Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling boost for beleaguered Theresa as the Tory conference o

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited September 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling boost for beleaguered Theresa as the Tory conference opens in Birmingham

Opinium fieldwprk Sept 26-29 CON 39+2 LAB 36-3 LD 9=

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Good Morrow PBers ..
  • Good morning Jack. Hope you are fit and well this lovely morning.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Good morning Jack. Hope you are fit and well this lovely morning.

    Thank you, yes.

    The more so as his nibs and herself were tripping the light fantastic through to the early hours, albeit in a somewhat more sedate fashion than in former years. It seems there is life in this old dog yet .... :smile:
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    JackW said:

    Good morning Jack. Hope you are fit and well this lovely morning.

    Thank you, yes.

    The more so as his nibs and herself were tripping the light fantastic through to the early hours, albeit in a somewhat more sedate fashion than in former years. It seems there is life in this old dog yet .... :smile:
    Does the dog still bite? For there is surely biting to be done.
  • It’s almost as if institutional anti-Semitism, unquestioning support for oppressive, murderous anti-Western regimes, relentless targeting of the centre-left and the embrace of Militant are electorally unpopular.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    edited September 2018
    May and Trump both greatly boosted this morning:

    https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1046182608734810112 One I can live with, the other is to put it mildly annoying. We need Trump out.

    (I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    JackW said:

    Good morning Jack. Hope you are fit and well this lovely morning.

    Thank you, yes.

    The more so as his nibs and herself were tripping the light fantastic through to the early hours, albeit in a somewhat more sedate fashion than in former years. It seems there is life in this old dog yet .... :smile:
    After four centuries, your Grace, one is entitled to be a little slower.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    It’s almost as if institutional anti-Semitism, unquestioning support for oppressive, murderous anti-Western regimes, relentless targeting of the centre-left and the embrace of Militant are electorally unpopular.

    Either that or the revised Brexit position. Probably both.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited September 2018
    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    Good morning Jack. Hope you are fit and well this lovely morning.

    Thank you, yes.

    The more so as his nibs and herself were tripping the light fantastic through to the early hours, albeit in a somewhat more sedate fashion than in former years. It seems there is life in this old dog yet .... :smile:
    Does the dog still bite? For there is surely biting to be done.
    Snarl .... :naughty:
  • Good morning, everyone.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    Morning MD. The institutional loyalty of the Tory party is very strong, too strong for Boris, I think. 55% of Tories wanting May to lead the Tories into the next election? Just crazy.

    I fear the Tories are going to have several days of bickering about Brexit with any other new thinking being drowned out or struggling to get a hearing. I suspect that Labour will be back in the lead shortly after the conference is over.
  • DavidL said:

    Morning MD. The institutional loyalty of the Tory party is very strong, too strong for Boris, I think. 55% of Tories wanting May to lead the Tories into the next election? Just crazy.

    I fear the Tories are going to have several days of bickering about Brexit with any other new thinking being drowned out or struggling to get a hearing. I suspect that Labour will be back in the lead shortly after the conference is over.

    Nowadays do the parties get the opposite of a boost from their party conferences?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753

    DavidL said:

    Morning MD. The institutional loyalty of the Tory party is very strong, too strong for Boris, I think. 55% of Tories wanting May to lead the Tories into the next election? Just crazy.

    I fear the Tories are going to have several days of bickering about Brexit with any other new thinking being drowned out or struggling to get a hearing. I suspect that Labour will be back in the lead shortly after the conference is over.

    Nowadays do the parties get the opposite of a boost from their party conferences?
    Well they should. They are all crap and out of ideas. Reminding people of that is hardly likely to help. We are left judging their relative crapness. It's not exactly motivational.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    ydoethur said:

    May and Trump both greatly boosted this morning:

    https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1046182608734810112 One I can live with, the other is to put it mildly annoying. We need Trump out.

    (I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)

    As of 2018 and until 2020 Trump OUT means Pence IN.

    Be careful what you wish for!
  • ydoethur said:

    May and Trump both greatly boosted this morning:

    https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1046182608734810112 One I can live with, the other is to put it mildly annoying. We need Trump out.

    (I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)

    +1
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    May accuses her detractors of "playing politics": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45696015

    She really should check her own job description some time.
  • Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    The point of doing it was to tie him into the Brexit negotiations and reduce his scope to create a betrayal narrative. I think it did work to some extent; Everyone can see that he wasn't getting anywhere with an alternative, so when he tries to act like TMay's doing it wrong and he has some amazing plan to get a better deal he's getting laughed at more than he otherwise would be.
  • Is Kavanaugh too partisan?
    It certainly looks as though he doesn't like Democrats:

    “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups,” an emotional Kavanaugh said. “This is a circus.”

    But apparently SC judges can be impeached too:
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/kavanaugh-rant-raises-questions-about-his-political-impartiality-1332534851612?v=railb&
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    edited September 2018
    Anway, on to more important matters.

    I have just been reading the first review of the county season. Unfortunately it is by the Hefferlump and therefore a bit rubbish, but he did have one interesting idea. He suggested that any Test hosting county that signs a player from a non-Test hosting county should be docked 10 points for the following season.

    He mentioned Nottinghamshire, who have signed Ben Duckett (Northants) Ben Slater (Derbyshire) and Joe Clarke (Worcestershire). Nottinghamshire are an especially interesting case because although they boast about how many of their squad play for England, only one player actually developed by Notts (Samit Patel) has played for England in the last 30 years (discounting Paul Franks who played only one match). Given their size and wealth, that's an appalling record. And it's largely because instead of producing their own players they snap up tried and tested players from smaller counties (or countries, in the case of Brendan Taylor) so there is no path for local talent.

    Warwickshire have a somewhat better record - no county that produced Woakes and Bell could be considered a failure - but even they are snapping up other players (in this case, two bowlers from Gloucestershire, one of them illegally tapped up while under contract - guess what penalty was imposed for this)? And this has wrecked Gloucestershire's chances of promotion next season. If they lose Bracey too, they lose the spine of their batting lineup.

    I'm not sure that points deductions are the way to go, but clearly this is both inequitable and damaging. While it may fit the mindset of Colin Graves to have ten first class counties and damn the rest, that merely confirms that he's an idiot. If we had first class teams in the same ratio to population as Australia, we would have 25 of them. We should be looking to expand the size of the pool, not diminish it (although the dumb decision to take cricket off free-to-air is also responsible for that).

    Would there perhaps be mileage in saying any Test county who signs a player from a non-Test county should pay a transfer fee of one year's salary to the club that developed the player, or two years if that player was still under contract? Think what that would do to even up the contest between Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire...
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840

    ydoethur said:

    May and Trump both greatly boosted this morning:

    https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1046182608734810112 One I can live with, the other is to put it mildly annoying. We need Trump out.

    (I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)

    As of 2018 and until 2020 Trump OUT means Pence IN.

    Be careful what you wish for!
    The advantage to Trump is he acts crazy enough for people to keep a close eye on him, Pence may be able to get away with more.
  • Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done?

    On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    edited September 2018

    ydoethur said:

    May and Trump both greatly boosted this morning:

    https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1046182608734810112 One I can live with, the other is to put it mildly annoying. We need Trump out.

    (I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)

    As of 2018 and until 2020 Trump OUT means Pence IN.

    Be careful what you wish for!
    True, O Cophetua.

    Which is why I want the Blues to retake the White House.

    If they pick Warren they will have decided that they should have won it last time with an old, white, privileged, pompous, not over-bright lawyer who should win because she's a woman so let's double down.

    I can't help wondering how screwed America is if this is the best they can offer.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    A good article on the Kavanauh affair.

    "What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm.......


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-temperament.html
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    edited September 2018

    DavidL said:

    Morning MD. The institutional loyalty of the Tory party is very strong, too strong for Boris, I think. 55% of Tories wanting May to lead the Tories into the next election? Just crazy.

    I fear the Tories are going to have several days of bickering about Brexit with any other new thinking being drowned out or struggling to get a hearing. I suspect that Labour will be back in the lead shortly after the conference is over.

    Nowadays do the parties get the opposite of a boost from their party conferences?
    I was wondering about that (YouGov, which Mike doesn't mention, showed a 6-point Tory lead during the Lab conference, though one other showed a 1% Lab one). Because an electorally unattached chunk of the public, rightly or wrongly, has acquired a settled view that we're all crap, perhaps seeing lots of us reminds them how much they dislike us? We'll test the view this week - will the Tories get a boost as normal or does it work for them too?

    I think it's more likely, though, that the "no surrender" stuff by May during the week caught public attention more than the "routine" conference", and the Tory lead will endure until that comes apart.
  • ydoethur said:

    . And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)

    I think he’s given up on Boris and David Davis is now the chosen one. I’m sure “laziness” will be a great advantage in being Prime Minister...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    ydoethur said:

    . And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)

    I think he’s given up on Boris and David Davis is now the chosen one. I’m sure “laziness” will be a great advantage in being Prime Minister...
    And the ability to say 'er' on every third word?

    Thanks, but no thanks. He wouldn't persuade me to vote for Corbyn but he would drive me to the Liberal Democrats.
  • Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done?

    On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
    It is commonplace to argue that Theresa May did Boris up like a kipper by appointing him Foreign Secretary to expose his incompetence, but the corollary of this is that Theresa May deliberately endangered the country by appointing someone she knew to be incompetent.
  • F1: in addition to yesterday's bets, seen a special that may be worth considering.

    Bottas podium, Ocon points, Safety Car to appear, Hartley not to be classified, at 7.

    Bottas is likely to get a podium. He starts on pole, after all. Ocon starts 6th. Even allowing for Red Bull and Renault (on pace and tyres, respectively) improving, he should still do well. A safety car isn't certain but is probable. And Hartley can be clumsy on the first lap.

    However, there are quite a few contingencies there and it only takes one to fail. The last two in particular seem like they could easily go either way. (A safety car is more likely than not, whereas Hartley is more likely to be classified than not).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done?

    On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
    It is commonplace to argue that Theresa May did Boris up like a kipper by appointing him Foreign Secretary to expose his incompetence, but the corollary of this is that Theresa May deliberately endangered the country by appointing someone she knew to be incompetent.
    She may, in fairness, have thought that as PMs usually run foreign policy themselves that it was the major role where he was likely to do least damage (can you imagine him at the Home Office)?

    If so she was still wrong because of the unusual nature of her premiership, but it was a plausible theory.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited September 2018
    Roger said:

    A good article on the Kavanauh affair.

    "What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm.......


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-temperament.html

    You could end that quote. “A man of our times, perfectly qualified to represent today’s America. “
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,051
    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    A good article on the Kavanauh affair.

    "What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm.......


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-temperament.html

    You could end that quote. “A man of our times, perfectly qualified to represent today’s America. “
    Sad, but true.

    America is in a bad place, and Kavanagh on SCOTUS will make it harder to get out of that hole.
  • It’s almost as if institutional anti-Semitism, unquestioning support for oppressive, murderous anti-Western regimes, relentless targeting of the centre-left and the embrace of Militant are electorally unpopular.

    But on the plus side for Labour, Seamus Milne's pay rise will soon make him so rich he could afford to pay the Conservatives' imminent fine for leaking everyone's inside leg measurements.

    Donning my tin foil hat, is the leaky app Australian because all British computer programmers are card-carrying members of the Labour Party or are the Tories back in touch with Lynton Crosby in case there is another snap election?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    DavidL said:

    Morning MD. The institutional loyalty of the Tory party is very strong, too strong for Boris, I think. 55% of Tories wanting May to lead the Tories into the next election? Just crazy.

    I fear the Tories are going to have several days of bickering about Brexit with any other new thinking being drowned out or struggling to get a hearing. I suspect that Labour will be back in the lead shortly after the conference is over.

    Nowadays do the parties get the opposite of a boost from their party conferences?
    I was wondering about that (YouGov, which Mike doesn't mention, showed a 6-point Tory lead during the Lab conference, though one other showed a 1% Lab one). Because an electorally unattached chunk of the public, rightly or wrongly, has acquired a settled view that we're all crap, perhaps seeing lots of us reminds them how much they dislike us? We'll test the view this week - will the Tories get a boost as normal or does it work for them too?

    I think it's more likely, though, that the "no surrender" stuff by May during the week caught public attention more than the "routine" conference", and the Tory lead will endure until that comes apart.
    Or maybe, just maybe, Corbyn doesn’t reach far beyond the hall and all the hard lessons of politics 1979-1997 still apply at least to some extent.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    ydoethur said:

    May and Trump both greatly boosted this morning:

    https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1046182608734810112 One I can live with, the other is to put it mildly annoying. We need Trump out.

    (I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)

    I think it is, however, time to lay Sanders (and Biden if you haven’t already done so).
    Warren and Sanders are the competition for the left vote, and and one of the two is going to be at least a contender. I think the Kavanaugh affair makes it very unlikely to be Sanders.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    It’s almost as if institutional anti-Semitism, unquestioning support for oppressive, murderous anti-Western regimes, relentless targeting of the centre-left and the embrace of Militant are electorally unpopular.

    But on the plus side for Labour, Seamus Milne's pay rise will soon make him so rich he could afford to pay the Conservatives' imminent fine for leaking everyone's inside leg measurements.

    Donning my tin foil hat, is the leaky app Australian because all British computer programmers are card-carrying members of the Labour Party or are the Tories back in touch with Lynton Crosby in case there is another snap election?
    Don't be silly.

    Seumas Milne is a good Communist.

    He's already richer than Croesus.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    . And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)

    I think he’s given up on Boris and David Davis is now the chosen one. I’m sure “laziness” will be a great advantage in being Prime Minister...
    And the ability to say 'er' on every third word?

    That doesn’t altogether distinguish between Johnson and Davis.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,955
    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    Calling the election couldn't be undone.....
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    Calling the election couldn't be undone.....
    The worst mistake was believing the polls.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Interesting international survey on youth attitudes and habits - on the whole an encoursging one:

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/ng-interactive/2018/sep/24/our-time-is-now-world-youth-poll-reveals-unexpected-optimism
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    edited September 2018
    Jonathan said:

    DavidL said:

    Morning MD. The institutional loyalty of the Tory party is very strong, too strong for Boris, I think. 55% of Tories wanting May to lead the Tories into the next election? Just crazy.

    I fear the Tories are going to have several days of bickering about Brexit with any other new thinking being drowned out or struggling to get a hearing. I suspect that Labour will be back in the lead shortly after the conference is over.

    Nowadays do the parties get the opposite of a boost from their party conferences?
    I was wondering about that (YouGov, which Mike doesn't mention, showed a 6-point Tory lead during the Lab conference, though one other showed a 1% Lab one). Because an electorally unattached chunk of the public, rightly or wrongly, has acquired a settled view that we're all crap, perhaps seeing lots of us reminds them how much they dislike us? We'll test the view this week - will the Tories get a boost as normal or does it work for them too?

    I think it's more likely, though, that the "no surrender" stuff by May during the week caught public attention more than the "routine" conference", and the Tory lead will endure until that comes apart.
    Or maybe, just maybe, Corbyn doesn’t reach far beyond the hall and all the hard lessons of politics 1979-1997 still apply at least to some extent.
    I remember Michael Howard's first, and effectively last, conference as Tory leader. The media raved over it, the faithful cheered, and much talk was expended on how the party was back and heading for government.

    And the next poll showed a six point fall in Tory support.

    I think, as with @NickPalmer, the problem is people do not love politicians and especially find self-obsessed naval gazing coupled with ideas that may politely be characterised as veering from the incoherent to the batshit crazy to be off-putting.

    As I recall Cameron once said he wanted to get rid of party conferences and have bi-monthly weekend meetings in different areas as a replacement. I think he had the right idea and it's a shame he never followed it up.
  • Roger said:

    A good article on the Kavanauh affair.

    "What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm.......


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-temperament.html

    Kavanaugh is on record of being in favour of Lie Detector testing. Wonder if he'll volunteer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    ydoethur said:

    Anway, on to more important matters.

    I have just been reading the first review of the county season. Unfortunately it is by the Hefferlump and therefore a bit rubbish, but he did have one interesting idea. He suggested that any Test hosting county that signs a player from a non-Test hosting county should be docked 10 points for the following season.

    He mentioned Nottinghamshire, who have signed Ben Duckett (Northants) Ben Slater (Derbyshire) and Joe Clarke (Worcestershire). Nottinghamshire are an especially interesting case because although they boast about how many of their squad play for England, only one player actually developed by Notts (Samit Patel) has played for England in the last 30 years (discounting Paul Franks who played only one match). Given their size and wealth, that's an appalling record. And it's largely because instead of producing their own players they snap up tried and tested players from smaller counties (or countries, in the case of Brendan Taylor) so there is no path for local talent.

    Warwickshire have a somewhat better record - no county that produced Woakes and Bell could be considered a failure - but even they are snapping up other players (in this case, two bowlers from Gloucestershire, one of them illegally tapped up while under contract - guess what penalty was imposed for this)? And this has wrecked Gloucestershire's chances of promotion next season. If they lose Bracey too, they lose the spine of their batting lineup.

    I'm not sure that points deductions are the way to go, but clearly this is both inequitable and damaging. While it may fit the mindset of Colin Graves to have ten first class counties and damn the rest, that merely confirms that he's an idiot. If we had first class teams in the same ratio to population as Australia, we would have 25 of them. We should be looking to expand the size of the pool, not diminish it (although the dumb decision to take cricket off free-to-air is also responsible for that).

    Would there perhaps be mileage in saying any Test county who signs a player from a non-Test county should pay a transfer fee of one year's salary to the club that developed the player, or two years if that player was still under contract? Think what that would do to even up the contest between Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire...

    Your proposal makes some sense; the Hefferlump’s is nonsense.

    The county game, though remarkable resilient, is not in great shape - and denying it the best part of the summer will slowly kill it. It’s hardly surprising that a player like (say) Rashid doesn’t want to play the four day game when much of it is in April and September.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,051
    edited September 2018
    Jonathan said:

    DavidL said:

    Morning MD. The institutional loyalty of the Tory party is very strong, too strong for Boris, I think. 55% of Tories wanting May to lead the Tories into the next election? Just crazy.

    I fear the Tories are going to have several days of bickering about Brexit with any other new thinking being drowned out or struggling to get a hearing. I suspect that Labour will be back in the lead shortly after the conference is over.

    Nowadays do the parties get the opposite of a boost from their party conferences?
    I was wondering about that (YouGov, which Mike doesn't mention, showed a 6-point Tory lead during the Lab conference, though one other showed a 1% Lab one). Because an electorally unattached chunk of the public, rightly or wrongly, has acquired a settled view that we're all crap, perhaps seeing lots of us reminds them how much they dislike us? We'll test the view this week - will the Tories get a boost as normal or does it work for them too?

    I think it's more likely, though, that the "no surrender" stuff by May during the week caught public attention more than the "routine" conference", and the Tory lead will endure until that comes apart.
    Or maybe, just maybe, Corbyn doesn’t reach far beyond the hall and all the hard lessons of politics 1979-1997 still apply at least to some extent.
    I think Nick is right about the May Flounce Bounce, but that Labour looks a bit less tasty a year after its euphoric conference last year.

    The factionalism annoys me, but of all the things the country needs sorting out, renationalising the utilities is on page 94. Renationalise the NHS outsourcing, sort out an integrated social care system, build housing and green energy, have a stronger regional development policy and a softer Brexit, but skip the clause 4 stuff in the first term, and shut up about Palestine as its nothing we can usefully contribute to. It is about priorities.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?

    As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.

    Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.

    The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.

    Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    Roger said:

    A good article on the Kavanauh affair.

    "What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm.......


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-temperament.html

    Kavanaugh is on record of being in favour of Lie Detector testing. Wonder if he'll volunteer.
    Already refused.

  • Roger said:

    A good article on the Kavanauh affair.

    "What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm.......


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-temperament.html

    I doubt we’ll ever know what really happened three and a half decades ago - but that performance alone should rule him out.
  • Mr. Song, he was an idiot to support the polygraph's use (it isn't a lie detector. A lie detector is a fictional box of magic).

    Mr. B, true, but given the polygraph is practically worthless it's alarming that some actually care what it would say. It misses deceit and 'spots' false positives all the time. It's barely better than tossing a coin.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?

    As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.

    Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.

    The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.

    Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.

    To be less popular than this Tory government midterm, you must be mad.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    The point of doing it was to tie him into the Brexit negotiations and reduce his scope to create a betrayal narrative. I think it did work to some extent; Everyone can see that he wasn't getting anywhere with an alternative, so when he tries to act like TMay's doing it wrong and he has some amazing plan to get a better deal he's getting laughed at more than he otherwise would be.
    I don't think he is being laughed at. I have a feeling that HYUFD reflects both the Tory membership and their MPs more than most on PB and our ex Foreign Secretary is very likely to be their next leader and our next PM.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    Mr. Song, he was an idiot to support the polygraph's use (it isn't a lie detector. A lie detector is a fictional box of magic).

    Mr. B, true, but given the polygraph is practically worthless it's alarming that some actually care what it would say. It misses deceit and 'spots' false positives all the time. It's barely better than tossing a coin.

    Surely Veritaserum comes in a vial, not a box, Mr Dancer?
  • Mr. Song, he was an idiot to support the polygraph's use (it isn't a lie detector. A lie detector is a fictional box of magic).

    Mr. B, true, but given the polygraph is practically worthless it's alarming that some actually care what it would say. It misses deceit and 'spots' false positives all the time. It's barely better than tossing a coin.

    Oh I agree. Just amused how he could be hoist by his own petard. More likely that he'll refuse.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    Mr. Song, he was an idiot to support the polygraph's use (it isn't a lie detector. A lie detector is a fictional box of magic).

    Mr. B, true, but given the polygraph is practically worthless it's alarming that some actually care what it would say. It misses deceit and 'spots' false positives all the time. It's barely better than tossing a coin.

    It is interesting that a judge who believed in their accuracy, sufficiently to affirm in law their admissibility as evidence, refuses to take one.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Jonathan said:

    Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?

    As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.

    Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.

    The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.

    Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.

    To be less popular than this Tory government midterm, you must be mad.
    I don't buy into the idea we have to be multiple points ahead midterm to gain seats at the next election. Especially given Brexit and everything that comes with that as something will have to happen, even if it is a longer transition to more of the same. Although even without it the idea has already been proven false at the last election.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anway, on to more important matters.

    I have just been reading the first review of the county season. Unfortunately it is by the Hefferlump and therefore a bit rubbish, but he did have one interesting idea. He suggested that any Test hosting county that signs a player from a non-Test hosting county should be docked 10 points for the following season.

    Warwickshire have a somewhat better record - no county that produced Woakes and Bell could be considered a failure - but even they are snapping up other players (in this case, two bowlers from Gloucestershire, one of them illegally tapped up while under contract - guess what penalty was imposed for this)? And this has wrecked Gloucestershire's chances of promotion next season. If they lose Bracey too, they lose the spine of their batting lineup.

    I'm not sure that points deductions are the way to go, but clearly this is both inequitable and damaging. While it may fit the mindset of Colin Graves to have ten first class counties and damn the rest, that merely confirms that he's an idiot. If we had first class teams in the same ratio to population as Australia, we would have 25 of them. We should be looking to expand the size of the pool, not diminish it (although the dumb decision to take cricket off free-to-air is also responsible for that).

    Would there perhaps be mileage in saying any Test county who signs a player from a non-Test county should pay a transfer fee of one year's salary to the club that developed the player, or two years if that player was still under contract? Think what that would do to even up the contest between Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire...

    Your proposal makes some sense; the Hefferlump’s is nonsense.

    The county game, though remarkable resilient, is not in great shape - and denying it the best part of the summer will slowly kill it. It’s hardly surprising that a player like (say) Rashid doesn’t want to play the four day game when much of it is in April and September.

    There is something of the sort already. Thus Essex receive a fee whenever Rees Topley plays for England, although he cleared off to Hampshire several years ago, since it was Essex who ’developed’ him.
    That is not to say, of course that I regard Colin Graves thoughts and policies for cricket as other than bordering (at least) on deranged.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    The point of doing it was to tie him into the Brexit negotiations and reduce his scope to create a betrayal narrative. I think it did work to some extent; Everyone can see that he wasn't getting anywhere with an alternative, so when he tries to act like TMay's doing it wrong and he has some amazing plan to get a better deal he's getting laughed at more than he otherwise would be.
    I don't think he is being laughed at. I have a feeling that HYUFD reflects both the Tory membership and their MPs more than most on PB and our ex Foreign Secretary is very likely to be their next leader and our next PM.
    Well that has finally dished his ambitions.
    :smile:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?

    As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.

    Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.

    The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.

    Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.

    Well, they should be. The polls have been wrong about the lead in the last four elections. The Tories led at the start of the campaign in 2005, and in 2010 and 2017 had enough for overall majorities six weeks out. In 2015, the worst case scenario the polls painted for Labour was 290 Tory MPs, more than forty out from the result.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    The point of doing it was to tie him into the Brexit negotiations and reduce his scope to create a betrayal narrative. I think it did work to some extent; Everyone can see that he wasn't getting anywhere with an alternative, so when he tries to act like TMay's doing it wrong and he has some amazing plan to get a better deal he's getting laughed at more than he otherwise would be.
    I don't think he is being laughed at. I have a feeling that HYUFD reflects both the Tory membership and their MPs more than most on PB and our ex Foreign Secretary is very likely to be their next leader and our next PM.
    The prospect of a choice between Johnson and Corbyn suggests that Vince might actually do rather well!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited September 2018

    Jonathan said:

    Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?

    As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.

    Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.

    The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.

    Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.

    To be less popular than this Tory government midterm, you must be mad.
    I don't buy into the idea we have to be multiple points ahead midterm to gain seats at the next election. Especially given Brexit and everything that comes with that as something will have to happen, even if it is a longer transition to more of the same. Although even without it the idea has already been proven false at the last election.
    Gaining seats is not the goal. Winning is the goal. Last time we lost.

    Historically to win from opposition, you need to be multiple points ahead midterm, so you end up still ahead on polling day.

  • Mr. Song, aye, but it's always alarming to see people take the magic box of truthiness seriously.

    Mr. Doethur, yet another point against the polygraph.

    Mr. B, to be fair, he's probably an idiot.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done?

    On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
    You mean the invisible man, not heard a peep from him since he took over. Has he managed to free any Britons being held as pawns? Another waste of space , only difference being he hides behind the sofa rather than pretending he is the king of the jungle like Boris.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Roger said:

    A good article on the Kavanauh affair.

    "What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm.......


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-temperament.html

    I doubt we’ll ever know what really happened three and a half decades ago - but that performance alone should rule him out.
    That's exactly what I thought when I saw it live but then nearly everyone including Sopel and other sane British commentators described it an impressive performance so it's difficult to know what is judicious behaviour for a judge in the US.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    ydoethur said:

    Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?

    As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.

    Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.

    The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.

    Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.

    Well, they should be. The polls have been wrong about the lead in the last four elections. The Tories led at the start of the campaign in 2005, and in 2010 and 2017 had enough for overall majorities six weeks out. In 2015, the worst case scenario the polls painted for Labour was 290 Tory MPs, more than forty out from the result.
    Ìf we want to play the past predicts the future game then my understanding is that a party in the Tories position, in government for a while and have begun losing seats have not managed to reverse that for quite some time.

    If the Tories lead was what it is now at the start of the last election then they would have lost badly from the resulting movement. Obviously that isn't going to happen again (or very very unlikely anyway) but that is because Labour will be starting the campaign with a lot more support to begin with, it is a completely different ball game.

    '05 '10 and '15 all took place when the Labour trajectory (from the last election) had been downwards and the Conservative trajectory upwards. That isn't the case next time.

    Not that I think that will decide the election either. These things can be useful indicators but the mass of voters who ultimately decide matters do not make their decisions based on these things. If they did then 2017 would have gone the way all the indicators before the campaign showed it would. It didn't.
  • Roger said:

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    The point of doing it was to tie him into the Brexit negotiations and reduce his scope to create a betrayal narrative. I think it did work to some extent; Everyone can see that he wasn't getting anywhere with an alternative, so when he tries to act like TMay's doing it wrong and he has some amazing plan to get a better deal he's getting laughed at more than he otherwise would be.
    our ex Foreign Secretary is very likely to be their next leader and our next PM.
    That’s cheered me up no end! Rogerdamus has spoken!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,955
    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done?

    On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
    You mean the invisible man, not heard a peep from him since he took over. Has he managed to free any Britons being held as pawns? Another waste of space , only difference being he hides behind the sofa rather than pretending he is the king of the jungle like Boris.
    Boris got the world to make a co-ordinated response to Russia for their Salisbury nerve agent attack. Something I'm not sure I would have trusted, say, Foreign Secretary David Miliband to have pulled off....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    ydoethur said:

    Anway, on to more important matters.

    I have just been reading the first review of the county season. Unfortunately it is by the Hefferlump and therefore a bit rubbish, but he did have one interesting idea. He suggested that any Test hosting county that signs a player from a non-Test hosting county should be docked 10 points for the following season.

    He mentioned Nottinghamshire, who have signed Ben Duckett (Northants) Ben Slater (Derbyshire) and Joe Clarke (Worcestershire). Nottinghamshire are an especially interesting case because although they boast about how many of their squad play for England, only one player actually developed by Notts (Samit Patel) has played for England in the last 30 years (discounting Paul Franks who played only one match). Given their size and wealth, that's an appalling record. And it's largely because instead of producing their own players they snap up tried and tested players from smaller counties (or countries, in the case of Brendan Taylor) so there is no path for local talent.

    Warwickshire have a somewhat better record - no county that produced Woakes and Bell could be considered a failure - but even they are snapping up other players (in this case, two bowlers from Gloucestershire, one of them illegally tapped up while under contract - guess what penalty was imposed for this)? And this has wrecked Gloucestershire's chances of promotion next season. If they lose Bracey too, they lose the spine of their batting lineup.

    I'm not sure that points deductions are the way to go, but clearly this is both inequitable and damaging. While it may fit the mindset of Colin Graves to have ten first class counties and damn the rest, that merely confirms that he's an idiot. If we had first class teams in the same ratio to population as Australia, we would have 25 of them. We should be looking to expand the size of the pool, not diminish it (although the dumb decision to take cricket off free-to-air is also responsible for that).

    Would there perhaps be mileage in saying any Test county who signs a player from a non-Test county should pay a transfer fee of one year's salary to the club that developed the player, or two years if that player was still under contract? Think what that would do to even up the contest between Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire...

    Ydoethur, when does the rounders start
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    Two sociopaths’ eyes met, across a crowded peninsula...
    https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/409104-trump-kim-jong-un-and-i-fell-in-love
    Trump: Kim Jong Un and I 'fell in love'
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?

    As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.

    Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.

    The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.

    Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.

    To be less popular than this Tory government midterm, you must be mad.
    I don't buy into the idea we have to be multiple points ahead midterm to gain seats at the next election. Especially given Brexit and everything that comes with that as something will have to happen, even if it is a longer transition to more of the same. Although even without it the idea has already been proven false at the last election.
    Gaining seats is not the goal. Winning is the goal. Last time we lost.

    Historically to win from opposition, you need to be multiple points ahead midterm, so you end up still ahead on polling day.

    Winning seats will win us power. Also as I mentioned to ydoethur if we are using the past prediction method then the Tories will lose seats on the basis of being in government for a while and already starting on a seat losing trajectory.
  • malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done?

    On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
    You mean the invisible man, not heard a peep from him since he took over. Has he managed to free any Britons being held as pawns? Another waste of space , only difference being he hides behind the sofa rather than pretending he is the king of the jungle like Boris.
    At least he’s not jumping on people on the sofa:

    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3279797/alex-salmond-complaints-five-years-ago-bute-house-january/
  • Roger said:

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    The point of doing it was to tie him into the Brexit negotiations and reduce his scope to create a betrayal narrative. I think it did work to some extent; Everyone can see that he wasn't getting anywhere with an alternative, so when he tries to act like TMay's doing it wrong and he has some amazing plan to get a better deal he's getting laughed at more than he otherwise would be.
    I don't think he is being laughed at. I have a feeling that HYUFD reflects both the Tory membership and their MPs more than most on PB and our ex Foreign Secretary is very likely to be their next leader and our next PM.
    Membership yes, MP's no and especially the female ones who detest him with a passion.

    He will not be leader at anytime. The next leader has to be a unity candidate of Javid or Hunt

    Interesting Sky data polling this mornings

    Voters nationally more likely to vote for May 40% Johnson 24%

    Conservative voters May 49% Johnson 33%
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,051
    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done?

    On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
    You mean the invisible man, not heard a peep from him since he took over. Has he managed to free any Britons being held as pawns? Another waste of space , only difference being he hides behind the sofa rather than pretending he is the king of the jungle like Boris.
    Hunt has gone missing over Brexit, giving token support to the moribund Chequers, but wisely staying clear otherwise. Hunt has astute judgement in not fighting a battle certain to be lost.

    Hunt was very good on his far East tour, spot on in Myanmar, and his Twitter Q and A afterwards was far more intelligent than Boris's sub Churchillian waffle. Hunt does his homework and tries to understand the issues.

    He is top of my book for Tory leader, but I am not good a leadership betting as my own opinions never seem to match party opinions. In advance of the 2015 contest, I frequently pointed out here that May was a charisma free zone, and with an inflexibility that made her unsuitable for a high role. I simply didn't think the Tories could be stupid enough to pick her, but was wrong on that point.
  • malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done?

    On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
    You mean the invisible man, not heard a peep from him since he took over. Has he managed to free any Britons being held as pawns? Another waste of space , only difference being he hides behind the sofa rather than pretending he is the king of the jungle like Boris.
    Boris got the world to make a co-ordinated response to Russia for their Salisbury nerve agent attack. Something I'm not sure I would have trusted, say, Foreign Secretary David Miliband to have pulled off....
    Theresa May co-ordinated the response while Boris was looking in the mirror at himself planning when he could flounce off. He was the worst Foreign Secretary we have had in years
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    DavidL said:

    Morning MD. The institutional loyalty of the Tory party is very strong, too strong for Boris, I think. 55% of Tories wanting May to lead the Tories into the next election? Just crazy.

    I fear the Tories are going to have several days of bickering about Brexit with any other new thinking being drowned out or struggling to get a hearing. I suspect that Labour will be back in the lead shortly after the conference is over.

    Nowadays do the parties get the opposite of a boost from their party conferences?
    I was wondering about that (YouGov, which Mike doesn't mention, showed a 6-point Tory lead during the Lab conference, though one other showed a 1% Lab one). Because an electorally unattached chunk of the public, rightly or wrongly, has acquired a settled view that we're all crap, perhaps seeing lots of us reminds them how much they dislike us? We'll test the view this week - will the Tories get a boost as normal or does it work for them too?

    I think it's more likely, though, that the "no surrender" stuff by May during the week caught public attention more than the "routine" conference", and the Tory lead will endure until that comes apart.
    Or maybe, just maybe, Corbyn doesn’t reach far beyond the hall and all the hard lessons of politics 1979-1997 still apply at least to some extent.
    I think Nick is right about the May Flounce Bounce, but that Labour looks a bit less tasty a year after its euphoric conference last year.

    The factionalism annoys me, but of all the things the country needs sorting out, renationalising the utilities is on page 94. Renationalise the NHS outsourcing, sort out an integrated social care system, build housing and green energy, have a stronger regional development policy and a softer Brexit, but skip the clause 4 stuff in the first term, and shut up about Palestine as its nothing we can usefully contribute to. It is about priorities.
    It's easy to agree with all of that but when you look at the Labour leadership there's something that tells you they aren't anything like competent and that's why I don't believe they can win.

    Having a chantable name isn't enough.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Nigelb said:

    I think the Kavanaugh affair makes it very unlikely to be Sanders.

    Also he'll be 81 at the time of the next election. My father will be 80 this year and, even though he's in good health, it seems ulikely, though not impossible, that someone of that age could be effective as POTUS. The gamut of my dad's capabilities now runs to the Telegraph crossword and inventing cruel nicknames for Philip May.
  • Mr. Ace, Enrico Dandolo was vigorous past 90. And he was blind.

    That said, the age (just past 80) was probably what stopped Antigonus Monopthalmus successfully seeing off Lysimachus before reinforcements arrived for the Battle of Ipsus.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    edited September 2018

    ydoethur said:

    Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?

    As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.

    Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.

    The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.

    Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.

    Well, they should be. The polls have been wrong about the lead in the last four elections. The Tories led at the start of the campaign in 2005, and in 2010 and 2017 had enough for overall majorities six weeks out. In 2015, the worst case scenario the polls painted for Labour was 290 Tory MPs, more than forty out from the result.
    Ìf we want to play the past predicts the future game then my understanding is that a party in the Tories position, in government for a while and have begun losing seats have not managed to reverse that for quite some time.

    ...

    Not that I think that will decide the election either. These things can be useful indicators but the mass of voters who ultimately decide matters do not make their decisions based on these things. If they did then 2017 would have gone the way all the indicators before the campaign showed it would. It didn't.
    1865 is the last time that happened.

    I agree with you that for number of reasons 2017 was an unusual election. However, I think I am also right in saying it was the first election since 1951 where a party increased its vote share yet still suffered a net loss of seats. The point that may be decisive - and this is where history is a poor guide - is who hangs on to more of their vote share. I can easily see the Conservatives dropping two points and Labour five, so increasing the Tory seat tally. Equally, if Corbyn goes I can see Labour dropping five and the Tories ten.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    The point of doing it was to tie him into the Brexit negotiations and reduce his scope to create a betrayal narrative. I think it did work to some extent; Everyone can see that he wasn't getting anywhere with an alternative, so when he tries to act like TMay's doing it wrong and he has some amazing plan to get a better deal he's getting laughed at more than he otherwise would be.
    I don't think he is being laughed at. I have a feeling that HYUFD reflects both the Tory membership and their MPs more than most on PB and our ex Foreign Secretary is very likely to be their next leader and our next PM.
    Well that has finally dished his ambitions.
    :smile:
    Well in that case the country owes me a medal!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    ydoethur said:

    May and Trump both greatly boosted this morning:

    https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1046182608734810112 One I can live with, the other is to put it mildly annoying. We need Trump out.

    (I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)

    It’s not the rubbish that gets me. It’s the tone of absolute certainty that indicates we are all fools

    God help us all if he is the future of the Tory Party
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    edited September 2018
    Labour wonder why their policies seem popular and they are not gaining on the conservatives

    Take rail nationalisation. The public quite like the idea until you say

    Do you trust Corbyn/McDonnell/McCluskey to run our railways and there is a resounding Noooooooo
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anway, on to more important matters.

    I have just been reading the first review of the county season. Unfortunately it is by the Hefferlump and therefore a bit rubbish, but he did have one interesting idea. He suggested that any Test hosting county that signs a player from a non-Test hosting county should be docked 10 points for the following season.

    He mentioned Nottinghamshire, who have signed Ben Duckett (Northants) Ben Slater (Derbyshire) and Joe Clarke (Worcestershire). Nottinghamshire are an especially interesting case because although they boast about how many of their squad play for England, only one player actually developed by Notts (Samit Patel) has played for England in the last 30 years (discounting Paul Franks who played only one match). Given their size and wealth, that's an appalling record. And it's largely because instead of producing their own players they snap up tried and tested players from smaller counties (or countries, in the case of Brendan Taylor) so there is no path for local talent.

    Warwickshire have a somewhat better record - no county that produced Woakes and Bell could be considered a failure - but even they are snapping up other players (in this case, two bowlers from Gloucestershire, one of them illegally tapped up while under contract - guess what penalty was imposed for this)? And this has wrecked Gloucestershire's chances of promotion next season. If they lose Bracey too, they lose the spine of their batting lineup.

    I'm not sure that points deductions are the way to go, but clearly this is both inequitable and damaging. While it may fit the mindset of Colin Graves to have ten first class counties and damn the rest, that merely confirms that he's an idiot. If we had first class teams in the same ratio to population as Australia, we would have 25 of them. We should be looking to expand the size of the pool, not diminish it (although the dumb decision to take cricket off free-to-air is also responsible for that).

    Would there perhaps be mileage in saying any Test county who signs a player from a non-Test county should pay a transfer fee of one year's salary to the club that developed the player, or two years if that player was still under contract? Think what that would do to even up the contest between Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire...

    Ydoethur, when does the rounders start
    Not for too damn long. Nigelb and I will have nothing to swap awesome cricketing puns about. We'll be stumped for interesting topics, and forced to fall back on Brexit and Sturgeon...
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Mr. Ace, Enrico Dandolo was vigorous past 90. And he was blind.

    That said, the age (just past 80) was probably what stopped Antigonus Monopthalmus successfully seeing off Lysimachus before reinforcements arrived for the Battle of Ipsus.

    I dont' play WoW.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    It was worth appointing Boris FS. It proved to all and sundry what may of us knew from a long acquaintance with the man: that he is utterly unfit to hold high office
  • Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    I disagree. Doing so let Boris own brexit as best she could without him actually negotiating it, problem was DD wasn't that much better... Boris predictable and crassly timed resignation was too late to put him on the sidelines pointing at the crash...
  • Mr. Song, aye, but it's always alarming to see people take the magic box of truthiness seriously.

    Mr. Doethur, yet another point against the polygraph.

    Mr. B, to be fair, he's probably an idiot.

    I don't know where you got the idea that I was taking the Polygraph test as being accurate (maybe my use of the term Lie Detector'?). The point I was making is that Trump's pick for the Supreme Court did.
  • Mr. Ace, I also don't play WoW.
  • Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    The point of doing it was to tie him into the Brexit negotiations and reduce his scope to create a betrayal narrative. I think it did work to some extent; Everyone can see that he wasn't getting anywhere with an alternative, so when he tries to act like TMay's doing it wrong and he has some amazing plan to get a better deal he's getting laughed at more than he otherwise would be.
    Exactly and better put...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Roger said:

    A good article on the Kavanauh affair.

    "What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm.......


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-temperament.html

    That fit me is the biggest negative. He was clearly unbelievably angry (and I think reasonably) but he let it show and as a judge he should be able to restrain himself from lashing out
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    DavidL said:

    Morning MD. The institutional loyalty of the Tory party is very strong, too strong for Boris, I think. 55% of Tories wanting May to lead the Tories into the next election? Just crazy.

    I fear the Tories are going to have several days of bickering about Brexit with any other new thinking being drowned out or struggling to get a hearing. I suspect that Labour will be back in the lead shortly after the conference is over.

    I think it'll be about neck and neck again - when the parties take the spotlight I think is actually bad for them right now.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Roger said:



    It's easy to agree with all of that but when you look at the Labour leadership there's something that tells you they aren't anything like competent and that's why I don't believe they can win.

    Having a chantable name isn't enough.

    I suspect that is correct -- there is a basic lack of arithmetical skills missing, so that the promises of a National Care Service or free University tuition or free childcare are just fanciful.

    I do expect a politician who tells me that University tuition should be free or a National Care Service for all can be provided to understand how much it will cost (I am happy for them to be vaguer about the origin of the money).

    The order of magnitude sums are not difficult -- but Nick Palmer's PhD in mathematics notwithstanding -- no-one left in the Labour Party seems to be able to add up.

    If you are trying to do something ambitious, and the budget is wrong at outset, then the project will likely end in failure.

    For me, that is a greater impediment to voting for Corbyn than the claims of antisemitism (which I believe have been guilefully created by his political opponents).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done?

    On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
    It is commonplace to argue that Theresa May did Boris up like a kipper by appointing him Foreign Secretary to expose his incompetence, but the corollary of this is that Theresa May deliberately endangered the country by appointing someone she knew to be incompetent.
    Disagree. These days the FS only has as much authority and ability to act as the PM chooses. There were poor calls with dreadful consequences (like that lady in Iran) but none that “endangered the country”
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    Charles said:

    Roger said:

    A good article on the Kavanauh affair.

    "What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm.......


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-temperament.html

    That fit me is the biggest negative. He was clearly unbelievably angry (and I think reasonably) but he let it show and as a judge he should be able to restrain himself from lashing out
    For a judge to say that this was a ‘conspiracy’ against him - on significantly less evidence than has been brought against him - is absolutely disqualificatory, angry or not.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    May and Trump both greatly boosted this morning:

    https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1046182608734810112 One I can live with, the other is to put it mildly annoying. We need Trump out.

    (I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)

    I think it is, however, time to lay Sanders (and Biden if you haven’t already done so).
    Warren and Sanders are the competition for the left vote, and and one of the two is going to be at least a contender. I think the Kavanaugh affair makes it very unlikely to be Sanders.
    What’s the link between Sanders and Kavanaugh?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Well, they should be. The polls have been wrong about the lead in the last four elections. The Tories led at the start of the campaign in 2005, and in 2010 and 2017 had enough for overall majorities six weeks out. In 2015, the worst case scenario the polls painted for Labour was 290 Tory MPs, more than forty out from the result.
    Ìf we want to play the past predicts the future game then my understanding is that a party in the Tories position, in government for a while and have begun losing seats have not managed to reverse that for quite some time.

    ...

    Not that I think that will decide the election either. These things can be useful indicators but the mass of voters who ultimately decide matters do not make their decisions based on these things. If they did then 2017 would have gone the way all the indicators before the campaign showed it would. It didn't.
    1865 is the last time that happened.

    I agree with you that for number of reasons 2017 was an unusual election. However, I think I am also right in saying it was the first election since 1951 where a party increased its vote share yet still suffered a net loss of seats. The point that may be decisive - and this is where history is a poor guide - is who hangs on to more of their vote share. I can easily see the Conservatives dropping two points and Labour five, so increasing the Tory seat tally. Equally, if Corbyn goes I can see Labour dropping five and the Tories ten.
    I was tempted to say it hadn't happened in British politics but I guessed there might be an exception or two.

    The problem is the Tories have 3 factors which I think are more likely to see them losing votes. They are the government, they have to do something with Brexit and will bear the consequences of that and they also have voters who are more passionate on the issue. Lastly given the age divide in voting more Tory 2017 voters will have either passed away or become too ill to vote than Labour voters.

    That doesn't actually decide the election but the Tories have the more difficult job in retention and in terms of deaths in the electorate have to actually win over voters to stand still.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    And in other completely separate news, but related to the earlier posts of the great @JackW in two days' time Dr Francis Jackson will hit 101.

    And he's still playing the organ (no, not that sort of organ)...

    I hope I can play Bach as well as this aged 96 (and in the intervening 65 years I may even have learned all the notes!

    https://youtu.be/PepI8wfKW1c
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited September 2018
    MarqueeM

    OT. If you get the chance take a look at 'The Wife'. Flawed but Oscar winning performance by Glenn Close.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Jonathan said:

    Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?

    As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.

    Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.

    The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.

    Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.

    To be less popular than this Tory government midterm, you must be mad.
    I don't buy into the idea we have to be multiple points ahead midterm to gain seats at the next election. Especially given Brexit and everything that comes with that as something will have to happen, even if it is a longer transition to more of the same. Although even without it the idea has already been proven false at the last election.
    I don't think it a rule of nature that they must be x points ahead by now to win the next election, though it would be better for them if they were and I am astonished they are not, but I don't know what you think was proven false at the last election because Labour still lost and there's also no rule that labour will improve their position during a GE campaign next time.

    So nothing was proven at the GE although Labour will not feel as rattled by being a little behind (though it means claiming the country is crying out for a change is harder - if we believe the polls the Tories are more popular).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.

    The point of doing it was to tie him into the Brexit negotiations and reduce his scope to create a betrayal narrative. I think it did work to some extent; Everyone can see that he wasn't getting anywhere with an alternative, so when he tries to act like TMay's doing it wrong and he has some amazing plan to get a better deal he's getting laughed at more than he otherwise would be.
    I don't think he is being laughed at. I have a feeling that HYUFD reflects both the Tory membership and their MPs more than most on PB and our ex Foreign Secretary is very likely to be their next leader and our next PM.
    The prospect of a choice between Johnson and Corbyn suggests that Vince might actually do rather well!
    No it doesn't since the same general reasoning suggests with Labour and the Tories as they are, and remain still popular, the lds generally should be surging, not just creeping up.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anway, on to more important matters.

    I have just been reading the first review of the county season. Unfortunately it is by the Hefferlump and therefore a bit rubbish, but he did have one interesting idea. He suggested that any Test hosting county that signs a player from a non-Test hosting county should be docked 10 points for the following season.

    He mentioned Nottinghamshire, who have signed Ben Duckett (Northants) Ben Slater (Derbyshire) and Joe Clarke (Worcestershire). Nottinghamshire are an especially interesting case because although they boast about how many of their squad play for England, only one player actually developed by Notts (Samit Patel) has played for England in the last 30 years (discounting Paul Franks who played only one match). Given their size and wealth, that's an appalling record. And it's largely because instead of producing their own players they snap up tried and tested players from smaller counties (or countries, in the case of Brendan Taylor) so there is no path for local talent.

    Warwickshire have a somewhat better record - no county that produced Woakes and Bell could be considered a failure - but even they are snapping up other players (in this case, two bowlers from Gloucestershire, one of them illegally tapped up while under contract - guess what penalty was imposed for this)? And this has wrecked Gloucestershire's chances of promotion next season. If they lose Bracey too, they lose the spine of their batting lineup.

    I'm not sure that points deductions are the way to go, but clearly this is both inequitable and damaging. While it may fit the mindset of Colin Graves to have ten first class counties and damn the rest, that merely confirms that he's an idiot. If we had first class teams in the same ratio to population as Australia, we would have 25 of them. We should be looking to expand the size of the pool, not diminish it (although the dumb decision to take cricket off free-to-air is also responsible for that).

    Would there perhaps be mileage in saying any Test county who signs a player from a non-Test county should pay a transfer fee of one year's salary to the club that developed the player, or two years if that player was still under contract? Think what that would do to even up the contest between Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire...

    Ydoethur, when does the rounders start
    Not for too damn long. Nigelb and I will have nothing to swap awesome cricketing puns about. We'll be stumped for interesting topics, and forced to fall back on Brexit and Sturgeon...
    Let’s put a positive spin on it.
    We’ve had a pretty good innings, mining a deep seam.

    There is a season for everything.


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    edited September 2018

    I was tempted to say it hadn't happened in British politics but I guessed there might be an exception or two.

    The problem is the Tories have 3 factors which I think are more likely to see them losing votes. They are the government, they have to do something with Brexit and will bear the consequences of that and they also have voters who are more passionate on the issue. Lastly given the age divide in voting more Tory 2017 voters will have either passed away or become too ill to vote than Labour voters.

    That doesn't actually decide the election but the Tories have the more difficult job in retention and in terms of deaths in the electorate have to actually win over voters to stand still.

    Haven't you forgotten a lot of Socialists are elderly? Look at Corbyn himself!

    I think they key point is I expect the Tories to lose votes. But I think Labour is running a high risk of losing more votes. That doesn't have to be through switching. It could be through apathy. Will all those students who voted last time after Corbyn promised them free money vote again now he's admitted he was lying? I don't think that can be taken for granted.

    The reason momentum (no pun intended) traditionally goes one way when a party starts losing seats is because they keep losing votes. But both parties have some way to fall next time, and the question is, 'who will fall further?' The one who falls least should win comfortably given the number of tight marginals available.

    This is one reason I thought the anti-semitism row all summer long would be hugely damaging for Labour. It doesn't need to turn people into mini-Moggs. If it turns 2% into non-voters it will cost Labour dear in the Midlands and the suburbs.
This discussion has been closed.