Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » DDavis drops sharply in the next CON leader betting following

13»

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    King Cole, tolerance, free speech and nuance are all being eroded rapidly. Just look how people with views outside the orthodoxy on transgender matters get pilloried [for the record, I support the rights of adults to transition, think it's not on for kids].

    The 'hold them to account' line regarding Soubry et al. is another example of this. The whole basis of democracy is that varying but valid opinions can be held. If there's only one acceptable opinion then there's no point having elections to choose because the orthodoxy and only the orthodoxy can prevail, and heretics be damned.

    Social media seems to have become more of a tool for enforcing orthodoxy, rather than broadening the boundaries of free speech.
    Find that a very curious statement. Who is "enforcing orthodoxy"? How do they do it? What orthodoxy is being propounded?

    Surely social media has become a tool for challenging lazy received wisdom.
    Such as Labour will get sub 25% under Corbyn. Without social media, that orthodoxy of Sun, Mail and Express would have had no platform for challenge.
    Free speech by voices other than those of the mainstream press has expanded exponentially in recent years.
    No longer can highly-paid propagandists spout factually inaccurate, logically incoherent drivel without challenge or exposure to ridicule.
    Some just dislike what is being said.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    The country is more polarised, and less able to uphold the ‘traditional British virtue’ of tolerance that I can remember, and as I’ve bored people with before, I’ve voted in every GE since 1959, and worked for candidates in a good few of them.

    Furrther the 2106 Referendum was the least honest (which is saying quite a lot) I’ve ever been involved with, and that applies to both sides. Yes, I’m a Remainer but I cringed at some of the stuff that was being put out. The only saving grace was that, as far as I could see, Leave was worse.
    And the 2017 GE wasn’t much better.

    I was reading recently that 120 or so years ago, at the time of the Boer War the country was, apprently, similarly polarised and it took ten or so years for ‘normal’ politics to resume. I suspect we’e in a similar situation.

    I don’t see the country as particularly polarised.
    Certainly not when I look at the US where rural and urban communities are engaged in a vicious culture war and basically can’t talk to each other any more.

    If you look at the Referendum, even the ‘landslide’ areas went 65/35 or 60/40...

    I think the jnternet makes things seem more polarised than they really are.
    I think the existence of internet echo chambers are amplifying differences, and other media and to some extent the politicians themselves aren’t helping the situation. Also contributing are difficult economic conditions that have persisted for close to a decade, and referenda on a yes/no question about identity - such as we saw with Scotland and the EU - are by their very nature hugely polarising.

    Not close to the cultural problems in the US though, where everyone is shouting past each other and no-one is listening. I don’t see any moderate centrists lining up there any time soon.

    To summarise: David Cameron’s maxim about Tweets will be written in stone and taught to politics students long after Twitter have gone bust.
    There are some very interesting and telling stats in this article by Robert Peston on how the Tories lost the social media war to Labour in GE2017.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/politics-is-now-a-digital-arms-race-and-labour-is-winning/

    TL;DR, they demonstrate quite clearly why ignoring social media is no longer an option. And is going to be a huge problem for the Conservatives at the next election.
  • dixiedean said:

    King Cole, tolerance, free speech and nuance are all being eroded rapidly. Just look how people with views outside the orthodoxy on transgender matters get pilloried [for the record, I support the rights of adults to transition, think it's not on for kids].

    The 'hold them to account' line regarding Soubry et al. is another example of this. The whole basis of democracy is that varying but valid opinions can be held. If there's only one acceptable opinion then there's no point having elections to choose because the orthodoxy and only the orthodoxy can prevail, and heretics be damned.

    Social media seems to have become more of a tool for enforcing orthodoxy, rather than broadening the boundaries of free speech.
    Find that a very curious statement. Who is "enforcing orthodoxy"? How do they do it? What orthodoxy is being propounded?

    Surely social media has become a tool for challenging lazy received wisdom.
    Such as Labour will get sub 25% under Corbyn. Without social media, that orthodoxy of Sun, Mail and Express would have had no platform for challenge.
    Free speech by voices other than those of the mainstream press has expanded exponentially in recent years.
    No longer can highly-paid propagandists spout factually inaccurate, logically incoherent drivel without challenge or exposure to ridicule.
    Some just dislike what is being said.
    There is no one single person - as in the past - that's sort of the point, it's the mob inciting the mob to shout down or threaten others jobs or livelihoods. And I think that cuts both ways.

    Unfortunately, most of the rest of your post is just a partisan dislike of the right-wing tabloid press.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,259

    Also - " While a fifth view Johnson as being good in the post, half of UK adults now think he has been a bad foreign secretary. This marks a drastic change since September, when 29% thought he had been a good foreign secretary and only 33% thought he had been a bad one.

    His reputation also suffered among Conservative voters, with a third now thinking Johnson is doing a bad job, up from 16% in September. "

    Opinium is the second pollster to find Boris has sustained real damage in the last two months.

    He has had two months of wretched media coverage. Hardly a surprise!
    You omitted the word 'self-inflicted'
  • Also - " While a fifth view Johnson as being good in the post, half of UK adults now think he has been a bad foreign secretary. This marks a drastic change since September, when 29% thought he had been a good foreign secretary and only 33% thought he had been a bad one.

    His reputation also suffered among Conservative voters, with a third now thinking Johnson is doing a bad job, up from 16% in September. "

    Opinium is the second pollster to find Boris has sustained real damage in the last two months.

    He has had two months of wretched media coverage. Hardly a surprise!
    Would it not be more accurate to say that he has had 2 months of wretched performance. The media coverage is merely a reflection of that.
  • uncle grim getting busy today...AC/DC guitarist gone and now David Cassidy reported to be ina very bad way.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    dixiedean said:

    King Cole, tolerance, free speech and nuance are all being eroded rapidly. Just look how people with views outside the orthodoxy on transgender matters get pilloried [for the record, I support the rights of adults to transition, think it's not on for kids].

    The 'hold them to account' line regarding Soubry et al. is another example of this. The whole basis of democracy is that varying but valid opinions can be held. If there's only one acceptable opinion then there's no point having elections to choose because the orthodoxy and only the orthodoxy can prevail, and heretics be damned.

    Social media seems to have become more of a tool for enforcing orthodoxy, rather than broadening the boundaries of free speech.
    Find that a very curious statement. Who is "enforcing orthodoxy"? How do they do it? What orthodoxy is being propounded?

    Surely social media has become a tool for challenging lazy received wisdom.
    Such as Labour will get sub 25% under Corbyn. Without social media, that orthodoxy of Sun, Mail and Express would have had no platform for challenge.
    Free speech by voices other than those of the mainstream press has expanded exponentially in recent years.
    No longer can highly-paid propagandists spout factually inaccurate, logically incoherent drivel without challenge or exposure to ridicule.
    Some just dislike what is being said.
    There is no one single person - as in the past - that's sort of the point, it's the mob inciting the mob to shout down or threaten others jobs or livelihoods. And I think that cuts both ways.

    Unfortunately, most of the rest of your post is just a partisan dislike of the right-wing tabloid press.
    A partisan dislike of the right-wing press.
    Guilty. A lot of what they say is factually inaccurate bollocks.
    And there are plenty of ways now to say so. Which I maintain is a very good thing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706
    edited November 2017
    kyf_100 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    The country is more polarised, and less able to uphold the ‘traditional British virtue’ of tolerance that I can remember, and as I’ve bored people with before, I’ve voted in every GE since 1959, and worked for candidates in a good few of them.

    Furrther the 2106 Referendum was the least honest (which is saying quite a lot) I’ve ever been involved with, and that applies to both sides. Yes, I’m a Remainer but I cringed at some of the stuff that was being put out. The only saving grace was that, as far as I could see, Leave was worse.
    And the 2017 GE wasn’t much better.

    I was reading recently that 120 or so years ago, at the time of the Boer War the country was, apprently, similarly polarised and it took ten or so years for ‘normal’ politics to resume. I suspect we’e in a similar situation.

    I don’t see the country as particularly polarised.
    Certainly not when I look at the US where rural and urban communities are engaged in a vicious culture war and basically can’t talk to each other any more.

    If you look at the Referendum, even the ‘landslide’ areas went 65/35 or 60/40...

    I think the jnternet makes things seem more polarised than they really are.
    I think the existence of internet have gone bust.
    There are some very interesting and telling stats in this article by Robert Peston on how the Tories lost the social media war to Labour in GE2017.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/politics-is-now-a-digital-arms-race-and-labour-is-winning/

    TL;DR, they demonstrate quite clearly why ignoring social media is no longer an option. And is going to be a huge problem for the Conservatives at the next election.
    Social media is overrated, if social media presence decided elections and referenda then Yes would have won indyref 2014, both Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn would have won the 2015 and 2017 general elections comfortably and Leave would have won the 2016 EU referendum by more than the 4% they did and Trump would have beaten Hillary Clinton by a landslide in the 2016 US presidential election instead of Hillary winning the popular vote.

    Social media is good for motivating the base but is basically an echo chamber for the already converted. To reach swing voters you still have to do the canvassing, leafletting, phoning and displaying of posters you always had to do at election time.
  • Any sightings of TSE on strictly? If you don’t know what he looking like, he will be the one with god awful shoes.
  • Also - " While a fifth view Johnson as being good in the post, half of UK adults now think he has been a bad foreign secretary. This marks a drastic change since September, when 29% thought he had been a good foreign secretary and only 33% thought he had been a bad one.

    His reputation also suffered among Conservative voters, with a third now thinking Johnson is doing a bad job, up from 16% in September. "

    Opinium is the second pollster to find Boris has sustained real damage in the last two months.

    It's fair to say that if Boris supported Leave merely to enhance his career prospects, then it was an epic blunder. Far better would have been to support Remain and secure a Remain win. He could then have taken over from Dave and been PM during a benign and prosperous era. Instead, in these turbulent and dangerous times, he's constantly under the microscope and unbearable pressure. I suspect his career will end amid acrimony, failure and regret. Shame as I rather liked him.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Any sightings of TSE on strictly? If you don’t know what he looking like, he will be the one with god awful shoes.

    Is he as excited as these people?

    https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/931971645513793537
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,259
    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    The country is more polarised, and less able to uphold the ‘traditional British virtue’ of tolerance that I can remember, and as I’ve bored people with before, I’ve voted in every GE since 1959, and worked for candidates in a good few of them.

    Furrther the 2106 Referendum was the least honest (which is saying quite a lot) I’ve ever been involved with, and that applies to both sides. Yes, I’m a Remainer but I cringed at some of the stuff that was being put out. The only saving grace was that, as far as I could see, Leave was worse.
    And the 2017 GE wasn’t much better.

    I was reading recently that 120 or so years ago, at the time of the Boer War the country was, apprently, similarly polarised and it took ten or so years for ‘normal’ politics to resume. I suspect we’e in a similar situation.

    I don’t see the country as particularly polarised.
    Certainly not when I look at the US where rural and urban communities are engaged in a vicious culture war and basically can’t talk to each other any more.

    If you look at the Referendum, even the ‘landslide’ areas went 65/35 or 60/40...

    I think the jnternet makes things seem more polarised than they really are.
    I think the existence of internet have gone bust.
    There are some very interesting and telling stats in this article by Robert Peston on how the Tories lost the social media war to Labour in GE2017.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/politics-is-now-a-digital-arms-race-and-labour-is-winning/

    TL;DR, they demonstrate quite clearly why ignoring social media is no longer an option. And is going to be a huge problem for the Conservatives at the next election.
    Social media is overrated, if social media presence decided elections and referenda then Yes would have won indyref 2014, both Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn would have won the 2015 and 2017 general elections comfortably and Leave would have won the 2016 EU referendum by more than the 4% they did and Trump would have beaten Hillary Clinton by a landslide in the 2016 US presidential election instead of Hillary winning the popular vote.

    Social media is good for motivating the base but is basically an echo chamber for the already converted. To reach swing voters you still have to do the canvassing, leafletting, phoning and displaying of posters you always had to do at election time.
    The thing to remember though is that we're probably not yet in a steady state with social media use; it will become increasingly important over the next few elections, so what might be true from this year's election may not hold next time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    The country is more polarised, and less able to uphold the ‘traditional British virtue’ of tolerance that I can remember, and as I’ve bored people with before, I’ve voted in every GE since 1959, and worked for candidates in a good few of them.

    Furrther the 2106 Referendum was the least honest (which is saying quite a lot) I’ve ever been involved with, and that applies to both sides. Yes, I’m a Remainer but I cringed at some of the stuff that was being put out. The only saving grace was that, as far as I could see, Leave was worse.
    And the 2017 GE wasn’t much better.

    I was reading recently that 120 or so years ago, at the time of the Boer War the country was, apprently, similarly polarised and it took ten or so years for ‘normal’ politics to resume. I suspect we’e in a similar situation.

    I don’t see the country as particularly polarised.
    Certainly not when I look at the US where rural and urban communities are engaged in a vicious culture war and basically can’t talk to each other any more.

    If you look at the Referendum, even the ‘landslide’ areas went 65/35 or 60/40...

    I think the jnternet makes things seem more polarised than they really are.
    I think the existence of internet have gone bust.
    There are some very interesting and telling stats in this article by Robert Peston on how the Tories lost the social media war to Labour in GE2017.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/politics-is-now-a-digital-arms-race-and-labour-is-winning/

    TL;DR, they demonstrate quite clearly why ignoring social media is no longer an option. And is going to be a huge problem for the Conservatives at the next election.
    Social media is overrated, if social mediaat election time.
    The thing to remember though is that we're probably not yet in a steady state with social media use; it will become increasingly important over the next few elections, so what might be true from this year's election may not hold next time.
    Where Peston does make a good point is that social media can be useful for picking up undecided voters interests and preferences and contact details.

    Beyond that rightwingers follow rightwingers and leftwingers follow leftwingers and they tweet and message each other on facebook without necessarily reaching a single floating voter. It is only through doorstep canvassing and phoning and leafletting you can be sure you reach them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706
    edited November 2017

    Also - " While a fifth view Johnson as being good in the post, half of UK adults now think he has been a bad foreign secretary. This marks a drastic change since September, when 29% thought he had been a good foreign secretary and only 33% thought he had been a bad one.

    His reputation also suffered among Conservative voters, with a third now thinking Johnson is doing a bad job, up from 16% in September. "

    Opinium is the second pollster to find Boris has sustained real damage in the last two months.

    It's fair to say that if Boris supported Leave merely to enhance his career prospects, then it was an epic blunder. Far better would have been to support Remain and secure a Remain win. He could then have taken over from Dave and been PM during a benign and prosperous era. Instead, in these turbulent and dangerous times, he's constantly under the microscope and unbearable pressure. I suspect his career will end amid acrimony, failure and regret. Shame as I rather liked him.
    Though in historical terms the victory of the Leave campaign for which Boris was de facto leader will be far more significant for the UK than Boris being a fag end PM after Cameron finally decided to depart the scene. Indeed if Remain had won it may well have been Osborne who succeeded Cameron.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:
    The significant paragraph is at the end of the story, if it is true that Kier Starmer himself was consulted (as DPP).
    If Starmer has anything to do with the recent Green stories, using confidential information he gained when in post as DPP for political ends, he’s completely and utterly toast.

    Not that they suggest that, of course, but it’s an interesting point to make in passing.
    So he waited 8 years and 3 general elections in between ?
  • Remember it was conventional wisdom that tories won 2015 due to winning social media via Facebook. But they spent two years planning, testing and targeting their message. 2017 was the other end of the spectrum.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    On topic
    If David Davis quits, he becomes the brexit martyr and IMO more likely to be the next conservative leader.
    I backed him at 100/1 earlier in the year, should really have cashed out, but I still think he is in with a decent chance.
    Davis would surely win in a head to head with Rees Mogg. He is far more experienced.

    You can lay Davis at 13.5 right now if you want to take a profit. https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051208/market?marketId=1.125574963

    I can’t see JRM as next leader to become PM, he’s just not experienced enough unless he gets a big Cabinet job soon. Not unless the MPs screw up and leave us a choice of JRM or Rudd/Hammond/Leadsom.

    Next leader as LotO, much more plausible.
    Lay Boris. Lay JRM. Wait.
    Actually, Boris is always laying someone.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706

    Remember it was conventional wisdom that tories won 2015 due to winning social media via Facebook. But they spent two years planning, testing and targeting their message. 2017 was the other end of the spectrum.

    Yet the Tories still won most votes in 2017 and a higher voteshare than they did in 2015. Social media is a useful campaigning tool but it does not determine election or referendum results.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,259
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:



    Furrther the 2106 Referendum was the least honest (which is saying quite a lot) I’ve ever been involved with, and that applies to both sides. Yes, I’m a Remainer but I cringed at some of the stuff that was being put out. The only saving grace was that, as far as I could see, Leave was worse.
    And the 2017 GE wasn’t much better.

    I was reading recently that 120 or so years ago, at the time of the Boer War the country was, apprently, similarly polarised and it took ten or so years for ‘normal’ politics to resume. I suspect we’e in a similar situation.

    I don’t see the country as particularly polarised.
    Certainly not when I look at the US where rural and urban communities are engaged in a vicious culture war and basically can’t talk to each other any more.

    If you look at the Referendum, even the ‘landslide’ areas went 65/35 or 60/40...

    I think the jnternet makes things seem more polarised than they really are.
    I think the existence of internet have gone bust.
    There are some very interesting and telling stats in this article by Robert Peston on how the Tories lost the social media war to Labour in GE2017.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/politics-is-now-a-digital-arms-race-and-labour-is-winning/

    TL;DR, they demonstrate quite clearly why ignoring social media is no longer an option. And is going to be a huge problem for the Conservatives at the next election.
    Social media is overrated, if social mediaat election time.
    The thing to remember though is that we're probably not yet in a steady state with social media use; it will become increasingly important over the next few elections, so what might be true from this year's election may not hold next time.
    Where Peston does make a good point is that social media can be useful for picking up undecided voters interests and preferences and contact details.

    Beyond that rightwingers follow rightwingers and leftwingers follow leftwingers and they tweet and message each other on facebook without necessarily reaching a single floating voter. It is only through doorstep canvassing and phoning and leafletting you can be sure you reach them.
    I've no hard evidence of course, but to me it seems that social media generated engagement during GE2017 from previously disengaged people, particularly amongst the young and that helped boost turnout. And it helped Labour disproportionately.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited November 2017
    kyf_100 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    The country is more polarised, and less able to uphold the ‘traditional British virtue’ of tolerance that I can remember, and as I’ve bored people with before, I’ve voted in every GE since 1959, and worked for candidates in a good few of them..

    I don’t see the country as particularly polarised.
    Certainly not when I look at the US where rural and urban communities are engaged in a vicious culture war and basically can’t talk to each other any more.

    If you look at the Referendum, even the ‘landslide’ areas went 65/35 or 60/40...

    I think the jnternet makes things seem more polarised than they really are.
    I think the existence of internet echo chambers are amplifying differences, and other media and to some extent the politicians themselves aren’t helping the situation. Also contributing are difficult economic conditions that have persisted for close to a decade, and referenda on a yes/no question about identity - such as we saw with Scotland and the EU - are by their very nature hugely polarising.

    Not close to the cultural problems in the US though, where everyone is shouting past each other and no-one is listening. I don’t see any moderate centrists lining up there any time soon.

    To summarise: David Cameron’s maxim about Tweets will be written in stone and taught to politics students long after Twitter have gone bust.
    There are some very interesting and telling stats in this article by Robert Peston on how the Tories lost the social media war to Labour in GE2017.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/politics-is-now-a-digital-arms-race-and-labour-is-winning/

    TL;DR, they demonstrate quite clearly why ignoring social media is no longer an option. And is going to be a huge problem for the Conservatives at the next election.
    That’s a good read. The Tories did well online in 2010 and 2015, but Labour were definitely way ahead in 2017.

    I think a lot of Labour’s support online this year was organic rather than organised though, with thousands of students thinking that there were tuition fee sweeties on offer.

    It will be interesting to see how the main parties (and others) develop things online in the future, it’s certainly becoming more important with each election.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2017
    surbiton said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:
    The significant paragraph is at the end of the story, if it is true that Kier Starmer himself was consulted (as DPP).
    If Starmer has anything to do with the recent Green stories, using confidential information he gained when in post as DPP for political ends, he’s completely and utterly toast.

    Not that they suggest that, of course, but it’s an interesting point to make in passing.
    So he waited 8 years and 3 general elections in between ?
    Not to suggest he hasn’t anything to do with this, but He was only elected in 2015, only very recently had a prominent job and of course the media narrative is only now on high alert for stories of this nature.

    Why do you think bob quick popped up again after 8 years to tell us this story.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706
    edited November 2017

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:



    Furrther the 2106 Referendum was the least honest (which is saying quite a lot) I’ve ever been involved with, and that applies to both sides. Yes, I’m a Remainer but I cringed at some of the stuff that was being put out. The only saving grace was that, as far as I could see, Leave was worse.
    And the 2017 GE wasn’t much better.

    I was reading recently that 120 or so years ago, at the time of the Boer War the country was, apprently, similarly polarised and it took ten or so years for ‘normal’ politics to resume. I suspect we’e in a similar situation.

    I don’t see the country as particularly polarised.
    Certainly not when I look at the US where rural and urban communities are engaged in a vicious culture war and basically can’t talk to each other any more.

    If you look at the Referendum, even the ‘landslide’ areas went 65/35 or 60/40...

    I think the jnternet makes things seem more polarised than they really are.
    I think the existence of internet have gone bust.
    There are some very interesting and telling stats in this article by Robert Peston on how the Tories lost the social media war to Labour in GE2017.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/politics-is-now-a-digital-arms-race-and-labour-is-winning/

    TL;DR, they demonstrate quite clearly why ignoring social media is no longer an option. And is going to be a huge problem for the Conservatives at the next election.
    Social media is overrated, if social mediaat election time.
    The thing to remember though is that we're probably not yet in a steady state with social media use; it will become increasingly important over the next few elections, so what might be true from this year's election may not hold next time.
    Where .
    I've no hard evidence of course, but to me it seems that social media generated engagement during GE2017 from previously disengaged people, particularly amongst the young and that helped boost turnout. And it helped Labour disproportionately.
    It might have had some impact with motivating the student vote for Labour and actually getting them out to vote rather than spending election day at the bar or in bed ie helping them win Canterbury and Warwick and Leamington etc.

    However the student vote is always solidly Labour so even there social media was just getting the already converted motivated to get out and vote not actually really converting genuinely undecided voters to vote Labour who had previously also considered voting Tory.
  • HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
    Well Tony thinks they should....
    Which backs up the point about goalpost shifting - the man who once said Corbyn had no chance of matching even Michael Foot in a general election, is now saying Corbyn "should" be doing better than 2-3% leads.
    Michael Foot of course had far bigger leads than 2-3% in 1980, as did Ed Miliband in 2012, let alone Blair pre 1997.
    Reminder: Opinium's final pre-GE poll underrated Labour by 4%.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/nato-apologises-turkey-erdogan-ataturk-enemy-chart

    I am wondering why Turkey stays in the NATO. The place is full of racists.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:


    There are some very interesting and telling stats in this article by Robert Peston on how the Tories lost the social media war to Labour in GE2017.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/politics-is-now-a-digital-arms-race-and-labour-is-winning/

    TL;DR, they demonstrate quite clearly why ignoring social media is no longer an option. And is going to be a huge problem for the Conservatives at the next election.

    Social media is overrated, if social media presence decided elections and referenda then Yes would have won indyref 2014, both Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn would have won the 2015 and 2017 general elections comfortably and Leave would have won the 2016 EU referendum by more than the 4% they did and Trump would have beaten Hillary Clinton by a landslide in the 2016 US presidential election instead of Hillary winning the popular vote.

    Social media is good for motivating the base but is basically an echo chamber for the already converted. To reach swing voters you still have to do the canvassing, leafletting, phoning and displaying of posters you always had to do at election time.
    At the risk of sounding like a cliche, the thing about social media is its incredible ability to reach the younger generation(s) who were previously less engaged with politics.

    One of the things I noticed early on in GE2017 is how both Labour and Momentum campaigns focused on a registration drive, then followed that up with content that kept those newly registered voters engaged right up til the day of the vote.

    Reaching 675,000 people via Snapchat and telling them where to go and vote is just a phenomenal statistic, I'm in awe of it. Considering hardly anybody over the age of 30 is on Snapchat, they must have reached half the millennials in the country. Meanwhile the Tories were paying a fortune to run that awful Corbyn IRA attack ad on Facebook and calling it a slam-dunk, ignoring the fact that paid views are worth a fraction of their organic counterparts.

    I should be careful what I say here, but the biggest problem the Tories have is that their ad campaigns are run in a very old school way that doesn't really 'get' digital yet. And the reason for this is that all the people who 'get' digital are, more or less to a man (or woman, or non binary genderfluid), all paid up Labour supporters. The Tories need a Saatchi for the digital age but frankly I can't figure out who that would be.

    One thing I can say with a degree of certainty is that the young who turned out in their droves for Labour at GE2017 aren't going anywhere and Labour's social media game has significantly shifted the goalposts in terms of youth engagement.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
    Well Tony thinks they should....
    Which backs up the point about goalpost shifting - the man who once said Corbyn had no chance of matching even Michael Foot in a general election, is now saying Corbyn "should" be doing better than 2-3% leads.
    Michael Foot of course had far bigger leads than 2-3% in 1980, as did Ed Miliband in 2012, let alone Blair pre 1997.
    Reminder: Opinium's final pre-GE poll underrated Labour by 4%.
    Only Survation had the guts to publish what they found. Has Martin Boon resigned yet ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706
    edited November 2017

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
    Well Tony thinks they should....
    Which backs up the point about goalpost shifting - the man who once said Corbyn had no chance of matching even Michael Foot in a general election, is now saying Corbyn "should" be doing better than 2-3% leads.
    Michael Foot of course had far bigger leads than 2-3% in 1980, as did Ed Miliband in 2012, let alone Blair pre 1997.
    Reminder: Opinium's final pre-GE poll underrated Labour by 4%.
    Opinium got the Tories almost spot on though, it had them on 43% and they got 42%.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2017
    one should be careful overstating corbasm from the young . It only added 3-4% to labour total. It wouldn’t have made much of a difference* to the overall result If the tories hadn’t lost massive lead with middle aged (who don’t do snapchat, they do Facebook). Some of that they lost with old steal you house if you go gaga and some with corbyn unchallenged give you’re kids a free uni education.

    * except probably the odd shock seat with very high student concentration.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706
    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:


    There are some very interesting and telling stats in this article by Robert Peston on how the Tories lost the social media war to Labour in GE2017.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/politics-is-now-a-digital-arms-race-and-labour-is-winning/

    TL;DR, they demonstrate quite clearly why ignoring social media is no longer an option. And is going to be a huge problem for the Conservatives at the next election.

    Social media is overrated, if social media presence decided elections and referenda then Yes would have won indyref 2014had to do at election time.
    At the risk of sounding like a cliche, the thing about social media is its incredible ability to reach the younger generation(s) who were previously less engaged with politics.

    One of the things I noticed early on in GE2017 is how both Labour and Momentum campaigns focused on a registration drive, then followed that up with content that kept those newly registered voters engaged right up til the day of the vote.

    Reaching 675,000 people via Snapchat and telling them where to go and vote is just a phenomenal statistic, I'm in awe of it. Considering hardly anybody over the age of 30 is on Snapchat, they must have reached half the millennials in the country. Meanwhile the Tories were paying a fortune to run that awful Corbyn IRA attack ad on Facebook and calling it a slam-dunk, ignoring the fact that paid views are worth a fraction of their organic counterparts.

    I should be careful what I say here, but the biggest problem the Tories have is that their ad campaigns are run in a very old school way that doesn't really 'get' digital yet. And the reason for this is that all the people who 'get' digital are, more or less to a man (or woman, or non binary genderfluid), all paid up Labour supporters. The Tories need a Saatchi for the digital age but frankly I can't figure out who that would be.

    One thing I can say with a degree of certainty is that the young who turned out in their droves for Labour at GE2017 aren't going anywhere and Labour's social media game has significantly shifted the goalposts in terms of youth engagement.
    Yes social media helped get young people out to vote but as I said under 30s are overwhelmingly Labour anyway so that helped Labour close the gap it did not win them the general election, only winning 40s to 50s could do that for them.

    There are still plenty of Tory leaners and Leavers who are tech savvy, think Richard Tyndall and Cummings made excellent use of social media for Vote Leave so there are rightwingers attuned to digital technology if the Tories can tap into that.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    edited November 2017
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
    Well Tony thinks they should....
    Which backs up the point about goalpost shifting - the man who once said Corbyn had no chance of matching even Michael Foot in a general election, is now saying Corbyn "should" be doing better than 2-3% leads.
    Michael Foot of course had far bigger leads than 2-3% in 1980, as did Ed Miliband in 2012, let alone Blair pre 1997.
    Reminder: Opinium's final pre-GE poll underrated Labour by 4%.
    Opinium got the Tories almost spot on though, it had them on 43% and they got 42%.
    So if they're as accurate as in the one recent poll we can check with hard evidence, Labour would be 6-8% ahead. Of course we have no idea what their error is now. Meaningless polling.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited November 2017

    uncle grim getting busy today...AC/DC guitarist gone and now David Cassidy reported to be ina very bad way.

    Sadly also a British motorbike rider, Daniel Hegarty, killed in an accident at the Macau GP today. Only 31

    Add to four killed in a plane crash yesterday, and now police are reporting they’ve found a body in the search for a missing teenager.

    Grim is having a busy week.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
    Well Tony thinks they should....
    Which backs up the point about goalpost shifting - the man who once said Corbyn had no chance of matching even Michael Foot in a general election, is now saying Corbyn "should" be doing better than 2-3% leads.
    Michael Foot of course had far bigger leads than 2-3% in 1980, as did Ed Miliband in 2012, let alone Blair pre 1997.
    Reminder: Opinium's final pre-GE poll underrated Labour by 4%.
    Opinium got the Tories almost spot on though, it had them on 43% and they got 42%.
    So if they're as accurate as in the one recent poll we can check with hard evidence, Labour would be 6-7% ahead. Of course we have no idea what their error is now. Meaningless polling.
    They have probably adjusted back to how they were measuring in 2015. Even Survation of course now only has Labour 6% ahead which would still probably not be enough for an overall Labour majority. Remember despite being the most accurate 2017 pollster Survation's final 2017 poll had a Tory lead of 1% and the Tories ended up 2% ahead so Survation actually slightly overestimated Labour then.
  • New threads....
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    Caught a copy of the Sun yesterday. Its political insight was at the level of the bloke in the pub everyone avoids.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:



    Furrther the 2106 Referendum was the least honest (which is saying quite a lot) I’ve ever been involved with, and that applies to both sides. Yes, I’m a Remainer but I cringed at some of the stuff that was being put out. The only saving grace was that, as far as I could see, Leave was worse.
    And the 2017 GE wasn’t much better.

    I was reading recently that 120 or so years ago, at the time of the Boer War the country was, apprently, similarly polarised and it took ten or so years for ‘normal’ politics to resume. I suspect we’e in a similar situation.

    I don’t see the country as particularly polarised.
    Certainly not when I look at the US where rural and urban communities are engaged in a vicious culture war and basically can’t talk to each other any more.

    If you look at the Referendum, even the ‘landslide’ areas went 65/35 or 60/40...

    I think the jnternet makes things seem more polarised than they really are.
    I think the existence of internet have gone bust.
    There are some very interesting and telling stats in this article by Robert Peston on how the Tories lost the social media war to Labour in GE2017.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/politics-is-now-a-digital-arms-race-and-labour-is-winning/

    TL;DR, they demonstrate quite clearly why ignoring social media is no longer an option. And is going to be a huge problem for the Conservatives at the next election.
    Social media is overrated, if social mediaat election time.
    The thing to remember though is that we're probably not yet in a steady state with social media use; it will become increasingly important over the next few elections, so what might be true from this year's election may not hold next time.
    Where Peston does make a good point is that social media can be useful for picking up undecided voters interests and preferences and contact details.

    Beyond that rightwingers follow rightwingers and leftwingers follow leftwingers and they tweet and message each other on facebook without necessarily reaching a single floating voter. It is only through doorstep canvassing and phoning and leafletting you can be sure you reach them.
    I've no hard evidence of course, but to me it seems that social media generated engagement during GE2017 from previously disengaged people, particularly amongst the young and that helped boost turnout. And it helped Labour disproportionately.
    Agreed. Turnout among the young especially was substantially up from 2015 to 2017.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
    Well Tony thinks they should....
    Which backs up the point about goalpost shifting - the man who once said Corbyn had no chance of matching even Michael Foot in a general election, is now saying Corbyn "should" be doing better than 2-3% leads.
    Michael Foot of course had far bigger leads than 2-3% in 1980, as did Ed Miliband in 2012, let alone Blair pre 1997.
    Reminder: Opinium's final pre-GE poll underrated Labour by 4%.
    Opinium got the Tories almost spot on though, it had them on 43% and they got 42%.
    So if they're as accurate as in the one recent poll we can check with hard evidence, Labour would be 6-7% ahead. Of course we have no idea what their error is now. Meaningless polling.
    They have probably adjusted back to how they were measuring in 2015. Even Survation of course now only has Labour 6% ahead which would still probably not be enough for an overall Labour majority. Remember despite being the most accurate 2017 pollster Survation's final 2017 poll had a Tory lead of 1% and the Tories ended up 2% ahead so Survation actually slightly overestimated Labour then.
    Who knows how or when they've changed methodology, if at all. Any of them. It's ridiculous to go on about Labour only being 2% ahead on a poll where we have no idea whether they've corrected after underrating Labour by such a large margin. They could have overcorrected for all we know, or done nothing. It's a meaningless poll.
  • dixiedean said:

    King Cole, tolerance, free speech and nuance are all being eroded rapidly. Just look how people with views outside the orthodoxy on transgender matters get pilloried [for the record, I support the rights of adults to transition, think it's not on for kids].

    The 'hold them to account' line regarding Soubry et al. is another example of this. The whole basis of democracy is that varying but valid opinions can be held. If there's only one acceptable opinion then there's no point having elections to choose because the orthodoxy and only the orthodoxy can prevail, and heretics be damned.

    Social media seems to have become more of a tool for enforcing orthodoxy, rather than broadening the boundaries of free speech.
    Find that a very curious statement. Who is "enforcing orthodoxy"? How do they do it? What orthodoxy is being propounded?

    Surely social media has become a tool for challenging lazy received wisdom.
    Such as Labour will get sub 25% under Corbyn. Without social media, that orthodoxy of Sun, Mail and Express would have had no platform for challenge.
    Free speech by voices other than those of the mainstream press has expanded exponentially in recent years.
    No longer can highly-paid propagandists spout factually inaccurate, logically incoherent drivel without challenge or exposure to ridicule.
    Some just dislike what is being said.
    This. Part of this free speech issue comes down to people having an issue with being ‘judged’ for their opinions, but that is life. Your opinon is not totally separate from who you are as person, even if it doesn’t totally define you.
This discussion has been closed.