less than you might expect on imported goods. Simply, Tesco's costs - such as rent and staff - don't increase as the pound falls.
2. The government's current spending plans will probably have an impact. Simply, if the government deliberately runs a growing deficit, it will do so without the productive capacity of the British economy having increased (in the short term), and therefore any government deficit is likely to result in a greater trade deficit and higher prices.
3. It may raise wages for employers, especially if net migration were to turn negative. That would certainly flow through into higher prices over time. However, it's also possible that an economic slowdown means that this is completely mitigated.
And here's two that might exert downward pressure:
1. Less money flowing in from abroad to buy properties in London. If a Russian oligarch (or Chinese businessman or whoever) buys a £20m apartment in Mayfair, that has exactly the same impact on the British economy as the government spending £20m more than it earns through taxes.
2. Following on fron this, there is an inevitable degree of correlation between housing costs and inflation generally. Part is explicit (implied rent is part of the calculations), part is a consequence of how money flows around the economy. Lower demand for housing, meaning lower prices, will result in higher savings rates (and therefore lower aggregate demand and inflation).
Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?
I’ve been stopped and given a verbal warning, which then was written down in triplicate, for cycling in a London park. Two weeks after the July 2005 bombings when, you might have thought, the police had other priorities.
Hence my name.
Incidentally, rather a lot of crimes have been perpetrated on the wider Cyclefree households: 1 rape, several sexual assaults, 2 muggings, 1 homophobic assault, 3 burglaries and 1 driver leaving the scene of an accident after hitting my cycling husband leaving him unconscious with serious head injuries.
(I have left out crimes taking place abroad.)
Is this normal?
I worked for the Police. Surely P.A.C.E , which I believe the Thatcher government brought in , was a vast improvement ? I have just finished watching on Netflix , when they see us. A docu drama , on the central park five. What an injustice to five at the time, black children. With the added , Trumps thoughts of the late 80s early 90s....
To this day, Trump says they should have been executed - despite their complete exoneration.
Yes, I find that shocking.
He is a man incapable of admitting he’s wrong, whatever the cost.
Your approach and attitude to people who take the trouble to put their views up for public scrutiny is at best rude at worst beyond description. Write your own opposing views about the glorious uplands future that you obviously think awaits us so we can see where your coming from otherwise shut the fuck up.
Driving home after a morning's work, stopped for late lunch in a pub. Fortunately only had Diet Coke to drink. Plod in car waved me out of the car park, then followed me, pulled me over and breathalysed me. Seemed VERY disappointed when I was OK. Really nasty individual and I certainly didn't incite him.
An awful lot of people appear to be unaware that it is a criminal offence for a police officer to stop a car for the sole purpose of conducting a breath test unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect somebody had been drinking. Although I suppose in theory that seeing someone come out of a pub might just be good enough.
Bizarrely, they can however stop a car for any other reason, and then, separately, demand a breath test.
Has any policeman ever been charged with this offence?
There is always a catch 22, in any case. If you are exceeding the speed limit you are breaking the law, which is evidence that you are drunk. If you are slavishly adhering to it, that is something nobody with a clear conscience ever does, so it is evidence that you are drunk.
One of the few times I've ever been pulled over by the rozzers was for driving below the speed limit.
This was in the late 90s, in the era before satnavs, I was driving slowly to see what the road signs were saying as I was far from home.
I'm rather relieved I wasn't done for kerb crawling one night in the 80s. I had given a presentation in the City and was off to visit a girlfriend the other side of London and I was lost. I pulled over to read the map. Next thing I knew there was a knock on my window. It made me jump. There were two women by the window and being completely naive I wound down the window to find out what they wanted. They made me an offer I could refuse, at which point they got very nasty and I left very promptly. I wondered what this looked like for an onlooker.
Driving home after a morning's work, stopped for late lunch in a pub. Fortunately only had Diet Coke to drink. Plod in car waved me out of the car park, then followed me, pulled me over and breathalysed me. Seemed VERY disappointed when I was OK. Really nasty individual and I certainly didn't incite him.
An awful lot of people appear to be unaware that it is a criminal offence for a police officer to stop a car for the sole purpose of conducting a breath test unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect somebody had been drinking. Although I suppose in theory that seeing someone come out of a pub might just be good enough.
Bizarrely, they can however stop a car for any other reason, and then, separately, demand a breath test.
Has any policeman ever been charged with this offence?
There is always a catch 22, in any case. If you are exceeding the speed limit you are breaking the law, which is evidence that you are drunk. If you are slavishly adhering to it, that is something nobody with a clear conscience ever does, so it is evidence that you are drunk.
I would doubt it, because most people are unaware of it so don't complain. This also of course includes most police officers. I raised a formal concern about two officers that were stopping all cars (and I mean all cars) in Dursley solely to conduct breath tests, without showing ID. Their behaviour was so off the wall I genuinely thought they were imposters. But they were never charged even though their sergeant conceded they had broken every rule in the book. (I was a pedestrian, incidentally, so wasn't stopped.)
Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?
I’ve been stopped and given a verbal warning, which then was written down in triplicate, for cycling in a London park. Two weeks after the July 2005 bombings when, you might have thought, the police had other priorities.
Hence my name.
Incidentally, rather a lot of crimes have been perpetrated on the wider Cyclefree households: 1 rape, several sexual assaults, 2 muggings, 1 homophobic assault, 3 burglaries and 1 driver leaving the scene of an accident after hitting my cycling husband leaving him unconscious with serious head injuries.
(I have left out crimes taking place abroad.)
Is this normal?
I worked for the Police. Surely P.A.C.E , which I believe the Thatcher government brought in , was a vast improvement ? I have just finished watching on Netflix , when they see us. A docu drama , on the central park five. What an injustice to five at the time, black children. With the added , Trumps thoughts of the late 80s early 90s....
To this day, Trump says they should have been executed - despite their complete exoneration.
Yes, I find that shocking.
He is a man incapable of admitting he’s wrong, whatever the cost.
Which is, in itself, somewhat bizarre. As he regularly contradicts himself.
Driving home after a morning's work, stopped for late lunch in a pub. Fortunately only had Diet Coke to drink. Plod in car waved me out of the car park, then followed me, pulled me over and breathalysed me. Seemed VERY disappointed when I was OK. Really nasty individual and I certainly didn't incite him.
An awful lot of people appear to be unaware that it is a criminal offence for a police officer to stop a car for the sole purpose of conducting a breath test unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect somebody had been drinking. Although I suppose in theory that seeing someone come out of a pub might just be good enough.
Bizarrely, they can however stop a car for any other reason, and then, separately, demand a breath test.
Has any policeman ever been charged with this offence?
There is always a catch 22, in any case. If you are exceeding the speed limit you are breaking the law, which is evidence that you are drunk. If you are slavishly adhering to it, that is something nobody with a clear conscience ever does, so it is evidence that you are drunk.
One of the few times I've ever been pulled over by the rozzers was for driving below the speed limit.
This was in the late 90s, in the era before satnavs, I was driving slowly to see what the road signs were saying as I was far from home.
I'm rather relieved I wasn't done for kerb crawling one night in the 80s. I had given a presentation in the City and was off to visit a girlfriend the other side of London and I was lost. I pulled over to read the map. Next thing I knew there was a knock on my window. It made me jump. There were two women by the window and being completely naive I wound down the window to find out what they wanted.
There is such an obvious pun to be made there about the need to keep things up around prostitutes...
Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?
No, I was, behind Kings Cross Station (after the redevelopment, I hasten to add). When I asked why, the PC told me he needed some white people to balance the numbers.
Twice in the same afternoon in London. Young ethnic minority male with backpack in a hurry not a good look apparently. To be fair, they were friendly and the second time the guy gave me some kind of scrap of paper he claimed I could show to avoid making it a hat trick.
That reminds me of the (probably apocryphal) stories of the gangs who used to rob people on Ukrainian buses after the fall of the Soviet Union apparently giving passengers slips so they could show the next gang that they’d already been done.
Going back 40 odd years ago a friend of mine got stopped on his motor bike. Almost immediately afterwards he got stopped again. He suggested to the policeman he asks the policeman down the road for the answers to his questions. It didn't go down well.
Anyway PB Hard Brexiteers, how is that thread header coming along?
You know - the one which explains how wonderful things are going to be after we crash out with No Deal on 31 October?
Who volunteered to write that? I for one would not for three reasons.
I doubt it will be published.
It would be boring. Things will be bad is far more entertaining. Relates to why it won't be published.
I don't think it is true.
You don't think we will crash out on 31 October? Or you don't think things will be wonderful if we do?
I don't think things will be wonderful.
Ok, fair enough, thanks for clarifying.
I really hope for the country's sake I am wrong but I fear it's going to be an unmitigated disaster. I was kind of hoping someone could give a convincing argument to counter that.
Oh there's a middle ground between "everything is wonderful" and "an unmitigated disaster".
I think life will by and large go on as normal, with some teething issues at first that become more distant the further we get from Brexit day.
I expect that problems will be front-loaded (the unforeseen and unprepared) whereas the benefits will be largely invisible and take a long time and may never be properly appreciated.
Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?
I’ve been stopped and given a verbal warning, which then was written down in triplicate, for cycling in a London park. Two weeks after the July 2005 bombings when, you might have thought, the police had other priorities.
Hence my name.
Incidentally, rather a lot of crimes have been perpetrated on the wider Cyclefree households: 1 rape, several sexual assaults, 2 muggings, 1 homophobic assault, 3 burglaries and 1 driver leaving the scene of an accident after hitting my cycling husband leaving him unconscious with serious head injuries.
(I have left out crimes taking place abroad.)
Is this normal?
If you live in a vibrant metropolitan area....
The burglaries were in Herne Hill/Brixton but everything else was in West Hampstead/Hampstead. Not usually described as “vibrant”.
In all my time in Naples nothing bad ever happened to me, other than learning to drive a car like a Neapolitan .......
”A Milano i semafori sono un'istruzione, a Roma un suggerimento, ma a Napoli sono solo decorazione”
Driving home after a morning's work, stopped for late lunch in a pub. Fortunately only had Diet Coke to drink. Plod in car waved me out of the car park, then followed me, pulled me over and breathalysed me. Seemed VERY disappointed when I was OK. Really nasty individual and I certainly didn't incite him.
An Bizarrely, they can however stop a car for any other reason, and then, separately, demand a breath test.
Has any policeman ever been charged with this offence?
There is always a catch 22, in any case. If you are exceeding the speed limit you are breaking the law, which is evidence that you are drunk. If you are slavishly adhering to it, that is something nobody with a clear conscience ever does, so it is evidence that you are drunk.
I would doubt it, because most people are unaware of it so don't complain. This also of course includes most police officers. I raised a formal concern about two officers that were stopping all cars (and I mean all cars) in Dursley solely to conduct breath tests, without showing ID. Their behaviour was so off the wall I genuinely thought they were imposters. But they were never charged even though their sergeant conceded they had broken every rule in the book. (I was a pedestrian, incidentally, so wasn't stopped.)
No point in complaining in my case; I didn't have a witness and the constable's colleague remained in the patrol car throughout.
How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.
“Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......
.....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.
This morning we witnessed what I would describe as a coordinated attack on one of our thread authors, cyclefree with collateral attacks on Alister Meeks by two or three, relatively new posters. The site I believe welcomes alternative views but could the detractors try writing thread headers explaining why their version of no deal etc will be brilliant or take the trouble to explain how WTO brexit will pan out so we can discuss it. They could also explain why they support disaster capitalists who want to hide their wealth from the tax authorities. If that’s not enough ideas maybe they could tell us why the people in the NE will be better off after brexit.
There wasn't an 'attack' on any INDIVIDUAL this morning.
What actually happened was the group think hysteria and hyperbole was challenged which made remainers uncomfortable in their own echo chamber.
This is a discussion site not the Borg.
Do you have any function on this site other than to attack Remainers? It's always "calling out" oe "challenging" with you. We are a pretty rum bunch at the best of times but even at their full-on alt-right Farage-fellating Trumperbating peaks the Leavers on here occasionally talk about something else...
How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.
“Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......
.....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.
How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.
“Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......
.....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.
How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.
“Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......
.....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.
How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.
“Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......
.....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.
How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.
“Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......
.....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.
Far worse, of course, was Harry daring to support the country of his birth...
Indeed. It was positively medieval of a European Prince to go on a crusade to the Middle East and kill Muslims.
I thought crusaders slaughtered Jews. 🤔
Why?
Though in one crusade they killed Christians.
Only one? I think you'll find there were several. For example, the very first crusade ever declared was against a Western European country, which was Christian but not under the direct control of Rome. Anyone care to guess which one?
Anyway PB Hard Brexiteers, how is that thread header coming along?
You know - the one which explains how wonderful things are going to be after we crash out with No Deal on 31 October?
Who volunteered to write that? I for one would not for three reasons.
I doubt it will be published.
It would be boring. Things will be bad is far more entertaining. Relates to why it won't be published.
I don't think it is true.
You don't think we will crash out on 31 October? Or you don't think things will be wonderful if we do?
I don't think things will be wonderful.
Ok, fair enough, thanks for clarifying.
I really hope for the country's sake I am wrong but I fear it's going to be an unmitigated disaster. I was kind of hoping someone could give a convincing argument to counter that.
Oh there's a middle ground between "everything is wonderful" and "an unmitigated disaster".
I think life will by and large go on as normal, with some teething issues at first that become more distant the further we get from Brexit day.
I expect that problems will be front-loaded (the unforeseen and unprepared) whereas the benefits will be largely invisible and take a long time and may never be properly appreciated.
Yup, it is the pro EU peoples belief that the single market is some kind of fantastic trade enabler and if you are out then trade stops that is their mistake.
The SM was great, removing trade barriers when it was introduced. But now global standards have in effect replaced it.
2005 was all MoE stuff in the polls. The basic pattern was the Tories in the low thirties and Labour in the mid-thirties - although at least one (BPIX, 15th April) had the Tories one point ahead. And that was the result. So they don't match your claims.
I really don't see any evidence in what you're putting forward for your claims that campaigns 'usually favour the opposition.'
In 2015, 2010, 2005, indeed in 2001 - where the Tories were expected to make some net gains and in effect did not - 1997, 1992 the campaigns clearly favoured the government and your special pleading on 1992 isn't convincing (it is believed as many as 25% of Sun readers, for example, did change their minds during the campaign, which is why the Tories won by such an unexpectedly large margin). It is the more bewildering that you explain 1992 in terms of a polling failure and 1987 in terms of a campaign success for Labour when you are evaluating exactly the same phenomenon! For everything else, margins of error account for it, back to February 1974. Which was the date I put forward making the earlier ones irrelevant (and I'm not sold on your claims about 1959, for example).
2017 was highly unusual in a number of ways. Given how febrile and unstable politics is, it may be that the pattern will be repeated. But it isn't likely if past form is any guide.
In 1987 some polls did come close to predicting the result - Mori on eve of poll gave the Tories a 12% lead compared with the actual outcome of 11.8%. In 1992 no pollster came anywhere near the correct result - Gallup alone did give the Tories a 0.5% lead against the 7.6% outcome.The polling industry itself accepted that its methodology was at fault that year and carried out a detailed study of what had gone wrong. I am not sure why you say the Tories were expected to make gains in 2001 - because the polls were predicting an even bigger Labour majority than 1997. Labour began that campaign with leads as high as 24% and the final polls had them as far as 15% - 17% ahead. Clear signs of some swing to the Opposition there in the campaign period.
Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?
I’ve been stopped and given a verbal warning, which then was written down in triplicate, for cycling in a London park. Two weeks after the July 2005 bombings when, you might have thought, the police had other priorities.
Hence my name.
Incidentally, rather a lot of crimes have been perpetrated on the wider Cyclefree households: 1 rape, several sexual assaults, 2 muggings, 1 homophobic assault, 3 burglaries and 1 driver leaving the scene of an accident after hitting my cycling husband leaving him unconscious with serious head injuries.
(I have left out crimes taking place abroad.)
Is this normal?
If you live in a vibrant metropolitan area....
The burglaries were in Herne Hill/Brixton but everything else was in West Hampstead/Hampstead. Not usually described as “vibrant”.
In all my time in Naples nothing bad ever happened to me, other than learning to drive a car like a Neapolitan .......
”A Milano i semafori sono un'istruzione, a Roma un suggerimento, ma a Napoli sono solo decorazione”
Part 2 1987 campaign began with some big Tory leads of up to 18% - some talk of an increased majority and Labour losing second place to the Alliance. In the event, Labour ran a polished campaign and reduced the Tory lead to 4% - 7% a week before Polling day - though the Tories finally pulled away to lead by circa 12%. 1992 was a disaster for the pollsters with none predicting the 7.6% Tory lead.There were serious methodological problems which hid the fact that the Tories were almost certainly ahead throughout the campaign - and there is no strong evidence of a big last minute swing back. 1997 did actually see a Tory recovery despite the Labour landslide - a bit like 1979 in reverse. 2001 saw a second Labour landslide , but again the margin in vote share of circa 9.5% - was a fair bit smaller than predicted throughout the campaign. 2005 saw some swing to the Tory Opposition during the campaign but not of great magnitude. In 2010 Labour had staged quite a recovery in the weeks prior to the campaign. The Debates and Cleggmania threw everything into the air for a while - though the Tories evetually led by circa 7% though failing to win a majority. Very little swing between Tory and Labour in the campaign itself overall.
Which reminds me. I've seen claims from Laddies and/or Coral that they called 1992 correctly, but I can't find any evidence for it. Has somebody for any evidence from the time showing that they did?
Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?
I’ve been pulled over at night whilst driving with a friend on a Saturday night when I was much younger.
Wasn’t breathalysed or anything. He looked like he was trying to catch me out on licence, insurance and road tax to me.
Wow you've only been pulled over once?
I've not been pulled over in a few years [since I stopped working nights], but I was probably stopped 20-30 times over a decade [and almost weekly over a few month period].
I think it depends how professionally its done as well. If the officer concerned is polite and professional then its going to go down a lot better than if they're rude and confrontational and treating you as presumed guilty before they find anything.
Yes, just the once.
I think some of the trouble with it is that it can easily seem very personal, unless the officer takes great trouble to explain that it is not so.
Been pulled over a couple of times , mind you one was for giving a two finger salute to a driver as I overtook them in a residential area, after they had passed me, they replied by waving their warrant card. Car full of them and what a bollocking I got and that was just from the female cop. They were obviously up to something as they did not nick me , just cursed me roundly for 10 minutes. PS:It was a long long time ago.
You clearly learned something from the experience.
Do you have any function on this site other than to attack Remainers? It's always "calling out" oe "challenging" with you. We are a pretty rum bunch at the best of times but even at their full-on alt-right Farage-fellating Trumperbating peaks the Leavers on here occasionally talk about something else...
You see the hypocritical irony in your post perhaps?
Let us look past that though and move on to other things...what would you like to talk about?
2005 was all MoE stuff in the polls. The basic pattern was the Tories in the low thirties and Labour in the mid-thirties - although at least one (BPIX, 15th April) had the Tories one point ahead. And that was the result. So they don't match your claims.
I really don't see any evidence in what you're putting forward for your claims that campaigns 'usually favour the opposition.'
In 2015, 2010, 2005, indeed in 2001 - where the Tories were expected to make some net gains and in effect did not - 1997, 1992 the campaigns clearly favoured the government and your special pleading on 1992 isn't convincing (it is believed as many as 25% of Sun readers, for example, did change their minds during the campaign, which is why the Tories won by such an unexpectedly large margin). It is the more bewildering that you explain 1992 in terms of a polling failure and 1987 in terms of a campaign success for Labour when you are evaluating exactly the same phenomenon! For everything else, margins of error account for it, back to February 1974. Which was the date I put forward making the earlier ones irrelevant (and I'm not sold on your claims about 1959, for example).
2017 was highly unusual in a number of ways. Given how febrile and unstable politics is, it may be that the pattern will be repeated. But it isn't likely if past form is any guide.
In 1987 some polls did come close to predicting the result - Mori on eve of poll gave the Tories a 12% lead compared with the actual outcome of 11.8%. In 1992 no pollster came anywhere near the correct result - Gallup alone did give the Tories a 0.5% lead against the 7.6% outcome.The polling industry itself accepted that its methodology was at fault that year and carried out a detailed study of what had gone wrong. I am not sure why you say the Tories were expected to make gains in 2001 - because the polls were predicting an even bigger Labour majority than 1997. Labour began that campaign with leads as high as 24% and the final polls had them as far as 15% - 17% ahead. Clear signs of some swing to the Opposition there in the campaign period.
In 2001 the gaps ranged everywhere from 5 points to about 25 points. The simple fact is the Tories were expected to show a modest recovery from 1997 and didn't, which was partly blamed on a campaign that banged on about Europe and switched a number of potential voters to the Liberal Democrats or abstention.
How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.
“Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......
.....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.
Far worse, of course, was Harry daring to support the country of his birth...
Indeed. It was positively medieval of a European Prince to go on a crusade to the Middle East and kill Muslims.
I thought crusaders slaughtered Jews. 🤔
Why?
Though in one crusade they killed Christians.
Only one? I think you'll find there were several. For example, the very first crusade ever declared was against a Western European country, which was Christian but not under the direct control of Rome. Anyone care to guess which one?
Wasn’t sorting out the Carcassonne declared a crusade?
How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.
“Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......
.....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.
Far worse, of course, was Harry daring to support the country of his birth...
Indeed. It was positively medieval of a European Prince to go on a crusade to the Middle East and kill Muslims.
I thought crusaders slaughtered Jews. 🤔
Why?
Though in one crusade they killed Christians.
Only one? I think you'll find there were several. For example, the very first crusade ever declared was against a Western European country, which was Christian but not under the direct control of Rome. Anyone care to guess which one?
As the Crusaders are leaving UK all the Jews in York have burnt to death in a tower rather than come out and face the mob outside. As the crusaders move across Europe they slaughter every Jewish community they come upon. The Germans were very good at looking after Jews, hiding them from Crusaders. When the Jews reach Holy land they find the Muslims and Jews have locked themselves in Jerusalem. When the crusaders get in they slaughter everything they can, and Jerusalem burns down.
Do you have any function on this site other than to attack Remainers? It's always "calling out" oe "challenging" with you. We are a pretty rum bunch at the best of times but even at their full-on alt-right Farage-fellating Trumperbating peaks the Leavers on here occasionally talk about something else...
You see the hypocritical irony in your post perhaps?
Do you have any function on this site other than to attack Remainers? It's always "calling out" oe "challenging" with you. We are a pretty rum bunch at the best of times but even at their full-on alt-right Farage-fellating Trumperbating peaks the Leavers on here occasionally talk about something else...
You see the hypocritical irony in your post perhaps?
Do you have any function on this site other than to attack Remainers? It's always "calling out" oe "challenging" with you. We are a pretty rum bunch at the best of times but even at their full-on alt-right Farage-fellating Trumperbating peaks the Leavers on here occasionally talk about something else...
Let us look past that though and move on to other things...what would you like to talk about?
Above I posed a question. Bookmakers occasionally claim that they predicted 1992 correctly - meaning that they made the Conservatives favourites to win. In 1992 Labour were favourites until the last days, when money swang behind Con and the odds began to move, so their claim is plausible. But looking at the news reports of the time in the Times and local newspapers, they do not state this: instead they record it as neck-and-neck. So I was wondering if anybody had ant evidence from the time of such a position.
re putting forward for your claims that campaigns 'usually favour the opposition.'
In 2015, 2010, 2005, indeed in 2001 - where the Tories were expected to make some net gains and in effect did not - 1997, 1992 the campaigns clearly favoured the government and your special pleading on 1992 isn't convincing (it is believed as many as 25% of Sun readers, for example, did change their minds during the campaign, which is why the Tories won by such an unexpectedly large margin). It is the more bewildering that you explain 1992 in terms of a polling failure and 1987 in terms of a campaign success for Labour when you are evaluating exactly the same phenomenon! For everything else, margins of error account for it, back to February 1974. Which was the date I put forward making the earlier ones irrelevant (and I'm not sold on your claims about 1959, for example).
2017 was highly unusual in a number of ways. Given how febrile and unstable politics is, it may be that the pattern will be repeated. But it isn't likely if past form is any guide.
In 1987 some polls did come close to predicting the result - Mori on eve of poll gave the Tories a 12% lead compared with the actual outcome of 11.8%. In 1992 no pollster came anywhere near the correct result - Gallup alone did give the Tories a 0.5% lead against the 7.6% outcome.The polling industry itself accepted that its methodology was at fault that year and carried out a detailed study of what had gone wrong. I am not sure why you say the Tories were expected to make gains in 2001 - because the polls were predicting an even bigger Labour majority than 1997. Labour began that campaign with leads as high as 24% and the final polls had them as far as 15% - 17% ahead. Clear signs of some swing to the Opposition there in the campaign period.
In 2001 the gaps ranged everywhere from 5 points to about 25 points. The simple fact is the Tories were expected to show a modest recovery from 1997 and didn't, which was partly blamed on a campaign that banged on about Europe and switched a number of potential voters to the Liberal Democrats or abstention.
I have the 2001 polls in front of me now. The smallest Labour lead recorded was 10% from Yougov on eve of poll. A month earlier at the outset of the campaign Labour's poll lead ranged from 15% to 24%. The final outcome of a 9.5% Labour lead ,therefore, did represent some recovery by the Tory Opposition which at least avoided a further weakening from its 1997 result. There was no 5% Labour lead during that election - unlike in 1997 when a rogue ICM poll for Guardian a week before polling day caused heart flutters in the Labour campaign team.
As the Crusaders are leaving UK all the Jews in York have burnt to death in a tower rather than come out and face the mob outside. As the crusaders move across Europe they slaughter every Jewish community they come upon. The Germans were very good at looking after Jews, hiding them from Crusaders. When the Jews reach Holy land they find the Muslims and Jews have locked themselves in Jerusalem. When the crusaders get in they slaughter everything they can, and Jerusalem burns down.
All other considerations aside you are confusing the massacre of the Jews by Edward I in 1290 (which happened after he returned from the Crusades) and the storming of Jerusalem in 1099.
I think you will also find that Jews were allowed full religious and legal freedom in the Crusader states of Outremer, including the right to give testimony after swearing in the Torah (as Muslims were in the Koran).
Otherwise, you are picking up what amounts to anti-Catholic propaganda from Calvinist writers as seized on uncritically by notorious liars and pseudoscholars e.g. Richard Dawkins* for their own ends.
*Can't answer for his biology but his work on religion is freely compared by experts to the work of David Irving.
Do you have any function on this site other than to attack Remainers? It's always "calling out" oe "challenging" with you. We are a pretty rum bunch at the best of times but even at their full-on alt-right Farage-fellating Trumperbating peaks the Leavers on here occasionally talk about something else...
Let us look past that though and move on to other things...what would you like to talk about?
Above I posed a question. Bookmakers occasionally claim that they predicted 1992 correctly - meaning that they made the Conservatives favourites to win. In 1992 Labour were favourites until the last days, when money swang behind Con and the odds began to move, so their claim is plausible. But looking at the news reports of the time in the Times and local newspapers, they do not state this: instead they record it as neck-and-neck. So I was wondering if anybody had ant evidence from the time of such a position.
I remember telling in a Labour London seat on polling day and thinking it was an open contest, hoping we would finally see the back of Mrs T but not being sure. The atmosphere at the polling station had none of the enthusiasm we later saw in 1997 and I do remember going home thinking it didn’t feel like Kinnock was about to be swept into office.
Do you have any function on this site other than to attack Remainers? It's always "calling out" oe "challenging" with you. We are a pretty rum bunch at the best of times but even at their full-on alt-right Farage-fellating Trumperbating peaks the Leavers on here occasionally talk about something else...
Let us look past that though and move on to other things...what would you like to talk about?
Above I posed a question. Bookmakers occasionally claim that they predicted 1992 correctly - meaning that they made the Conservatives favourites to win. In 1992 Labour were favourites until the last days, when money swang behind Con and the odds began to move, so their claim is plausible. But looking at the news reports of the time in the Times and local newspapers, they do not state this: instead they record it as neck-and-neck. So I was wondering if anybody had ant evidence from the time of such a position.
I remember telling in a Labour London seat on polling day and thinking it was an open contest, hoping we would finally see the back of Mrs T but not being sure. The atmosphere at the polling station had none of the enthusiasm we later saw in 1997 and I do remember going home thinking it didn’t feel like Kinnock was about to be swept into office.
This morning we witnessed what I would describe as a coordinated attack on one of our thread authors, cyclefree with collateral attacks on Alister Meeks by two or three, relatively new posters. The site I believe welcomes alternative views but could the detractors try writing thread headers explaining why their version of no deal etc will be brilliant or take the trouble to explain how WTO brexit will pan out so we can discuss it. They could also explain why they support disaster capitalists who want to hide their wealth from the tax authorities. If that’s not enough ideas maybe they could tell us why the people in the NE will be better off after brexit.
There wasn't an 'attack' on any INDIVIDUAL this morning.
What actually happened was the group think hysteria and hyperbole was challenged which made remainers uncomfortable in their own echo chamber.
This is a discussion site not the Borg.
Do you have any function on this site other than to attack Remainers? It's always "calling out" oe "challenging" with you. We are a pretty rum bunch at the best of times but even at their full-on alt-right Farage-fellating Trumperbating peaks the Leavers on here occasionally talk about something else...
Really? In recent weeks I’ve done thread headers on the law, Julian Assange, the Mueller inquiry, Islamophobia in the Tory party, Corbyn’s foreign policy, how to deal with crises in institutions (with reference to Labour’s anti-semitism issues), similarities between Trump and Corbyn and leadership, amongst others.
Didn’t notice much desire by you or some of the ultra-Brexiteers to comment on those.
Comments
I really don't see any evidence in what you're putting forward for your claims that campaigns 'usually favour the opposition.'
In 2015, 2010, 2005, indeed in 2001 - where the Tories were expected to make some net gains and in effect did not - 1997, 1992 the campaigns clearly favoured the government and your special pleading on 1992 isn't convincing (it is believed as many as 25% of Sun readers, for example, did change their minds during the campaign, which is why the Tories won by such an unexpectedly large margin). It is the more bewildering that you explain 1992 in terms of a polling failure and 1987 in terms of a campaign success for Labour when you are evaluating exactly the same phenomenon! For everything else, margins of error account for it, back to February 1974. Which was the date I put forward making the earlier ones irrelevant (and I'm not sold on your claims about 1959, for example).
2017 was highly unusual in a number of ways. Given how febrile and unstable politics is, it may be that the pattern will be repeated. But it isn't likely if past form is any guide.
I think life will by and large go on as normal, with some teething issues at first that become more distant the further we get from Brexit day.
I expect that problems will be front-loaded (the unforeseen and unprepared) whereas the benefits will be largely invisible and take a long time and may never be properly appreciated.
Though in one crusade they killed Christians.
The SM was great, removing trade barriers when it was introduced. But now global standards have in effect replaced it.
I am not sure why you say the Tories were expected to make gains in 2001 - because the polls were predicting an even bigger Labour majority than 1997. Labour began that campaign with leads as high as 24% and the final polls had them as far as 15% - 17% ahead. Clear signs of some swing to the Opposition there in the campaign period.
Let us look past that though and move on to other things...what would you like to talk about?
Or have I got this history wrong?
Anyway, let's chat...
Yes.
All other considerations aside you are confusing the massacre of the Jews by Edward I in 1290 (which happened after he returned from the Crusades) and the storming of Jerusalem in 1099.
I think you will also find that Jews were allowed full religious and legal freedom in the Crusader states of Outremer, including the right to give testimony after swearing in the Torah (as Muslims were in the Koran).
Otherwise, you are picking up what amounts to anti-Catholic propaganda from Calvinist writers as seized on uncritically by notorious liars and pseudoscholars e.g. Richard Dawkins* for their own ends.
*Can't answer for his biology but his work on religion is freely compared by experts to the work of David Irving.
Didn’t notice much desire by you or some of the ultra-Brexiteers to comment on those.
To be clear, this was in response to @CaptainBuzzkill not @viewcode.