politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why you should be wary of hypothetical polling

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why you should be wary of hypothetical polling

Please indulge me as I take a minute today to complain about poll questions that ask people whether they'd be more or less likely to vote for a candidate if the candidate did X thing.

Read the full story here

tpfkar

If there was a new TSE thread, would you be more likely to get a first?

Nigel_Foremain

They are particularly flawed because a large number of people don't even know who any other Tory except Boris is

Sandpit

Richard III

Polling on much more than basic VI on party leader satisfaction is becoming increasingly difficult, we;ve already seen from recent examples that slight wording changes in the questions can produce wildly different results.

IanB2

Fourth like Boris, falling fast

Nigelb

"Trump's hypothetical support for a bill to legalize kicking puppies..."

Would be pointless, as it will clearly be ruled a constitutional right by the SC after Kavanaugh's confirmation.

rottenborough

IanB2 said:

Fourth like Boris, falling fast

Clear favourite on BF.

Nemtynakht

I think they are flawed because in a lot of cases you have the base vote for the party, who will vote for them whatever. Say this is 25% for Tories and Labour. Then the bit that matters is the other 50%, and what they would think. It is slightly more dynamic as well as some people leading a party may put off some of their own voters, or solidify the opposition vote against them

Anorak

Another day, another exposure of the rot that lies beneath.
https://twitter.com/Democracy_A2/status/1036562290953338880

Nigel_Foremain

Anorak said:

Another day, another exposure of the rot that lies beneath.
https://twitter.com/Democracy_A2/status/1036562290953338880

Perhaps it was an anti-Semitic-anti-apartheid-movement. Perhaps they were worried the main one had been taken over by the Jews.

TOPPING

fpt

London Mayor betting.

Shaun Bailey is now second favourite after Sadiq Khan at 3s (BF) and 5/2 (Laddies).

I see that Joy Morrissey (25s) has just been endorsed by Andrea Leadsome.

No idea about Andrew Boff but if Bailey gets the nomination then his odds are likely to shorten further, especially if, as seems possible from today's ES, George is gunning for Sadiq.

Anorak

Just had to cross my legs.
https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1036624826398650368

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1036613225197051904

rottenborough

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anorak said:

Another day, another exposure of the rot that lies beneath.
https://twitter.com/Democracy_A2/status/1036562290953338880

Perhaps it was an anti-Semitic-anti-apartheid-movement. Perhaps they were worried the main one had been taken over by the Jews.

Mandela was a Blairite before Blair was. That'll be the reason.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1036626846593568768

PeterMannion

Donald Turnip likes well done steaks?

Nigel_Foremain

rottenborough said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Anorak said:

Another day, another exposure of the rot that lies beneath.
https://twitter.com/Democracy_A2/status/1036562290953338880

Perhaps it was an anti-Semitic-anti-apartheid-movement. Perhaps they were worried the main one had been taken over by the Jews.

Mandela was a Blairite before Blair was. That'll be the reason.

Ah yes, he was rather fond of the middle way. Jezza's followers are more from the Winnie Mandela tradition of "necklacing" anyone who disagrees with them

Nigel_Foremain

PeterMannion said:

Donald Turnip likes well done steaks?

It wouldn't surprise me if he also likes pineapple on his pizza

Nigelb

If Trump weren't a Russian pawn, I'd assume this woman was working for them...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/omarosa-reportedly-taped-nearly-every-conversation-she-had-at-the-white-house.html?

AlastairMeeks

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

Nigel_Foremain

Nigelb said:

If Trump weren't a Russian pawn, I'd assume this woman was working for them...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/omarosa-reportedly-taped-nearly-every-conversation-she-had-at-the-white-house.html?

He that lives by reality TV..... well lets hope so anyway (in a political sense)

Mortimer

AlastairMeeks said:

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

I got quite a talking to by our college Nurse on matriculating; apparently being honest on the 'units of alcohol' question wasn't customary, so doubling the true figure gave her cause for concern.....

Richard_Nabavi

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

I got quite a talking to by our college Nurse on matriculating; apparently being honest on the 'units of alcohol' question wasn't customary, so doubling the true figure gave her cause for concern.....

I thought the only possible answer was 'Sufficient, thank you'.

Mortimer

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

I got quite a talking to by our college Nurse on matriculating; apparently being honest on the 'units of alcohol' question wasn't customary, so doubling the true figure gave her cause for concern.....

I thought the only possible answer was 'Sufficient, thank you'.

I suspect that new undergraduates, without access to the cellar, should have been the least of her concerns!

Richard_Nabavi

Mortimer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

I got quite a talking to by our college Nurse on matriculating; apparently being honest on the 'units of alcohol' question wasn't customary, so doubling the true figure gave her cause for concern.....

I thought the only possible answer was 'Sufficient, thank you'.

I suspect that new undergraduates, without access to the cellar, should have been the least of her concerns!

Yeah, I have a young relative who was recently at Trinity, Cambridge, and was able to buy some of the wines which the dons didn't want, at very favourable prices. All I can say is that, if those are the wines the dons rejected, one wonders what ones they decided to keep.

oxfordsimon

Apparently people suspended from the Labour Party are still allowed to vote in NEC elections.

I know 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that. But surely voting is something that should only be open to full, current members?

https://twitter.com/mishtal/status/1036626046269960192

DavidL

PeterMannion said:

Donald Turnip likes well done steaks?

I used to like my steaks really well done but increasingly over the years I have become more of a pinko now preferring medium rare. What this says about my politics I am not entirely sure but its no doubt meaningful.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Topping, once again, cheers for posting that. Useful for my modest betting position.

Comrades, all the Commissars beloved of the Chairman have received the proletariat's seal of approval. What more could one want?

TOPPING

AlastairMeeks said:

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

Was it on here that someone said that doctors only began to worry if their patients drank twice as much as they did?

AnneJGP

AlastairMeeks said:

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

What do they do with a "Don't smoke, don't drink" response?

Although mine isn't quite that - I do drink, regularly: one glass of Tio Pepe every Christmas. Or New Year's eve, if I happen to miss out at Christmas.

Good afternoon, everyone.

AlastairMeeks

AnneJGP said:

AlastairMeeks said:

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

What do they do with a "Don't smoke, don't drink" response?

Although mine isn't quite that - I do drink, regularly: one glass of Tio Pepe every Christmas. Or New Year's eve, if I happen to miss out at Christmas.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Five times zero is zero. Similarly twice zero.

glw

FPT:

DavidL said:

It was just such a rotten deal from our perspective that you assumed that there were compromises and understandings behind it which had got her to that position. To get there all by herself would be a remarkable achievement, even for Olly Robbins.

It doesn't look like it was agreed, the whole indivisible four freedoms is something that the UK seems to assume can be fudged, and the EU says "Never! Never! Never!" to.

We seem to have truly screwed up the negotiation, we should have started with the hard Brexit base and built on that. Instead we've been trying to have our cake and eat it, and assumed that the EU would give ground, and I expect they assumed we'd realise they can't or won't.

Fishing

AlastairMeeks said:

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

Even if responses are given under oath, people are quite capable of lying or overstating.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1036638602409766912

Scott_P

glw said:

we should have started with the hard Brexit base and built on that.

Nissan would have upped sticks and the Government would have fallen.

Apart from that, great plan

glw

Scott_P said:

glw said:

we should have started with the hard Brexit base and built on that.

Nissan would have upped sticks and the Government would have fallen.

Apart from that, great plan

If we crash out both of those things are probable, and we seem to be heading to that by default because of lousy preparation and negotiation on the part of the government.

williamglenn

glw said:

We seem to have truly screwed up the negotiation, we should have started with the hard Brexit base and built on that. Instead we've been trying to have our cake and eat it, and assumed that the EU would give ground, and I expect they assumed we'd realise they can't or won't.

We did start from a hard Brexit base. That's what the Lancaster House speech was all about. The problem was that it was a transparent bluff.

AnneJGP

AlastairMeeks said:

AnneJGP said:

AlastairMeeks said:

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

What do they do with a "Don't smoke, don't drink" response?

Although mine isn't quite that - I do drink, regularly: one glass of Tio Pepe every Christmas. Or New Year's eve, if I happen to miss out at Christmas.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Five times zero is zero. Similarly twice zero.

Mathematically correct, but the important difference there is the change from disbelief of the patient's self-reporting to belief in it. I wonder why that is?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. glw, which is why a second vote is still plausible. May's dithering and capitulation has put us in a poor position. There may not be the votes for any deal.

Nigelb

AnneJGP said:

AlastairMeeks said:

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

What do they do with a "Don't smoke, don't drink" response?
...

Hold the patient with tongs, and scrutinise them with exceeding caution.

glw

williamglenn said:

glw said:

We seem to have truly screwed up the negotiation, we should have started with the hard Brexit base and built on that. Instead we've been trying to have our cake and eat it, and assumed that the EU would give ground, and I expect they assumed we'd realise they can't or won't.

We did start from a hard Brexit base. That's what the Lancaster House speech was all about. The problem was that it was a transparent bluff.

It should not have been a bluff. Start from that point and build on it in areas where we can agree with the EU. Instead we still seem to be asking the EU for things they asbolutely refuse to accept. Maybe the EU negotiators are bluffing, but if they are not we are in a real mess.

glw

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. glw, which is why a second vote is still plausible. May's dithering and capitulation has put us in a poor position. There may not be the votes for any deal.

We seem to be in a bloody brilliant position where we can neither leave or stay in the EU.

AndreaParma_82

Labour NEC results

RESULTS (9 to elect)
DAR, Yasmine 88,176 ELECTED
WEBBE, Claudia 83,797 ELECTED
LANSMAN, Jon 83,072 ELECTED
GARNHAM, Rachel 81,702 ELECTED
ELMI, Huda 80,371 ELECTED
WILLIAMS, Darren 79,361 ELECTED
HENDERSON, Ann 79,176 ELECTED
MISHRA, Navendu 75,224 ELECTED
WILLSMAN, Peter 70,321 ELECTED
IZZARD, Eddie 67,819
BAXTER, Johanna 50,185
SINGH JOSAN, Gurinder 48,643
BLACK, Ann 45,566
BECKETT, Jasmin 43,955
PETO, Heather 43,774
AKEHURST, Luke 43,156
CAZIMOGLU, Eda 40,807
WIMBURY, Mary 40,507
BANES, Lisa 37,993
MASTERS, Marianna 35,061
FLETCHER, Jonathan 15,303
GUY, Stephen 14,985
MORRISON, Nicola 10,671
CRAIGIE, James 10,326
SPEDDING, Gary 9,854
STANNERS, Stephen 8,909

TOPPING

glw said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. glw, which is why a second vote is still plausible. May's dithering and capitulation has put us in a poor position. There may not be the votes for any deal.

We seem to be in a bloody brilliant position where we can neither leave or stay in the EU.

Scott_P

glw said:

If we crash out both of those things are probable, and we seem to be heading to that by default

Some people pointed this out before the vote.

It was labelled "Project Fear" and ridiculed as "experts" by Gove.

williamglenn

glw said:

williamglenn said:

glw said:

We seem to have truly screwed up the negotiation, we should have started with the hard Brexit base and built on that. Instead we've been trying to have our cake and eat it, and assumed that the EU would give ground, and I expect they assumed we'd realise they can't or won't.

We did start from a hard Brexit base. That's what the Lancaster House speech was all about. The problem was that it was a transparent bluff.

It should not have been a bluff. Start from that point and build on it in areas where we can agree with the EU. Instead we still seem to be asking the EU for things they asbolutely refuse to accept. Maybe the EU negotiators are bluffing, but if they are not we are in a real mess.

It was necessarily a bluff because the reality of our trade relationships as well as the political situation in Northern Ireland meant that starting from WTO terms was never a credible option and the EU knew it.

Scott_P

glw said:

It should not have been a bluff. Start from that point and build on it in areas where we can agree with the EU. Instead we still seem to be asking the EU for things they asbolutely refuse to accept. Maybe the EU negotiators are bluffing, but if they are not we are in a real mess.

How does that work?

Negotiation, Day 1: "We don't need any of your crap. Now what will you give us?"

Can't see any problem with that...

Morris_Dancer

Mr. glw, the Romans had a saying: holding a wolf by the ears. You can't hold on, and you can't let go.

But thinks will be resolved, one way or the other.

glw

williamglenn said:

It was necessarily a bluff because the reality of our trade relationships as well as the political situation in Northern Ireland meant that starting from WTO terms was never a credible option and the EU knew it.

And yet it seems to be where we are headed. As taking Barnier at his word Chequers appears to be dead.

glw

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. glw, the Romans had a saying: holding a wolf by the ears. You can't hold on, and you can't let go.

That's brilliant.

Morris_Dancer said:

But thinks will be resolved, one way or the other.

I hope so, but I don't see any signs of the EU negotiators being willing to compromise on the fundamentals of the single market.

williamglenn

glw said:

williamglenn said:

It was necessarily a bluff because the reality of our trade relationships as well as the political situation in Northern Ireland meant that starting from WTO terms was never a credible option and the EU knew it.

And yet it seems to be where we are headed. As taking Barnier at his word Chequers appears to be dead.

Chequers is irrelevant to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/wjharte/status/1036590023905353728

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1036641338719182849

glw

Scott_P said:

glw said:

It should not have been a bluff. Start from that point and build on it in areas where we can agree with the EU. Instead we still seem to be asking the EU for things they asbolutely refuse to accept. Maybe the EU negotiators are bluffing, but if they are not we are in a real mess.

How does that work?

Negotiation, Day 1: "We don't need any of your crap. Now what will you give us?"

Can't see any problem with that...

It's better than spending two years asking to have our cake and eat it too.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1036642735581741058

Scott_P

glw said:

It's better than spending two years asking to have our cake and eat it too.

But that was "the will of the people".

Easiest deal in history. They need us. German car makers.

TOPPING

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wjharte/status/1036590023905353728

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1036641338719182849

They all seem to have a bee in their bonnet about the Jews. This is the google page for Luke Akehurst. Out of three tweets, one of them is about guess what...

https://google.co.uk/search?q=luke+akehurst&oq=luke+akeh&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2430j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

bigjohnowls

oxfordsimon said:

Apparently people suspended from the Labour Party are still allowed to vote in NEC elections.

I know 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that. But surely voting is something that should only be open to full, current members?

https://twitter.com/mishtal/status/1036626046269960192

Says Racist blogger David Collier

Slackbladder

Poor Eddie Izzard......

Richard_Nabavi

It looks as though around 400,000 of the 540,000 claimed Labour members didn't bother to vote. Am I reading this correctly?

tpfkar

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. glw, which is why a second vote is still plausible. May's dithering and capitulation has put us in a poor position. There may not be the votes for any deal.

Very true. A lot will depend on how the arm-twisting works when a deal that no-one is passionate about comes to a vote. The message to Boris, Nadine Dorries, JRM etc. needs to be "if you don't vote for this, you don't get any Brexit at all." and to the likes of Anna Soubry and Justine Greening "if you don't vote for this we crash out without a deal" The only way I can see her getting anything through parliament is if both believe her. How on earth does she manage that?

AndreaParma_82

likely.

In the past there have been sub 20% turnouts for NEC elections

Richard_Nabavi said:

It looks as though around 400,000 of the 540,000 claimed Labour members didn't bother to vote. Am I reading this correctly?

oxfordsimon

The minority of Labour members who could be bothered to.vote have confirmed that antisemitism is ok by them.

Congratulations

Nigel_Foremain

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wjharte/status/1036590023905353728

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1036641338719182849

Yes and it is clear to any Labour voter that they are voting for a racist party. Hopefully a temporary split is now becoming increasingly likely until the Anti-Semite-Scumbag-In-Chief is removed from office.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/mocent0/status/1036643762678779906

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1036644624503398401

DecrepitJohnL

Nigel_Foremain said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wjharte/status/1036590023905353728

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1036641338719182849

Yes and it is clear to any Labour voter that they are voting for a racist party. Hopefully a temporary split is now becoming increasingly likely until the Anti-Semite-Scumbag-In-Chief is removed from office.

Obviously this does not apply to Conservative voters because ... reasons.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1036645778725502977

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/dungeekin/status/1036642104678785027

DecrepitJohnL

TOPPING said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wjharte/status/1036590023905353728

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1036641338719182849

They all seem to have a bee in their bonnet about the Jews. This is the google page for Luke Akehurst. Out of three tweets, one of them is about guess what...

https://google.co.uk/search?q=luke+akehurst&oq=luke+akeh&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2430j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Well Luke has tweeted some more since then but it looks like the tweet you mention is a retweet of Wes Streeting MP deploring antisemitic attacks.

bigjohnowls

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1036644624503398401

Democracy mate thats what you can say.

Its FAKE NEWS that Willsman is an Anti Semite BTW

Foxy

AlastairMeeks said:

AnneJGP said:

AlastairMeeks said:

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

What do they do with a "Don't smoke, don't drink" response?

Although mine isn't quite that - I do drink, regularly: one glass of Tio Pepe every Christmas. Or New Year's eve, if I happen to miss out at Christmas.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Five times zero is zero. Similarly twice zero.

Surely inebriation is the only thing that keeps Britain coping with Brexit?

rottenborough

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1036644624503398401

Democracy mate thats what you can say.

Its FAKE NEWS that Willsman is an Anti Semite BTW

Maybe he isn't, but he seems pretty bad at spotting it if he can sit on a disciplinary committee and never see any.

Richard_Nabavi

AndreaParma_82 said:

likely.

In the past there have been sub 20% turnouts for NEC elections

Richard_Nabavi said:

It looks as though around 400,000 of the 540,000 claimed Labour members didn't bother to vote. Am I reading this correctly?

Thanks - and welcome back!

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/1036647708734513152

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1036647717882286080

Nigel_Foremain

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wjharte/status/1036590023905353728

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1036641338719182849

Yes and it is clear to any Labour voter that they are voting for a racist party. Hopefully a temporary split is now becoming increasingly likely until the Anti-Semite-Scumbag-In-Chief is removed from office.

Obviously this does not apply to Conservative voters because ... reasons.

Because the leaders of the Conservative Party, the LibDems, the Greens and even The Monster Raving Loony Party have not been recorded expressing openly racist views. I personally would never vote for a party that had a leader that I strongly suspected held offensive racist views.

Are you happy supporting an anti-Semite bigot?

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1036645354509402113

rottenborough

Let the crowing begin:

https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1036646419015368705

AndreaParma_82

Those elected today will take the seats after Conference.

Obviously the incumbents will be sit also in tomorrow's NEC along with Izzard

Sandpit

rottenborough said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1036644624503398401

Democracy mate thats what you can say.

Its FAKE NEWS that Willsman is an Anti Semite BTW

Maybe he isn't, but he seems pretty bad at spotting it if he can sit on a disciplinary committee and never see any.

Almost by definition the members of the disciplinary committee are going to see racists, sexists, homophobes and xenophobes. Any voluntary or membership organisation comes across undesirables, it's the nature of the beast.

What matters is how they are dealt with - do they get expelled, or do they get elected to the NEC?

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1036647364533075969

Nigel_Foremain

rottenborough said:

Let the crowing begin:

https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1036646419015368705

I hope they crow so much that the decent moderate MPs that still make up a good part of the Labour party break away and set up a rival parliamentary group

Sandpit

Foxy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

AnneJGP said:

AlastairMeeks said:

These polls are telling you something, even if it isn't exactly what the formal results suggest.

It's always worth remembering that poll responses are not given under oath. Respondents are quite capable of lying or overstating their position for emphasis.

I understand that when you fill out medical questionnaires, doctors multiply your stated alcohol consumption by two and your stated cigarette consumption by five. Anything that is designed to show a poll respondent in a particular light should similarly be held with tongs and scrutinised carefully.

What do they do with a "Don't smoke, don't drink" response?

Although mine isn't quite that - I do drink, regularly: one glass of Tio Pepe every Christmas. Or New Year's eve, if I happen to miss out at Christmas.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Five times zero is zero. Similarly twice zero.

Surely inebriation is the only thing that keeps Britain coping with Brexit?

What happens when someone decides to be honest and say they drink 70 or 80 units a week?

DecrepitJohnL

Nigel_Foremain said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wjharte/status/1036590023905353728

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1036641338719182849

Yes and it is clear to any Labour voter that they are voting for a racist party. Hopefully a temporary split is now becoming increasingly likely until the Anti-Semite-Scumbag-In-Chief is removed from office.

Obviously this does not apply to Conservative voters because ... reasons.

Because the leaders of the Conservative Party, the LibDems, the Greens and even The Monster Raving Loony Party have not been recorded expressing openly racist views. I personally would never vote for a party that had a leader that I strongly suspected held offensive racist views.

Are you happy supporting an anti-Semite bigot?

I am not supporting Corbyn, though I do not necessarily agree with your characterisation of him in what looks like push-polling. I have long pointed out Boris is vulnerable to similar attacks and therefore should be opposed in the next PM betting.

rottenborough

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mocent0/status/1036643762678779906

Some of them will be post-truthers, who really believe the mainstream news is a pack of lies and all made up by Blair supporters.

williamglenn

Does "returning power to the party membership" include allowing them to vote on Brexit policy?

Nigel_Foremain

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wjharte/status/1036590023905353728

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1036641338719182849

Yes and it is clear to any Labour voter that they are voting for a racist party. Hopefully a temporary split is now becoming increasingly likely until the Anti-Semite-Scumbag-In-Chief is removed from office.

Obviously this does not apply to Conservative voters because ... reasons.

Because the leaders of the Conservative Party, the LibDems, the Greens and even The Monster Raving Loony Party have not been recorded expressing openly racist views. I personally would never vote for a party that had a leader that I strongly suspected held offensive racist views.

Are you happy supporting an anti-Semite bigot?

I am not supporting Corbyn, though I do not necessarily agree with your characterisation of him in what looks like push-polling. I have long pointed out Boris is vulnerable to similar attacks and therefore should be opposed in the next PM betting.

I agree about Boris, he has equally unpleasant views, and his use of language betrays those views, as does Corbyn.

At the moment though, Boris is not leader of the Conservatives, and while the Conservatives have problems with UKIP entryists, (who are probably racist), it has nothing like the problem that Labour has with Anti-Semitism from Momentum. As I am still a member of the Conservative Party I will do all I can do to ensure that Boris does not become leader. If it does I suspect there will be a number of Tory MPs resigning the Whip

TOPPING

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wjharte/status/1036590023905353728

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1036641338719182849

They all seem to have a bee in their bonnet about the Jews. This is the google page for Luke Akehurst. Out of three tweets, one of them is about guess what...

https://google.co.uk/search?q=luke+akehurst&oq=luke+akeh&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2430j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Well Luke has tweeted some more since then but it looks like the tweet you mention is a retweet of Wes Streeting MP deploring antisemitic attacks.

https://twitter.com/lukeakehurst/status/1036605639685025794?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

bigjohnowls

Nigel_Foremain said:

rottenborough said:

Let the crowing begin:

https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1036646419015368705

I hope they crow so much that the decent moderate MPs that still make up a good part of the Labour party break away and set up a rival parliamentary group

Is that all you got left.

Sad really

FrancisUrquhart

Remember when marathon became snickers, well the Labour party has become the maomentum party, now with added anti-Semitism.

TOPPING

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wjharte/status/1036590023905353728

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1036641338719182849

Yes and it is clear to any Labour voter that they are voting for a racist party. Hopefully a temporary split is now becoming increasingly likely until the Anti-Semite-Scumbag-In-Chief is removed from office.

Obviously this does not apply to Conservative voters because ... reasons.

Because the leaders of the Conservative Party, the LibDems, the Greens and even The Monster Raving Loony Party have not been recorded expressing openly racist views. I personally would never vote for a party that had a leader that I strongly suspected held offensive racist views.

Are you happy supporting an anti-Semite bigot?

I have long pointed out Boris is vulnerable to similar attacks and therefore should be opposed in the next PM betting.

Amen to that.

MarqueeMark

bigjohnowls said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rottenborough said:

Let the crowing begin:

https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1036646419015368705

I hope they crow so much that the decent moderate MPs that still make up a good part of the Labour party break away and set up a rival parliamentary group

"Is that all you got left.

Sad really"

Right there - Labour's epitaph.

bigjohnowls

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1036645354509402113

Your not in the party Dan

You voted against Lab. at GE 2017

Its nothing to do with you

Gallowgate

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1036645354509402113

Your not in the party Dan

You voted against Lab. at GE 2017

Its nothing to do with you

Only Labour members matter?
What about potential Labour voters?

Nigel_Foremain

bigjohnowls said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rottenborough said:

Let the crowing begin:

https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1036646419015368705

I hope they crow so much that the decent moderate MPs that still make up a good part of the Labour party break away and set up a rival parliamentary group

Is that all you got left.

Sad really

That post has all the vacuousness that I would expect of a Corbyn apologist.

What is "sad" is that a once great party ( I am not a supporter but can recognise them as such) has been taken over by a bunch of fruitcakes who idolise a man who is clearly not just not very bright but who also shows the ultimate in human stupidity; racist prejudice.

bigjohnowls

FrancisUrquhart said:

Remember when marathon became snickers, well the Labour party has become the maomentum party, now with added anti-Semitism.

Dear FU
I remember when Lab (Tory Lite War Mongering Party) polled 8.6m votes in 2010

and I remember when Lab (for the many not the few) polled 12.8m in 2017

Yet you appear to think a return to Rascist Anti Arab Tory Lite war mongering party is the way forward.

Fortunately your FAKE NEWS cannot stop the fact that Change that is coming

Love BJO

MarqueeMark

AndreaParma_82 said:

likely.

In the past there have been sub 20% turnouts for NEC elections

Richard_Nabavi said:

It looks as though around 400,000 of the 540,000 claimed Labour members didn't bother to vote. Am I reading this correctly?

Well, it's not as if there was anything at much stake....other than the soul of the Labour Party.

bigjohnowls

Gallowgate said:

bigjohnowls said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1036645354509402113

Your not in the party Dan

You voted against Lab. at GE 2017

Its nothing to do with you

Only Labour members matter?
What about potential Labour voters?

12.9M in 2017 an increase of 4.2mM on 2010

DH went the opposite way

DH is irrelevant

rottenborough

Top trolling:

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1036651865642082308

notme

FrancisUrquhart said:

Remember when marathon became snickers, well the Labour party has become the maomentum party, now with added anti-Semitism.

Isnt the the snickers rebrand a bit of a legend in marketing circles though? It propelled it to the top chocolate bar increasing sales.

rottenborough

I'm seeing adverts for The Blue Wave.

Launching soon.

Tory Momentum?