Just seen on 538 why Ohio is leaning Trump and Pennselvania is in Hillary's firewall: State College Non college Ohio 37.3% 44.5% Penn 44.4% 35.9%
an eight point gap between non college educated white voters, leads to a big gap in voting differences.
33.3% of the electorate are wwc non college and the higher a state is above that figure generally the more likely it is to vote for Trump and the lower it is below that figure the more likely it is to vote for Hillary so Pennsylvania is almost bang on the US average (it actually has 33.4% wwc non college educated) and hence is one of the pivotal states of the election http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
but you have to remember Clinto is winning a group (white college educated) that Repubs normally win.
Trump is winning a group (white working class) that Democrats used to win. In fact if you took a typical Republican who voted for Ford in 1976 he would now be voting for Hillary and if you took a typical Democrat who voted for Carter in 1976 he would now be voting for Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976
No I'm comaparing with the last election, the republicans already had 62% of the non college educated white vote last time and actually this time he is getting fewer of these voters this time. (But Hillary even fewer than Obama.) Anyway Pennselvania is not really even close with Hillary leading there by about 6-7% despite it being 80% white. And that is down to how educated it is. It's suprising he isn't winning Ohio by a bigger margin considering it's demographics.
Yes, definitely not as impressive as it seemed for SLAB - although at their 2015 high watermark, presumably the SNP would have been winning in this ward?
I see the Greens have chose Bernie Sanders brother, Larry, as their candidate for Witney. His surname alone must give him an outside chance of second, the Greens got 5% in the seat at the last election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37447086
I see the Greens have chose Bernie Sanders brother, Larry, as their candidate for Witney. His surname alone must give him an outside chance of second, the Greens got 5% in the seat at the last election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37447086
Hmmm... I'd need some pretty decent odds to play that one.
I see the Greens have chose Bernie Sanders brother, Larry, as their candidate for Witney. His surname alone must give him an outside chance of second, the Greens got 5% in the seat at the last election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37447086
Did Bernie Sanders have a big following in Witney?
I see the Greens have chose Bernie Sanders brother, Larry, as their candidate for Witney. His surname alone must give him an outside chance of second, the Greens got 5% in the seat at the last election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37447086
We all know who Sanders is, but I would wonder about his name recognition amongst the British public?
Labour gain Coatbridge North from SNP Plaid gain Carmarthenshire Cilycwm from Ind
A couple of small cracks in the SNP wall are starting to show...
I try (though not always 100% successfully) to avoid being tempted to read anything into local by-election results. Too few voters involved, not necessarily in a representative range of seats, too many unknown or unknowable local factors involved, etc, etc. That result in Christchurch where Labour won a seat on the basis of a massive Con to LD swing, for example, does not provide conclusive evidence of a Tory collapse in the South or the imminent advent of a Labour-Lib Dem Coalition after the next GE.
One can, perhaps, risk drawing tentative conclusions from what happens when polling day proper comes around and several thousand seats change hands at once, and in that case the evidence from this years' locals is clear. The Lib Dems made very modest progress, but Labour had its worst local election night in opposition for decades.
As for Scotland, their councils all come up for election all at once in May next year. If there's been any significant weakening of the SNP position then we'll see it then - although, personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was Labour's strongholds that were to come under the most sustained assault. Corbyn is horribly unpopular, Dugdale is also weak, Sturgeon is still strong, and also Davidson has the opportunity to try to consolidate more Unionist support behind her. The Lib Dems even won a couple of their old constituency seats back at Holyrood, even if the gains were cancelled out by losses on the lists.
A drubbing for Labour in the West of Scotland next year would be especially embarrassing if accompanied by a moderate revival for the Tories and Lib Dems in the East.
Yes, definitely not as impressive as it seemed for SLAB - although at their 2015 high watermark, presumably the SNP would have been winning in this ward?
Yes, definitely not as impressive as it seemed for SLAB - although at their 2015 high watermark, presumably the SNP would have been winning in this ward?
ooh Tories almost doubling their vote share, surely a Tory surge!
Yes, definitely not as impressive as it seemed for SLAB - although at their 2015 high watermark, presumably the SNP would have been winning in this ward?
Dunno, difficult to tell with multi member wards.
You wouldn't get this confusion if you had AV, the finest voting system known to man.
RCP now has Trump on 266-272 Clinton, but Florida is on a knife edge and the remaining States look okay for her.
On Nate Silver's reckoning, Trump will remain just short even if he wins two states (Florida and Nevada) where he currently has a lead of less than 1% and two more (Ohio and North Carolina) where he currently has a lead of less than 2%. I'd have thought the first two of those at least could fairly be classed as "statistical dead heats".
Even if he did that, he would also need to win at least one more state, but all the others have Clinton leads of at least 3% (again on Silver's figures).
Obviously it's possible, but Silver's estimate of a 40.6% chance of it happening seems high to me. Evidently his statistical model is extremely complicated, but I presume that high probability is essentially coming from two possibilities: (1) that there's an underlying bias in the polling data, and (2) that there's a further shift towards Trump before polling day. I don't believe pure sampling error alone would produce a 40% probability of a Trump victory.
Part of it is I believe factoring in that this is a high volatility election, where sizable swings are showing up as much more likely than for example 2012.
Yes, definitely not as impressive as it seemed for SLAB - although at their 2015 high watermark, presumably the SNP would have been winning in this ward?
Dunno, difficult to tell with multi member wards.
You wouldn't get this confusion if you had AV, the finest voting system known to man.
Just seen on 538 why Ohio is leaning Trump and Pennselvania is in Hillary's firewall: State College Non college Ohio 37.3% 44.5% Penn 44.4% 35.9%
an eight point gap between non college educated white voters, leads to a big gap in voting differences.
33.3% of the electorate are wwc non college and the higher a state is above that figure generally the more likely it is to vote for Trump and the lower it is below that figure the more likely it is to vote for Hillary so Pennsylvania is almost bang on the US average (it actually has 33.4% wwc non college educated) and hence is one of the pivotal states of the election http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
but you have to remember Clinto is winning a group (white college educated) that Repubs normally win.
Trump is winning a group (white working class) that Democrats used to win. In fact if you took a typical Republican who voted for Ford in 1976 he would now be voting for Hillary and if you took a typical Democrat who voted for Carter in 1976 he would now be voting for Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976
No I'm comaparing with the last election, the republicans already had 62% of the non college educated white vote last time and actually this time he is getting fewer of these voters this time. (But Hillary even fewer than Obama.) Anyway Pennselvania is not really even close with Hillary leading there by about 6-7% despite it being 80% white. And that is down to how educated it is. It's suprising he isn't winning Ohio by a bigger margin considering it's demographics.
Romney was a dull, patrician establishment Republican much like Ford and of course Obama was close to Carter. 2016 on the other hand is completely different with Trump a populist and Hillary the dull, establishment figure. Your figures on non college educated whites are also not quite right, Romney won 62% of white men, not non college educated men, the 62% figure includes many college educate white voters. Trump is also now closer to Hillary with RCP than the margin by which Obama beat Romney, it is white working class voters who are driving the Trump vote. Obama of course won Ohio, Hillary is now losing it to Trump. As of today Hillary leads Trump by just 272 to 266, Obama beat Romney by 332 to 206 (and in fact Michigan and Wisconsin are now closer than Pennsylvania so Trump could win even without it anyway).
Yes, definitely not as impressive as it seemed for SLAB - although at their 2015 high watermark, presumably the SNP would have been winning in this ward?
Dunno, difficult to tell with multi member wards.
You wouldn't get this confusion if you had AV, the finest voting system known to man.
Just seen on 538 why Ohio is leaning Trump and Pennselvania is in Hillary's firewall: State College Non college Ohio 37.3% 44.5% Penn 44.4% 35.9%
an eight point gap between non college educated white voters, leads to a big gap in voting differences.
33.3% of the electorate are wwc non college and the higher a state is above that figure generally the more likely it is to vote for Trump and the lower it is below that figure the more likely it is to vote for Hillary so Pennsylvania is almost bang on the US average (it actually has 33.4% wwc non college educated) and hence is one of the pivotal states of the election http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
but you have to remember Clinto is winning a group (white college educated) that Repubs normally win.
Trump is winning a group (white working class) that Democrats used to win. In fact if you took a typical Republican who voted for Ford in 1976 he would now be voting for Hillary and if you took a typical Democrat who voted for Carter in 1976 he would now be voting for Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976
No I'm comaparing with the last election, the republicans already had 62% of the non college educated white vote last time and actually this time he is getting fewer of these voters this time. (But Hillary even fewer than Obama.) Anyway Pennselvania is not really even close with Hillary leading there by about 6-7% despite it being 80% white. And that is down to how educated it is. It's suprising he isn't winning Ohio by a bigger margin considering it's demographics.
Romney was a dull, patrician establishment Republican much like Ford and of course Obama was close to Carter. 2016 on the other hand is completely different with Trump a populist and Hillary the dull, establishment figure. Your figures on non college educated whites are also not quite right, Romney won 62% of white men, not non college educated men, the 62% figure includes many college educate white voters. Trump is also now closer to Hillary with RCP than the margin by which Obama beat Romney, it is white working class voters who are driving the Trump vote. Obama of course won Ohio, Hillary is now losing it to Trump. As of today Hillary leads Trump by just 272 to 266 (and in fact Michigan and Wisconsin are now closer than Pennsylvania so Trump could win even without it anyway).
Trump is going to lose votes compared to Romney in all the places that don't matter, like Utah and Vermont. On the other hand he's going to pick up votes where needed in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I see the Greens have chose Bernie Sanders brother, Larry, as their candidate for Witney. His surname alone must give him an outside chance of second, the Greens got 5% in the seat at the last election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37447086
Hmmm... I'd need some pretty decent odds to play that one.
I see the Greens have chose Bernie Sanders brother, Larry, as their candidate for Witney. His surname alone must give him an outside chance of second, the Greens got 5% in the seat at the last election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37447086
We all know who Sanders is, but I would wonder about his name recognition amongst the British public?
Yes, definitely not as impressive as it seemed for SLAB - although at their 2015 high watermark, presumably the SNP would have been winning in this ward?
"Gains" are hardly such when an election is being held for a single seat under FPTP to replace a member elected under PR in a multi-member election in the same seat. The only real comparison that can be made is with the result in the previous by-election contested in the same seat, which happened to be this: Oct 12 by: Lab 1527, SNP 1139, Con 174, LD 78 (elected on 1st count)
I agree. Smith was a remarkable find: someone even more incompetent and useless than Corbyn. Who would have thought that even possible let alone that that would be Labours alternative.
I would've thought it, and indeed stated on PB many times when the ridiculous coup was getting underway that, crap though Corbyn was, the other Labour MPs were all crapper. Even if you put aside political positions, the likes of Smith and the other "moderates" are all totally crap at basic politics -- they're useless at reading the mood of the public, useless at thinking of good and exciting ideas, useless at putting good arguments that could sway the public's mind or otherwise speak in a convincing way.
Kendall - who is actually one of the better ones - was certainly struggling just now to explain why she would campaign for a labour government, would not support Corbyn's platform, would not serve in his shadow cabinet if asked, but would not leave the Labour Party or support any discussions with any other party.
These sorts of questions will be asked continually of the rebel Labour MPs (i.e. about 80% of the PLP) practically whenever they appear for interview. Those refusing to reconcile with the leader will be asked why they are still in the party, or why any voter should back a party where even the MPs have no confidence in the leader. And those who do reconcile will be asked to explain why they thought Corbyn was hopeless one week, and then fell into line behind him the next, and why - if they are possessed of such poor judgement, for these polar-opposite opinions cannot possibly both be correct - anybody should listen to what they have to say about anything. It's an Olympic gold medal winning omnishambles, a whole order of magnitude in excess of any dodgy Osborne budget, and made all the worse by the fact that the rebels will not only be forced to lie through their teeth, but that the entire watching electorate will know they are lying.
Labour's credibility is totally shot. Their surviving electoral alliance - hard-Left believers and sympathisers, public sector employees, and the remaining band of brand loyalty voters, along with poorer ethnic minority voters and people of working age who are heavily benefit dependent - is not going to be boosted by any significant numbers of uncommitted swing voters, let alone the kind of wet Tory voters that both Blair and the Lib Dems used to be good at luring away. Labour is already finished as far as 2020 is concerned, it's very likely to end up too far behind to win in 2025 under any leader, and it's quite possible that it will never win another General Election.
The Lib Dem corpse does seem to be twitching. It's now four years since I left. Even my cold hard heart of obsidian has felt the odd twinge the week due to Brexit. It's like being particularly thoughtful about a dead loved one at Christmas or in an hour of need. Who's have thought Farron's pre leadership ' Cockroach ' comparison would have been so bitingly precient ? NB. The greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the Liberal Democrats is the Brexit like parochialism of their local councillors. It may just be some communities are missing the local impact and now feel it's safe to vote for them locally now the Coalition is over. Rather like the SNP surged after losing #indyref
Lib Dems gain Teignmouth Central from Conservatives with 20% swing
Which constituency is that in? And how was turnout?
Newton Abbot - a recently Lib Dem held seat.
LD vote dropped 18% at the general election. 11% swing to the Tories.
Obviously the Lib Dem vote is picking up again now, Andy.
It's impossible to say. Experts Rallings & Thrasher used to think local by-elections were a useful indicator of the national situation but they changed their mind a few years ago.
I agree. Smith was a remarkable find: someone even more incompetent and useless than Corbyn. Who would have thought that even possible let alone that that would be Labours alternative.
I would've thought it, and indeed state
Kendall - who is actually one of the better ones - was certainly struggling just now to explain why she would campaign for a labour government, would not support Corbyn's platform, would not serve in his shadow cabinet if asked, but would not leave the Labour Party or support any discussions with any other party.
These sorts of questions will be asked continually of the rebel Labour MPs (i.e. about 80% of the PLP) practically whenever they appear for interview. Those refusing to reconcile with the leader will be asked why they are still in the party, or why any voter should back a party where even the MPs have no confidence in the leader. And those who do reconcile will be asked to explain why they thought Corbyn was hopeless one week, and then fell into line behind him the next, and why - if they are possessed of such poor judgement, for these polar-opposite opinions cannot possibly both be correct - anybody should listen to what they have to say about anything. It's an Olympic gold medal winning omnishambles, a whole order of magnitude in excess of any dodgy Osborne budget, and made all the worse by the fact that the rebels will not only be forced to lie through their teeth, but that the entire watching electorate will know they are lying.
Labour's credibility is totally shot. Their surviving electoral alliance - hard-Left believers and sympathisers, public sector employees, and the remaining band of brand loyalty voters, along with poorer ethnic minority voters and people of working age who are heavily benefit dependent - is not going to be boosted by any significant numbers of uncommitted swing voters, let alone the kind of wet Tory voters that both Blair and the Lib Dems used to be good at luring away. Labour is already finished as far as 2020 is concerned, it's very likely to end up too far behind to win in 2025 under any leader, and it's quite possible that it will never win another General Election.
I don't believe anyone is ever too far behind to win in today's politics if they have the right leader and the right policies and the mood is for change. Look at Justin Trudeau in Canada who took the Liberals from a poor third in 2011 to a landslide victory just 4 years later. Of course as long as the hard left have control Labour is miles away from power but if sanity ever prevails and they pick a moderate, charismatic leader anything can happen!
Just seen on 538 why Ohio is leaning Trump and Pennselvania is in Hillary's firewall: State College Non college Ohio 37.3% 44.5% Penn 44.4% 35.9%
an eight point gap between non college educated white voters, leads to a big gap in voting differences.
33.3% of the electorate are wwc non college and the higher a state is above that figure generally the more likely it is to vote for Trump and the lower it is below that figure the more likely it is to vote for Hillary so Pennsylvania is almost bang on the US average (it actually has 33.4% wwc non college educated) and hence is one of the pivotal states of the election http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
but you have to remember Clinto is winning a group (white college educated) that Repubs normally win.
Trump is winning a group (white working class) that Democrats used to win. In fact if you took a typical Republican who voted for Ford in 1976 he would now be voting for Hillary and if you took a typical Democrat who voted for Carter in 1976 he would now be voting for Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976
No I'm comaparing with the last election, the republicans already had 62% of the non college educated white vote last time and actually this time he is getting fewer of these voters this time. (But Hill.
Romney was a dull, patrician establishment Republican much like Ford and of course Obama was close to Carter. 2016 on the other hand is completely different with Trump a populist and Hillary the dull, establishment figure. Your figures on non college educated whites are also not quite right, Romney won 62% of white men, not non college educated men, the 62% figure includes many college educate white voters. Trump is also now closer to Hillary with RCP than the margin by which Obama beat Romney, it is white working class voters who are driving the Trump vote. Obama of course won Ohio, Hillary is now losing it to Trump. As of today Hillary leads Trump by just 272 to 266 (and in fact Michigan and Wisconsin are now closer than Pennsylvania so Trump could win even without it anyway).
Trump is going to lose votes compared to Romney in all the places that don't matter, like Utah and Vermont. On the other hand he's going to pick up votes where needed in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I agree. Smith was a remarkable find: someone even more incompetent and useless than Corbyn. Who would have thought that even possible let alone that that would be Labours alternative.
I would've thought it, and indeed stated on PB many times when the ridiculous coup was getting underway that, crap though Corbyn was, the other Labour MPs were all crapper. Even if you put aside political positions, the likes of Smith and the other "moderates" are all totally crap at basic politics -- they're useless at reading the mood of the public, useless at thinking of good and exciting ideas, useless at putting good arguments that could sway the public's mind or otherwise speak in a convincing way.
Kendall - who is actually one of the better ones - was certainly struggling just now to explain why she would campaign for a labour government, would not support Corbyn's platform, would not serve in his shadow cabinet if asked, but would not leave the Labour Party or support any discussions with any other party.
The joy of tribal identity. People are committed to a party even when it no longer represents their views, even if they don't think it will change course to how they think it should be. Normal people would contemplate switching at that point, tribalists, eg almost all MPs, won't, and that combined with fear of disaster is why they will now grab ankle or mope but not do anything. They never had any teeth, they had nowhere to go and Corbyn knew it.
Yes, definitely not as impressive as it seemed for SLAB - although at their 2015 high watermark, presumably the SNP would have been winning in this ward?
Dunno, difficult to tell with multi member wards.
You wouldn't get this confusion if you had AV, the finest voting system known to man.
I thought Scottish by-elections ARE by AV?
STV, in the land of STV.
You can't have an STV by-election for a single vacancy. By definition STV has to be for electing a group of people at the same time. So I maintain that the by-election system is AV.
Yes, definitely not as impressive as it seemed for SLAB - although at their 2015 high watermark, presumably the SNP would have been winning in this ward?
Dunno, difficult to tell with multi member wards.
You wouldn't get this confusion if you had AV, the finest voting system known to man.
I thought Scottish by-elections ARE by AV?
STV, in the land of STV.
You can't have an STV by-election for a single vacancy. By definition STV has to be for electing a group of people at the same time. So I maintain that the by-election system is AV.
When I shamelessly stole ' Leaverstan ' from @foxinsoxuk I didn't have all Leave voting areas in mind at all. Many, many Leave voting areas are pleasent, affluent and/or have high levels of social capital. That and a propensity to vote Conservative will mean they'll weather Brexit well or even thrive via house prices fueled by turbo globalisation. So Cornwall for instance isn't in Leaverstan in my definition despite considerable hidden poverty and an above average Leave vote. So let's call Cornwall and it's ilk Brexitshire. Remainia is varied but reasonably homogenous. Leaverstan for me is that section of England and Wales between the two. Overwhelmingly Labour voting, not or never needed for a Conservative majority, sometimes depopulating, ex industrial, very reliant on the State and crucially often at least partially responsible for it's own decline. A tendency to blame everything on Thatcher, elect crap one party state councils and overly nostalgic. Britain is run as a dialectic between Elites and Parliament. The referendum where every vote counted equally broke that paradigm which is why neither the elites nor parliament will be holding another one while the years remains in living memory.
As the half life of the Referendums radiation kicks in power will creep back to the elites and parliament dialect. I expect Brexitshire and Remainia to conclude a Brexit peace settlement then adapt to the new paradigm. Leaverstan will be devastated by a double whammy. The additional globalisation Brexit will bring and the disturbing belief they've taken back control. When the penny drops they'll have nowhere else to go. Except voting UKIP and maybe the odd trip to visit their kids and grandkids who've had to move to a city to find work.
Of course this is pure speculation on my part ( though informed by being from and currently living in Leaverstan ) but it's what I mean by the word I shamelessly stolen.
I don't believe anyone is ever too far behind to win in today's politics if they have the right leader and the right policies and the mood is for change. Look at Justin Trudeau in Canada who took the Liberals from a poor third in 2011 to a landslide just 4 years later. Of course as long as the hard left have control Labour is miles away but if sanity ever prevails and they pick a moderate, charismatic leader anything can happen!
I get where you're coming from - however, what you propose would require a complete 180 degree about turn from the Labour Party selectorate, whose instincts in backing Corbyn are more than sufficient to demonstrate that they care more about having having a party that they can believe in passionately than one which is palatable to the majority of public opinion. Apart from anything else, the Messianic Hard-Left alliance doesn't actually like the majority of the public. Both the Extreme Left and much of the Liberal Left share in common the Marxist theory of false consciousness (i.e. they believe that most of the electorate is deluded and thick, and must have good done unto them whether they like it or not,) and all those who aren't deluded and thick must be Tories and therefore the spawn of Satan. Because who, unless their intentions were truly evil, would dare to stand in the way of their single-minded drive to bring about Utopia?
The experience of decades, not least Corbyn's extraordinary 32 years in opposition to every Labour leader that proceeded him, demonstrates that the Hard Left is nothing if not tenacious, and why should we believe at this stage that they will surrender their grip on Labour just because they lose the next election? Remember, even if Labour is ground down to 150 seats that would still leave the Hard Left in a position of influence unparalleled in its whole history prior to 2015. The chances must be that Corbyn will either carry on, or pass the red flag to a younger but no less militant successor.
The implications for the Left are catastrophic. Hard Left Labour is both unelectable nationally, yet could hold on to a large hard core of safe seats in urban areas which could easily take ten or twenty years to be gradually worn down. Without those seats, no more centrist successor would be able to build a Commons majority, and consequently the Conservatives could hold on to power by using the same tactics that they used against EdM: a vote for SDP Mark 2, or whatever it's called, means a vote for a coalition with Scots Nats and the Loony Left.
The only way there's a chance of Labour even attempting a quick turn around is if Corbyn dies in office before the leadership election rules are changed to reduce the number of MP nominations needed to enter the race. Failing that, one has to suppose that they're off for an extended - and possibly permanent - spell in the wilderness.
Because although a lot of people like the SNP, more people hate them. That's what counts on the subsequent preference votes.
This is actually good news for the SNP, with a swing since the seat was last contested. The SNP councillor who created the vacancy clearly wasn't the first person elected, under STV, which would have been a Labour councillor. Hence under an AV by-election it was Labour's to lose, and they do appear to have lost some votes but not enough to lose.
I don't believe anyone is ever too far behind to win in today's politics if they have the right leader and the right policies and the mood is for change.
I get where you're coming from - however, what you propose would require a complete 180 degree about turn from the Labour Party selectorate, whose instincts in backing Corbyn are more than sufficient to demonstrate that they care more about having having a party that they can believe in passionately than one which is palatable to the majority of public opinion. Apart from anything else, the Messianic Hard-Left alliance doesn't actually like the majority of the public. Both the Extreme Left and much of the Liberal Left share in common the Marxist theory of false consciousness (i.e. they believe that most of the electorate is deluded and thick, and must have good done unto them whether they like it or not,) and all those who aren't deluded and thick must be Tories and therefore the spawn of Satan
The experience of decades, not least Corbyn's extraordinary 32 years in opposition to every Labour leader that proceeded him, demonstrates that the Hard Left is nothing if not tenacious, and why should we believe at this stage that they will surrender their grip on Labour just because they lose the next election? Remember, even if Labour is ground down to 150 seats that would still leave the Hard Left in a position of influence unparalleled in its whole history prior to 2015. The chances must be that Corbyn will either carry on, or pass the red flag to a younger but no less militant successor.
The implications for the Left are catastrophic. Hard Left Labour is both unelectable nationally, yet could hold on to a large hard core of safe seats in urban areas which could easily take ten or twenty years to be gradually worn down. Without those seats, no more centrist successor would be able to build a Commons majority, and consequently the Conservatives could hold on to power by using the same tactics that they used against EdM: a vote for SDP Mark 2, or whatever it's called, means a vote for a coalition with Scots Nats and the Loony Left.
The only way there's a chance of Labour even attempting a quick turn around is if Corbyn dies in office before the leadership election rules are changed to reduce the number of MP nominations needed to enter the race. Failing that, one has to suppose that they're off for an extended - and possibly permanent - spell in the wilderness.
On this one I would side with HY - whilst in normal circumstances Corbyn is unelectable, if the worst picture painted by Project Fear actually came to pass and the U.K. were to be plunged into a severe post-Brexit recession, the Tories would be rejected, and it is 50/50 whether Corbyn or the LibDems would clean up.
Because although a lot of people like the SNP, more people hate them. That's what counts on the subsequent preference votes.
Sure, in certain areas. But it's still a bit fatuous to be (yet again) looking for an end to the SNP 'honeymoon' on the basis of a +9 pt swing to them on first preferences.
I don't believe anyone is ever too far behind to win in today's politics if they have the right leader and the right policies and the mood is for change. Look at Justin Trudeau in Canada who took the Liberals from a poor third in 2011 to a landslide just 4 years later. Of course as long as the hard left have control Labour is miles away but if sanity ever prevails and they pick a moderate, charismatic leader anything can happen!
I get where you're coming from - however, what you propose would require a complete 180 degree about turn from the Labour Party selectorate, whose instincts in backing Corbyn are more than sufficien The experience of decades, not least Corbyn's extraordinary 32 years in opposition to every Labour leader that proceeded him, demonstrates that the Hard Left is nothing if not tenacious, and why should we believe at this stage that they will surrender their grip on Labour just because they lose the next election? Remember, even if Labour is ground down to 150 seats that would still leave the Hard Left in a position of influence unparalleled in its whole history prior to 2015. The chances must be that Corbyn will either carry on, or pass the red flag to a younger but no less militant successor.
The implications for the Left are catastrophic. Hard Left Labour is both unelectable nationally, yet could hold on to a large hard core of safe seats in urban areas which could easily take ten or twenty years to be gradually worn down. Without those seats, no more centrist successor would be able to build a Commons majority, and consequently the Conservatives could hold on to power by using the same tactics that they used against EdM: a vote for SDP Mark 2, or whatever it's called, means a vote for a coalition with Scots Nats and the Loony Left.
The only way there's a chance of Labour even attempting a quick turn around is if Corbyn dies in office before the leadership election rules are changed to reduce the number of MP nominations needed to enter the race. Failing that, one has to suppose that they're off for an extended - and possibly permanent - spell in the wilderness.
Presumably, though much also depends on the size of Corbyn's mandate on Saturday, if Smith gets about 40% that would not be great but would still leave open the possibility of a moderate taking over after a heavy Corbyn defeat in 2020. If it is closer to 70% then Labour are in the grip of the hard left for the forseeable future regardless of what happens in 2020 and the Tories are in until at least 2030 (short of a UKIP mini SNP style surge but I doubt May will do a Brexit so soft that that becomes a possibility). Goodnight
When I shamelessly stole ' Leaverstan ' from @foxinsoxuk I didn't have all Leave voting areas in mind at all. Many, many Leave voting areas are pleasent, affluent and/or have high levels of social capital. That and a propensity to vote Conservative will mean they'll weather Brexit well or even thrive via house prices fueled by turbo globalisation. So Cornwall for instance isn't in Leaverstan in my definition despite considerable hidden poverty and an above average Leave vote. So let's call Cornwall and it's ilk Brexitshire. Remainia is varied but reasonably homogenous. Leaverstan for me is that section of England and Wales between the two. Overwhelmingly Labour voting, not or never needed for a Conservative majority, sometimes depopulating, ex industrial, very reliant on the State and crucially often at least partially responsible for it's own decline. A tendency to blame everything on Thatcher, elect crap one party state councils and overly nostalgic. Britain is run as a dialectic between Elites and Parliament. The referendum where every vote counted equally broke that paradigm which is why neither the elites nor parliament will be holding another one while the years remains in living memory.
As the half life of the Referendums radiation kicks in power will creep back to the elites and parliament dialect. I expect Brexitshire and Remainia to conclude a Brexit peace settlement then adapt to the new paradigm. Leaverstan will be devastated by a double whammy. The additional globalisation Brexit will bring and the disturbing belief they've taken back control. When the penny drops they'll have nowhere else to go. Except voting UKIP and maybe the odd trip to visit their kids and grandkids who've had to move to a city to find work.
Of course this is pure speculation on my part ( though informed by being from and currently living in Leaverstan ) but it's what I mean by the word I shamelessly stolen.
Leaverstan is in part a state of mind and in part a fragmented Bantustan. In Cornwall, it is Cambourne and Redruth, compared with St Ives or Padstow.
Because although a lot of people like the SNP, more people hate them. That's what counts on the subsequent preference votes.
This is actually good news for the SNP, with a swing since the seat was last contested. The SNP councillor who created the vacancy clearly wasn't the first person elected, under STV, which would have been a Labour councillor. Hence under an AV by-election it was Labour's to lose, and they do appear to have lost some votes but not enough to lose.
I think as a one-off election, the single candidate is elected on a majority after preference votes are counted and without reference to other members previously elected. Second preferences are less important in multimember STV elections - I think, but it's complicated and it's getting past my bedtime.
Part of it is I believe factoring in that this is a high volatility election, where sizable swings are showing up as much more likely than for example 2012.
That observation seems quite fair, but I don't believe that factor, or the possibility of systematic bias in the polls (e.g, a "shy Trumpite" effect), can be quantitatively estimated in the way that Silver's elaborate analysis might suggest.
I'd have thought the only sensible thing to say would be whether such things are likely to make a difference to the estimate of the result based on more precisely quantifiable factors such as sampling error. The answer being probably yes this time, as the polls are reasonably close.
"She has one really good Electoral College path, but it’s only one path, instead of the robust electoral map that President Obama had in 2008 and 2012."
On the other hand, it's certainly not the only feasible path. If Florida is statistically a dead heat, Clinton is almost as likely to win it as Trump, and Florida alone has more electoral college votes than - for example - Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin and New Hampshire put together.
Part of it is I believe factoring in that this is a high volatility election, where sizable swings are showing up as much more likely than for example 2012.
That observation seems quite fair, but I don't believe that factor, or the possibility of systematic bias in the polls (e.g, a "shy Trumpite" effect), can be quantitatively estimated in the way that Silver's elaborate analysis might suggest.
I'd have thought the only sensible thing to say would be whether such things are likely to make a difference to the estimate of the result based on more precisely quantifiable factors such as sampling error. The answer being probably yes this time, as the polls are reasonably close.
"She has one really good Electoral College path, but it’s only one path, instead of the robust electoral map that President Obama had in 2008 and 2012."
On the other hand, it's certainly not the only feasible path. If Florida is statistically a dead heat, Clinton is almost as likely to win it as Trump, and Florida alone has more electoral college votes than - for example - Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin and New Hampshire put together.
Parts of it can. High 3rd party scores for example are one of their volatility indicators and can be quantitatively applied to an extent.
Silver's model is one of the more conservative ones and tends to be closer to 50:50 than a few of the others.
Silver took some criticism recently for his forecast model, and his response was a slightly grumpy (paraphrasing) 'if you're saying this isn't an exact science then I agree, if you think there's a better way then stick your model on the table'.
I'd rather them take their best estimate than just "hey, there's a chance the polls are off".
I'd rather them take their best estimate than just "hey, there's a chance the polls are off".
I suppose it boils down to whether they indicate clearly just how approximate- I think it would be fair to say "just how much of a guess" - their best estimate is.
Given that they're presenting percentages to one decimal place, I think that would involve displaying a pretty strong and prominent caveat on the web page. I don't see it.
I see the Greens have chose Bernie Sanders brother, Larry, as their candidate for Witney. His surname alone must give him an outside chance of second, the Greens got 5% in the seat at the last election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37447086
At least Bernie can now campaign for a progressive if he so chooses.
On this one I would side with HY - whilst in normal circumstances Corbyn is unelectable, if the worst picture painted by Project Fear actually came to pass and the U.K. were to be plunged into a severe post-Brexit recession, the Tories would be rejected, and it is 50/50 whether Corbyn or the LibDems would clean up.
Nah. The British public - or at any rate a sufficient plurality of it - is never, ever going to turn to the Corbyn Left as a solution to any economic mess, no matter how bad things get (and I would add at this stage that (a) none of the immediate consequences of Brexit envisioned by the doom-mongers have been realised, save for the correction in value of Sterling which was arguably overdue anyway; and (b) the central Treasury estimate for the long term under-performance of the post-Brexit economy was a 6% loss of GDP relative to what would otherwise have been expected - by 2030, that is. Unfortunate but not a catastrophe.)
Whilst anything is theoretically possible - the country could be obliterated by an asteroid before the next election, for example - I just don't see how the Lib Dems are going to win an election, or come anywhere close. To re-emphasise, they currently poll around 8% nationally and have just 8 MPs. To win outright they would require something like 40% of the popular vote, which they have never come remotely close to winning since the Liberal Party was still a party of Government, AND a simultaneous collapse of all of the other parties to allow them to get at huge numbers of safe seats, including in ridiculously implausible targets such as Boston, Huntingdon, Rotherham, Plymouth, Wrexham and Basildon. It's just not going to happen.
Mass Tory defections to a Tim Farron soft-Left offering are most unlikely; the whole hard core of the Brexit vote is off limits to them; much of the Left hasn't forgiven them for the Coalition and still won't have done in 2020; Labour has a lot of residual brand loyalty; and the Conservatives haven't scored less than 30% of the popular vote in a General Election for over 150 years. They even managed it in 1997, after eleven years of Thatcher, another seven of Back-to-Basics, Major-era sleaze, Black Wednesday, a proper, genuine recession with a slump in the housing market and negative equity, and when faced with a genuinely appealing and broad-based Labour Opposition with stratospheric opinion poll ratings.
Labour and the Lib Dems do not have what it takes to challenge the Tories, and the Conservatives' position under FPTP is very strong and will be even more so should the next election take place, as expected, under reformed boundaries in 2020. I don't see how the votes needed to beat them are going to be assembled by any opposition under any realistic electoral scenario.
Report on radio this morning about a lorry load of illegal immigrants stopped on the M1 by police causing chaos. Apparently they called 16 ambulances which virtually blocked a slip road in case they had got hurt in the back of the lorry.
Maybe I'm dumb but isn't that just a tiny bit over the top. Whats wrong with a minibus? No wonder our public services are in debt.
Report on radio this morning about a lorry load of illegal immigrants stopped on the M1 by police causing chaos. Apparently they called 16 ambulances which virtually blocked a slip road in case they had got hurt in the back of the lorry.
Maybe I'm dumb but isn't that just a tiny bit over the top. Whats wrong with a minibus? No wonder our public services are in debt.
given that a container is virtually air tight and not designed to have people in it, you are playing Schrodinger's refugees as the lorry is stopped and the container opened....
Yep its total over kill in the best / worst case scenarios but for anything else those ambulances may very well be required.
Whilst anything is theoretically possible - the country could be obliterated by an asteroid before the next election, for example - I just don't see how the Lib Dems are going to win an election, or come anywhere close. To re-emphasise, they currently poll around 8% nationally and have just 8 MPs. To win outright they would require something like 40% of the popular vote, which they have never come remotely close to winning since the Liberal Party was still a party of Government, AND a simultaneous collapse of all of the other parties to allow them to get at huge numbers of safe seats, including in ridiculously implausible targets such as Boston, Huntingdon, Rotherham, Plymouth, Wrexham and Basildon. It's just not going to happen.
Mass Tory defections to a Tim Farron soft-Left offering are most unlikely; the whole hard core of the Brexit vote is off limits to them; much of the Left hasn't forgiven them for the Coalition and still won't have done in 2020; Labour has a lot of residual brand loyalty; and the Conservatives haven't scored less than 30% of the popular vote in a General Election for over 150 years. They even managed it in 1997, after eleven years of Thatcher, another seven of Back-to-Basics, Major-era sleaze, Black Wednesday, a proper, genuine recession with a slump in the housing market and negative equity, and when faced with a genuinely appealing and broad-based Labour Opposition with stratospheric opinion poll ratings.
Labour and the Lib Dems do not have what it takes to challenge the Tories, and the Conservatives' position under FPTP is very strong and will be even more so should the next election take place, as expected, under reformed boundaries in 2020. I don't see how the votes needed to beat them are going to be assembled by any opposition under any realistic electoral scenario.
The problem with this forecast is that the Conservative vote is very soft.
The GBBO coverage would suggest that civilisation has indeed crumbled...
The BBC coverage of the loss of the GBBO has been an interesting insight into their sense of entitlement and self importance.
I think its more about telling GGBO fans not to worry.. GBBO will be back in a slightly different format and a different coloured tent.. worry not . No Holywood, but who cares. Berry is the star.
Good by-election night for Labour (and, to be fair, the LibDems, even without wins). Terrible night for the Tories. As we've had two threads based on single Labour council by-election losses, time for one about the gains?
IMO, Curtice's research is the most significant factor here - essentially that Corbyn has a high floor (more people who positively like him than liked Cameron after a year as leader) but a low ceiling (loads of people not currently prepared to vote for him). That's after a summer of unremitting party feuding. The question is whether after a reasonably clear win (I'm forseeing something much like last tim, not 70%) and some degree of cooperation in the PLP, he can start to make inroads into the people who quyite like Labour but aren't up for a hugely divided left-wing party.
David Jack More than half those who voted Lab in 2015 and backed Leave have ditched their support for the party. Via @thetimeshttps://t.co/SoTCZfrzCx
And yet Mori has them at 34%..
Yes. According to that Labour should be in the low 20s at best but they are not. And they had local by election wins last night. My suspicion is that despite the obsession on here most of the population have either made or accepted the decision on Brexit and moved on to more important matters. Like GBBO.
Whilst anything is theoretically possible - the country could be obliterated by an asteroid before the next election, for example - I just don't see how the Lib Dems are going to win an election, or come anywhere close. To re-emphasise, they currently poll around 8% nationally and have just 8 MPs. To win outright they would require something like 40% of the popular vote, which they have never come remotely close to winning since the Liberal Party was still a party of Government, AND a simultaneous collapse of all of the other parties to allow them to get at huge numbers of safe seats, including in ridiculously implausible targets such as Boston, Huntingdon, Rotherham, Plymouth, Wrexham and Basildon. It's just not going to happen.
Mass Tory defections to a Tim Farron soft-Left offering are most unlikely; the whole hard core of the Brexit vote is off limits to them; much of the Left hasn't forgiven them for the Coalition and still won't have done in 2020; Labour has a lot of residual brand loyalty; and the Conservatives haven't scored less than 30% of the popular vote in a General Election for over 150 years. They even managed it in 1997, after eleven years of Thatcher, another seven of Back-to-Basics, Major-era sleaze, Black Wednesday, a proper, genuine recession with a slump in the housing market and negative equity, and when faced with a genuinely appealing and broad-based Labour Opposition with stratospheric opinion poll ratings.
Labour and the Lib Dems do not have what it takes to challenge the Tories, and the Conservatives' position under FPTP is very strong and will be even more so should the next election take place, as expected, under reformed boundaries in 2020. I don't see how the votes needed to beat them are going to be assembled by any opposition under any realistic electoral scenario.
The problem with this forecast is that the Conservative vote is very soft.
Based on anything other than your wishful thinking?
I'd suggest all parties support is softer than usual presently - apart from the LDs, whose support at anything other than local levels is through the floor.
Currently speeding to Avignon - on one train. If anyone wondered whether the St Pancras Renaissancr is worthwhile, then wonder no longer - it is. Worth it for the spa and/or location for Eurostar alone. And the Gilbert Scott has the best tarte tatin I've ever tasted.
Report on radio this morning about a lorry load of illegal immigrants stopped on the M1 by police causing chaos. Apparently they called 16 ambulances which virtually blocked a slip road in case they had got hurt in the back of the lorry.
Maybe I'm dumb but isn't that just a tiny bit over the top. Whats wrong with a minibus? No wonder our public services are in debt.
Just 12 056 enforced deportations in 2015, when Mrs May had full control of the Home Office.
Report on radio this morning about a lorry load of illegal immigrants stopped on the M1 by police causing chaos. Apparently they called 16 ambulances which virtually blocked a slip road in case they had got hurt in the back of the lorry.
Maybe I'm dumb but isn't that just a tiny bit over the top. Whats wrong with a minibus? No wonder our public services are in debt.
given that a container is virtually air tight and not designed to have people in it, you are playing Schrodinger's refugees as the lorry is stopped and the container opened....
Yep its total over kill in the best / worst case scenarios but for anything else those ambulances may very well be required.
I could understand one or two ambulances. But sixteen ambulances (there were sixteen on the lorry so one each)?
Pity any hardworking taxpayer nearby who had a heart attack only for all the ambulances to be somewhere else on the precautionary principle.
The GBBO coverage would suggest that civilisation has indeed crumbled...
The BBC coverage of the loss of the GBBO has been an interesting insight into their sense of entitlement and self importance.
I think its more about telling GGBO fans not to worry.. GBBO will be back in a slightly different format and a different coloured tent.. worry not . No Holywood, but who cares. Berry is the star.
I think it's more about them. How very dare Ch 4. Lets stir up debates about privatising them. That'll show them.
David Jack More than half those who voted Lab in 2015 and backed Leave have ditched their support for the party. Via @thetimeshttps://t.co/SoTCZfrzCx
And yet Mori has them at 34%..
30% on this YouGov VI - but I'm still not convinced that they'd acheieve that when the hopelessness of the party breaks through popular consciousness in the White Heat of an election campaign.
The GBBO coverage would suggest that civilisation has indeed crumbled...
The BBC coverage of the loss of the GBBO has been an interesting insight into their sense of entitlement and self importance.
I think its more about telling GGBO fans not to worry.. GBBO will be back in a slightly different format and a different coloured tent.. worry not . No Holywood, but who cares. Berry is the star.
I think it's more about them. How very dare Ch 4. Lets stir up debates about privatising them. That'll show them.
What is such a problem of cookery talent show watchers having to press button 4 rather than button 1on the remote from the comfort of their sofas?
Report on radio this morning about a lorry load of illegal immigrants stopped on the M1 by police causing chaos. Apparently they called 16 ambulances which virtually blocked a slip road in case they had got hurt in the back of the lorry.
Maybe I'm dumb but isn't that just a tiny bit over the top. Whats wrong with a minibus? No wonder our public services are in debt.
Just 12 056 enforced deportations in 2015, when Mrs May had full control of the Home Office.
Why is she regarded as competent by PB Tories?
She didnt have full control of the home office policy. The ECJ and ECHR did.
Good by-election night for Labour (and, to be fair, the LibDems, even without wins). Terrible night for the Tories. As we've had two threads based on single Labour council by-election losses, time for one about the gains?
IMO, Curtice's research is the most significant factor here - essentially that Corbyn has a high floor (more people who positively like him than liked Cameron after a year as leader) but a low ceiling (loads of people not currently prepared to vote for him). That's after a summer of unremitting party feuding. The question is whether after a reasonably clear win (I'm forseeing something much like last tim, not 70%) and some degree of cooperation in the PLP, he can start to make inroads into the people who quyite like Labour but aren't up for a hugely divided left-wing party.
We live in a conservative country. The public are not up for a left wing party, divided or otherwise.
An outstanding night for Labour at local elections. A win in Scotland, in the South and Midlands. The party continues to reach vote shares that they did under Brown/Miliband, within MOE. The party is not dead under Corbyn, it is different. Likely unelectable in 2020 but they won't die. Also, as someone on here said, Lib Dem revival can take enough votes off Tories for Labour to slip through in some elections. All mayors will be Labour. They are strong.
To kill them they need to reach Scottish vote shares - 15% or so to bump them off. Unlikely.
Good by-election night for Labour (and, to be fair, the LibDems, even without wins). Terrible night for the Tories. As we've had two threads based on single Labour council by-election losses, time for one about the gains?
IMO, Curtice's research is the most significant factor here - essentially that Corbyn has a high floor (more people who positively like him than liked Cameron after a year as leader) but a low ceiling (loads of people not currently prepared to vote for him). That's after a summer of unremitting party feuding. The question is whether after a reasonably clear win (I'm forseeing something much like last tim, not 70%) and some degree of cooperation in the PLP, he can start to make inroads into the people who quyite like Labour but aren't up for a hugely divided left-wing party.
Does Corbyn actually want to reach out beyond his tribe? I doubt it. He has enough people whispering in his ear about his "mandate" and his semi messianic status that he probably doesn't want to or think he needs to.
The GBBO coverage would suggest that civilisation has indeed crumbled...
The BBC coverage of the loss of the GBBO has been an interesting insight into their sense of entitlement and self importance.
I think its more about telling GGBO fans not to worry.. GBBO will be back in a slightly different format and a different coloured tent.. worry not . No Holywood, but who cares. Berry is the star.
I think it's more about them. How very dare Ch 4. Lets stir up debates about privatising them. That'll show them.
What is such a problem of cookery talent show watchers having to press button 4 rather than button 1on the remote from the comfort of their sofas?
The GBBO coverage would suggest that civilisation has indeed crumbled...
The BBC coverage of the loss of the GBBO has been an interesting insight into their sense of entitlement and self importance.
I think its more about telling GGBO fans not to worry.. GBBO will be back in a slightly different format and a different coloured tent.. worry not . No Holywood, but who cares. Berry is the star.
I think it's more about them. How very dare Ch 4. Lets stir up debates about privatising them. That'll show them.
What is such a problem of cookery talent show watchers having to press button 4 rather than button 1on the remote from the comfort of their sofas?
I've never understood why it is on prime time. When it is on in our house I go and do paperwork...with Netflix in the background!
Report on radio this morning about a lorry load of illegal immigrants stopped on the M1 by police causing chaos. Apparently they called 16 ambulances which virtually blocked a slip road in case they had got hurt in the back of the lorry.
Maybe I'm dumb but isn't that just a tiny bit over the top. Whats wrong with a minibus? No wonder our public services are in debt.
Just 12 056 enforced deportations in 2015, when Mrs May had full control of the Home Office.
The GBBO coverage would suggest that civilisation has indeed crumbled...
The BBC coverage of the loss of the GBBO has been an interesting insight into their sense of entitlement and self importance.
I think its more about telling GGBO fans not to worry.. GBBO will be back in a slightly different format and a different coloured tent.. worry not . No Holywood, but who cares. Berry is the star.
I think it's more about them. How very dare Ch 4. Lets stir up debates about privatising them. That'll show them.
What is such a problem of cookery talent show watchers having to press button 4 rather than button 1on the remote from the comfort of their sofas?
I ain't switched from bbc1 or itv1 for 3 years, and I ain't starting now consarnit.
An outstanding night for Labour at local elections. A win in Scotland, in the South and Midlands. The party continues to reach vote shares that they did under Brown/Miliband, within MOE. The party is not dead under Corbyn, it is different. Likely unelectable in 2020 but they won't die. Also, as someone on here said, Lib Dem revival can take enough votes off Tories for Labour to slip through in some elections. All mayors will be Labour. They are strong.
To kill them they need to reach Scottish vote shares - 15% or so to bump them off. Unlikely.
The GBBO coverage would suggest that civilisation has indeed crumbled...
The BBC coverage of the loss of the GBBO has been an interesting insight into their sense of entitlement and self importance.
I think its more about telling GGBO fans not to worry.. GBBO will be back in a slightly different format and a different coloured tent.. worry not . No Holywood, but who cares. Berry is the star.
I think it's more about them. How very dare Ch 4. Lets stir up debates about privatising them. That'll show them.
What is such a problem of cookery talent show watchers having to press button 4 rather than button 1on the remote from the comfort of their sofas?
The GBBO coverage would suggest that civilisation has indeed crumbled...
The BBC coverage of the loss of the GBBO has been an interesting insight into their sense of entitlement and self importance.
I think its more about telling GGBO fans not to worry.. GBBO will be back in a slightly different format and a different coloured tent.. worry not . No Holywood, but who cares. Berry is the star.
I think it's more about them. How very dare Ch 4. Lets stir up debates about privatising them. That'll show them.
What is such a problem of cookery talent show watchers having to press button 4 rather than button 1on the remote from the comfort of their sofas?
I've never understood why it is on prime time. When it is on in our house I go and do paperwork...with Netflix in the background!
Dont watch it myself but don't 8-10 million people watch it? I presume it's on prime time because it is prime Tv viewing!
The GBBO coverage would suggest that civilisation has indeed crumbled...
The BBC coverage of the loss of the GBBO has been an interesting insight into their sense of entitlement and self importance.
I think its more about telling GGBO fans not to worry.. GBBO will be back in a slightly different format and a different coloured tent.. worry not . No Holywood, but who cares. Berry is the star.
I think it's more about them. How very dare Ch 4. Lets stir up debates about privatising them. That'll show them.
What is such a problem of cookery talent show watchers having to press button 4 rather than button 1on the remote from the comfort of their sofas?
Not sure as I have never watched it. Maybe the cakes will not rise sufficiently if time is taken out of the program for adverts?
The GBBO coverage would suggest that civilisation has indeed crumbled...
The BBC coverage of the loss of the GBBO has been an interesting insight into their sense of entitlement and self importance.
I think its more about telling GGBO fans not to worry.. GBBO will be back in a slightly different format and a different coloured tent.. worry not . No Holywood, but who cares. Berry is the star.
I think it's more about them. How very dare Ch 4. Lets stir up debates about privatising them. That'll show them.
What is such a problem of cookery talent show watchers having to press button 4 rather than button 1on the remote from the comfort of their sofas?
The GBBO coverage would suggest that civilisation has indeed crumbled...
The BBC coverage of the loss of the GBBO has been an interesting insight into their sense of entitlement and self importance.
I think its more about telling GGBO fans not to worry.. GBBO will be back in a slightly different format and a different coloured tent.. worry not . No Holywood, but who cares. Berry is the star.
I think it's more about them. How very dare Ch 4. Lets stir up debates about privatising them. That'll show them.
What is such a problem of cookery talent show watchers having to press button 4 rather than button 1on the remote from the comfort of their sofas?
I've never understood why it is on prime time. When it is on in our house I go and do paperwork...with Netflix in the background!
Dont watch it myself but don't 8-10 million people watch it? I presume it's on prime time because it is prime Tv viewing!
It's not about baking. It's got humanity, British eccentricity, subtlety, calm, rhythm. It's formulaic heaven.
Comments
Lab 1066 59.1% - 2.7%
UKIP 282 15.6% + 1.3%
LD 221 12.3% + 7.9%
Con 156 8.6% -2.3%
Green 79 4.4% - 3.2%
EDIT: Oh wait, it's another of those bizarre PR "losses" which happen despite a big swing to the losing party
Coatbridge North & Glenboig first prefs:
LAB: 41.7% (-11.3)
SNP: 39.0% (+8.2)
CON: 11.3% (+5.3)
GRN: 6.0% (+6.0)
UKIP: 1.9% (+1.9)
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/779087540930445312
Oz and NZ have an obesity rate that even exceeds our own:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/obesity-rates-soar-in-australia-a-global-survey-reveals-20140528-394s4.html
Though in Oz, like here, fat is really a class issue.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37447086
One can, perhaps, risk drawing tentative conclusions from what happens when polling day proper comes around and several thousand seats change hands at once, and in that case the evidence from this years' locals is clear. The Lib Dems made very modest progress, but Labour had its worst local election night in opposition for decades.
As for Scotland, their councils all come up for election all at once in May next year. If there's been any significant weakening of the SNP position then we'll see it then - although, personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was Labour's strongholds that were to come under the most sustained assault. Corbyn is horribly unpopular, Dugdale is also weak, Sturgeon is still strong, and also Davidson has the opportunity to try to consolidate more Unionist support behind her. The Lib Dems even won a couple of their old constituency seats back at Holyrood, even if the gains were cancelled out by losses on the lists.
A drubbing for Labour in the West of Scotland next year would be especially embarrassing if accompanied by a moderate revival for the Tories and Lib Dems in the East.
"When Jeremy wins on Saturday it's going to be the most significant event in human history since our ancestors came down from the trees".
The only real comparison that can be made is with the result in the previous by-election contested in the same seat, which happened to be this:
Oct 12 by: Lab 1527, SNP 1139, Con 174, LD 78 (elected on 1st count)
Labour's credibility is totally shot. Their surviving electoral alliance - hard-Left believers and sympathisers, public sector employees, and the remaining band of brand loyalty voters, along with poorer ethnic minority voters and people of working age who are heavily benefit dependent - is not going to be boosted by any significant numbers of uncommitted swing voters, let alone the kind of wet Tory voters that both Blair and the Lib Dems used to be good at luring away. Labour is already finished as far as 2020 is concerned, it's very likely to end up too far behind to win in 2025 under any leader, and it's quite possible that it will never win another General Election.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/john-curtice-scotlands-experience-of-av-makes-awkward-reading-for-both-camps-2270070.html
As it was a straight Con/Lab fight clearly a win for Corbyn over May
As the half life of the Referendums radiation kicks in power will creep back to the elites and parliament dialect. I expect Brexitshire and Remainia to conclude a Brexit peace settlement then adapt to the new paradigm. Leaverstan will be devastated by a double whammy. The additional globalisation Brexit will bring and the disturbing belief they've taken back control. When the penny drops they'll have nowhere else to go. Except voting UKIP and maybe the odd trip to visit their kids and grandkids who've had to move to a city to find work.
Of course this is pure speculation on my part ( though informed by being from and currently living in Leaverstan ) but it's what I mean by the word I shamelessly stolen.
The experience of decades, not least Corbyn's extraordinary 32 years in opposition to every Labour leader that proceeded him, demonstrates that the Hard Left is nothing if not tenacious, and why should we believe at this stage that they will surrender their grip on Labour just because they lose the next election? Remember, even if Labour is ground down to 150 seats that would still leave the Hard Left in a position of influence unparalleled in its whole history prior to 2015. The chances must be that Corbyn will either carry on, or pass the red flag to a younger but no less militant successor.
The implications for the Left are catastrophic. Hard Left Labour is both unelectable nationally, yet could hold on to a large hard core of safe seats in urban areas which could easily take ten or twenty years to be gradually worn down. Without those seats, no more centrist successor would be able to build a Commons majority, and consequently the Conservatives could hold on to power by using the same tactics that they used against EdM: a vote for SDP Mark 2, or whatever it's called, means a vote for a coalition with Scots Nats and the Loony Left.
The only way there's a chance of Labour even attempting a quick turn around is if Corbyn dies in office before the leadership election rules are changed to reduce the number of MP nominations needed to enter the race. Failing that, one has to suppose that they're off for an extended - and possibly permanent - spell in the wilderness.
I'd have thought the only sensible thing to say would be whether such things are likely to make a difference to the estimate of the result based on more precisely quantifiable factors such as sampling error. The answer being probably yes this time, as the polls are reasonably close.
Here's an article by Silver tonight, making the point about Clinton having pretty solid leads in the states she needs to win:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-leading-in-exactly-the-states-she-needs-to-win/
"She has one really good Electoral College path, but it’s only one path, instead of the robust electoral map that President Obama had in 2008 and 2012."
On the other hand, it's certainly not the only feasible path. If Florida is statistically a dead heat, Clinton is almost as likely to win it as Trump, and Florida alone has more electoral college votes than - for example - Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin and New Hampshire put together.
Silver's model is one of the more conservative ones and tends to be closer to 50:50 than a few of the others.
Silver took some criticism recently for his forecast model, and his response was a slightly grumpy (paraphrasing) 'if you're saying this isn't an exact science then I agree, if you think there's a better way then stick your model on the table'.
I'd rather them take their best estimate than just "hey, there's a chance the polls are off".
Given that they're presenting percentages to one decimal place, I think that would involve displaying a pretty strong and prominent caveat on the web page. I don't see it.
Whilst anything is theoretically possible - the country could be obliterated by an asteroid before the next election, for example - I just don't see how the Lib Dems are going to win an election, or come anywhere close. To re-emphasise, they currently poll around 8% nationally and have just 8 MPs. To win outright they would require something like 40% of the popular vote, which they have never come remotely close to winning since the Liberal Party was still a party of Government, AND a simultaneous collapse of all of the other parties to allow them to get at huge numbers of safe seats, including in ridiculously implausible targets such as Boston, Huntingdon, Rotherham, Plymouth, Wrexham and Basildon. It's just not going to happen.
Mass Tory defections to a Tim Farron soft-Left offering are most unlikely; the whole hard core of the Brexit vote is off limits to them; much of the Left hasn't forgiven them for the Coalition and still won't have done in 2020; Labour has a lot of residual brand loyalty; and the Conservatives haven't scored less than 30% of the popular vote in a General Election for over 150 years. They even managed it in 1997, after eleven years of Thatcher, another seven of Back-to-Basics, Major-era sleaze, Black Wednesday, a proper, genuine recession with a slump in the housing market and negative equity, and when faced with a genuinely appealing and broad-based Labour Opposition with stratospheric opinion poll ratings.
Labour and the Lib Dems do not have what it takes to challenge the Tories, and the Conservatives' position under FPTP is very strong and will be even more so should the next election take place, as expected, under reformed boundaries in 2020. I don't see how the votes needed to beat them are going to be assembled by any opposition under any realistic electoral scenario.
Maybe I'm dumb but isn't that just a tiny bit over the top. Whats wrong with a minibus? No wonder our public services are in debt.
Yep its total over kill in the best / worst case scenarios but for anything else those ambulances may very well be required.
More than half those who voted Lab in 2015 and backed Leave have ditched their support for the party. Via @thetimes https://t.co/SoTCZfrzCx
IMO, Curtice's research is the most significant factor here - essentially that Corbyn has a high floor (more people who positively like him than liked Cameron after a year as leader) but a low ceiling (loads of people not currently prepared to vote for him). That's after a summer of unremitting party feuding. The question is whether after a reasonably clear win (I'm forseeing something much like last tim, not 70%) and some degree of cooperation in the PLP, he can start to make inroads into the people who quyite like Labour but aren't up for a hugely divided left-wing party.
I'd suggest all parties support is softer than usual presently - apart from the LDs, whose support at anything other than local levels is through the floor.
Currently speeding to Avignon - on one train. If anyone wondered whether the St Pancras Renaissancr is worthwhile, then wonder no longer - it is. Worth it for the spa and/or location for Eurostar alone. And the Gilbert Scott has the best tarte tatin I've ever tasted.
Why is she regarded as competent by PB Tories?
Pity any hardworking taxpayer nearby who had a heart attack only for all the ambulances to be somewhere else on the precautionary principle.
To kill them they need to reach Scottish vote shares - 15% or so to bump them off. Unlikely.