Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The one thing we are not getting st the moment is a clear pict

13

Comments

  • Nigelb said:
    You've only just realised?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    Mortimer said:

    The ERG have blinked and look to sell out Northern Ireland.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1048676793283223552

    Suspect the DUP will say no; show of party unity before necessary pivot to Canada +
    Northern Ireland isn't a hill worth dying on.

    If we get lucky we can give Northern Ireland away to the Republic or the EU as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
    Not the Protestant part
  • Holding a referendum now would be like Corbyn winning the 2017 election and then protestors saying "lets have another election to check you really wanted Corbyn in power" before he entered Downing Street.

    We voted to Leave, lets Leave and then we can talk about new votes.

    Yeah, sure. Convenient definition you've invented. A General Election vote expires the moment a government is formed. Seriously?

    A democracy that can't change its mind ceases to be a democracy.
    You're fine with the will of the majority when it marches with what you want, but now you suspect the majority is against that, nope, we don't want that, you can't change your mind until all of it is complete. (Thank God you're not a pilot: "Sorry, I don't care if it's looking really dicey, we've decided to land, I'm not aborting the landing, if we want to go around, we'll just have to wait until we've landed first and then take off again")
    And, preferably, with extra hurdles put in place to change one's mind (it's notable how many Leavers who say "voting to re-enter would be fine" and then add something like "of course, given that we'd have to accept extra this, that, and the other, I don't see it happening")

    No a General Election vote expires when the Parliament that was formed after it has served its purpose. Previously defined as expiring or when the PM leading that Parliament called for its dissolution. Now defined as expiring or when the Parliament formed votes for its own dissolution.

    A referendum vote expires once its decision has been implemented. That's not happened yet.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    edited October 2018

    FF43 said:

    IIRC all the polls in a Mayor of London election underestimated Boris Johnsons vote share. The one at the top was the closest but would otherwise be seen as an outlier. Taking an average is a very risky strategy because all samples have biases and pollsters have to use their skill and knowledge to mitigate those biaises. Martin Boon of ICM famously came a cropper because he discredited the Labour vote share in the last GE as "the Labour vote is always exaggerated." That seemed to me to be herding rather than the empirical research he was paid to carry out.

    Martin never herds.

    Reasons why ICM were the top pollster in 1997, 2001, and 2010.
    The point is he made an adjustment to his sample in 2017 that wasn't justified by the data. Pollsters want to be right and would probably prefer privately to match the result with gut feel than to justify a mismatch through empirical analysis. The problem is you stray out of analysis into soothsaying.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    FF43 said:

    IIRC all the polls in a Mayor of London election underestimated Boris Johnsons vote share. The one at the top was the closest but would otherwise be seen as an outlier. Taking an average is a very risky strategy because all samples have biases and pollsters have to use their skill and knowledge to mitigate those biaises. Martin Boon of ICM famously came a cropper because he discredited the Labour vote share in the last GE as "the Labour vote is always exaggerated." That seemed to me to be herding rather than the empirical research he was paid to carry out.

    Martin never herds.

    Reasons why ICM were the top pollster in 1997, 2001, and 2010.
    On the last 24 ICM polls, ICM seem to be 1.0% above the average for the Tory share, 0.3% above the average for the Labour share, 0.1% below the average for the LibDem share and below the average for the others. That's the "house" effect of their methodology compared with other pollsters.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Holding a referendum now would be like Corbyn winning the 2017 election and then protestors saying "lets have another election to check you really wanted Corbyn in power" before he entered Downing Street.

    We voted to Leave, lets Leave and then we can talk about new votes.

    Yeah, sure. Convenient definition you've invented. A General Election vote expires the moment a government is formed. Seriously?

    A democracy that can't change its mind ceases to be a democracy.
    You're fine with the will of the majority when it marches with what you want, but now you suspect the majority is against that, nope, we don't want that, you can't change your mind until all of it is complete. (Thank God you're not a pilot: "Sorry, I don't care if it's looking really dicey, we've decided to land, I'm not aborting the landing, if we want to go around, we'll just have to wait until we've landed first and then take off again")
    And, preferably, with extra hurdles put in place to change one's mind (it's notable how many Leavers who say "voting to re-enter would be fine" and then add something like "of course, given that we'd have to accept extra this, that, and the other, I don't see it happening")

    No a General Election vote expires when the Parliament that was formed after it has served its purpose. Previously defined as expiring or when the PM leading that Parliament called for its dissolution. Now defined as expiring or when the Parliament formed votes for its own dissolution.

    A referendum vote expires once its decision has been implemented. That's not happened yet.
    You're just making that up.
  • Barnesian said:

    Holding a referendum now would be like Corbyn winning the 2017 election and then protestors saying "lets have another election to check you really wanted Corbyn in power" before he entered Downing Street.

    We voted to Leave, lets Leave and then we can talk about new votes.

    Yeah, sure. Convenient definition you've invented. A General Election vote expires the moment a government is formed. Seriously?

    A democracy that can't change its mind ceases to be a democracy.
    You're fine with the will of the majority when it marches with what you want, but now you suspect the majority is against that, nope, we don't want that, you can't change your mind until all of it is complete. (Thank God you're not a pilot: "Sorry, I don't care if it's looking really dicey, we've decided to land, I'm not aborting the landing, if we want to go around, we'll just have to wait until we've landed first and then take off again")
    And, preferably, with extra hurdles put in place to change one's mind (it's notable how many Leavers who say "voting to re-enter would be fine" and then add something like "of course, given that we'd have to accept extra this, that, and the other, I don't see it happening")

    No a General Election vote expires when the Parliament that was formed after it has served its purpose. Previously defined as expiring or when the PM leading that Parliament called for its dissolution. Now defined as expiring or when the Parliament formed votes for its own dissolution.

    A referendum vote expires once its decision has been implemented. That's not happened yet.
    You're just making that up.
    Name an example otherwise ever.
  • Nigelb said:
    You've only just realised?
    I can’t believe he thinks anger over this will just blow over. The US has gradually become more polarised in the last few decades - people haven’t gotten over previous divisive incidents, let alone this one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    38% back tighter customs arrangements with the EU than May originally envisioned but is moving towards, 27% oppose.

    Voters also back accepting more EU regulation if needed to secure a deal but only just with 34% in favour and 32% opposed.


    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-negotiations-no-deal-full-access-single-market-polling-theresa-may-a8571846.html
  • Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow
  • FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    IIRC all the polls in a Mayor of London election underestimated Boris Johnsons vote share. The one at the top was the closest but would otherwise be seen as an outlier. Taking an average is a very risky strategy because all samples have biases and pollsters have to use their skill and knowledge to mitigate those biaises. Martin Boon of ICM famously came a cropper because he discredited the Labour vote share in the last GE as "the Labour vote is always exaggerated." That seemed to me to be herding rather than the empirical research he was paid to carry out.

    Martin never herds.

    Reasons why ICM were the top pollster in 1997, 2001, and 2010.
    The point is he made an adjustment to his sample in 2017 that wasn't justified by the data. Pollsters want to be right and would probably prefer privately to match the result with gut feel than to justify a mismatch through empirical analysis. The problem is you stray out of analysis into soothsaying.
    There was plenty of justification.

    1) One of the golden rules of Mike for many years was 'The most accurate poll was the one with the lowest Labour share'

    2) Corbyn's leadership ratings up until May 2017

    3) Labour have historically struggled voters to get out and vote
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Barnesian said:

    Holding a referendum now would be like Corbyn winning the 2017 election and then protestors saying "lets have another election to check you really wanted Corbyn in power" before he entered Downing Street.

    We voted to Leave, lets Leave and then we can talk about new votes.

    Yeah, sure. Convenient definition you've invented. A General Election vote expires the moment a government is formed. Seriously?

    A democracy that can't change its mind ceases to be a democracy.
    You're fine with the will of the majority when it marches with what you want, but now you suspect the majority is against that, nope, we don't want that, you can't change your mind until all of it is complete. (Thank God you're not a pilot: "Sorry, I don't care if it's looking really dicey, we've decided to land, I'm not aborting the landing, if we want to go around, we'll just have to wait until we've landed first and then take off again")
    And, preferably, with extra hurdles put in place to change one's mind (it's notable how many Leavers who say "voting to re-enter would be fine" and then add something like "of course, given that we'd have to accept extra this, that, and the other, I don't see it happening")

    No a General Election vote expires when the Parliament that was formed after it has served its purpose. Previously defined as expiring or when the PM leading that Parliament called for its dissolution. Now defined as expiring or when the Parliament formed votes for its own dissolution.

    A referendum vote expires once its decision has been implemented. That's not happened yet.
    You're just making that up.
    Name an example otherwise ever.
    The first referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon held on 12 June 2008 was rejected by the Irish electorate, by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%. The second referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon sixteen months later was approved by 67.1% to 32.9%. Or doesn't that count?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Holding a referendum now would be like Corbyn winning the 2017 election and then protestors saying "lets have another election to check you really wanted Corbyn in power" before he entered Downing Street.

    We voted to Leave, lets Leave and then we can talk about new votes.

    Yeah, sure. Convenient definition you've invented. A General Election vote expires the moment a government is formed. Seriously?

    A democracy that can't change its mind ceases to be a democracy.
    You're fine with the will of the majority when it marches with what you want, but now you suspect the majority is against that, nope, we don't want that, you can't change your mind until all of it is complete. (Thank God you're not a pilot: "Sorry, I don't care if it's looking really dicey, we've decided to land, I'm not aborting the landing, if we want to go around, we'll just have to wait until we've landed first and then take off again")
    And, preferably, with extra hurdles put in place to change one's mind (it's notable how many Leavers who say "voting to re-enter would be fine" and then add something like "of course, given that we'd have to accept extra this, that, and the other, I don't see it happening")

    No a General Election vote expires when the Parliament that was formed after it has served its purpose. Previously defined as expiring or when the PM leading that Parliament called for its dissolution. Now defined as expiring or when the Parliament formed votes for its own dissolution.

    A referendum vote expires once its decision has been implemented. That's not happened yet.
    You're just making that up.
    Name an example otherwise ever.
    The first referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon held on 12 June 2008 was rejected by the Irish electorate, by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%. The second referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon sixteen months later was approved by 67.1% to 32.9%. Or doesn't that count?
    Erm, you realise that Ireland is a foreign country, right?
  • Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Holding a referendum now would be like Corbyn winning the 2017 election and then protestors saying "lets have another election to check you really wanted Corbyn in power" before he entered Downing Street.

    We voted to Leave, lets Leave and then we can talk about new votes.

    Yeah, sure. Convenient definition you've invented. A General Election vote expires the moment a government is formed. Seriously?

    A democracy that can't change its mind ceases to be a democracy.
    You're fine with the will of the majority when it marches with what you want, but now you suspect the majority is against that, nope, we don't want that, you can't change your mind until all of it is complete. (Thank God you're not a pilot: "Sorry, I don't care if it's looking really dicey, we've decided to land, I'm not aborting the landing, if we want to go around, we'll just have to wait until we've landed first and then take off again")
    And, preferably, with extra hurdles put in place to change one's mind (it's notable how many Leavers who say "voting to re-enter would be fine" and then add something like "of course, given that we'd have to accept extra this, that, and the other, I don't see it happening")

    No a General Election vote expires when the Parliament that was formed after it has served its purpose. Previously defined as expiring or when the PM leading that Parliament called for its dissolution. Now defined as expiring or when the Parliament formed votes for its own dissolution.

    A referendum vote expires once its decision has been implemented. That's not happened yet.
    You're just making that up.
    Name an example otherwise ever.
    The first referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon held on 12 June 2008 was rejected by the Irish electorate, by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%. The second referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon sixteen months later was approved by 67.1% to 32.9%. Or doesn't that count?
    No it doesn't, that was in Ireland not the UK.

    And "vote again until you get the result right" wasn't appropriate then.
  • Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She’s surely not saying come to the Conservatives because Labour are anti Semitic?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Referendum Tales -- I came across an interesting example of a very close referendum, actually 52% : 48%, just like Brexit.

    It was held in 1948 in Newfoundland. The options were to join Canada or to return to an independent dominion status (which Newfoundland had previously enjoyed, until an economic crisis in 1934 caused London to intervene).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland_referendums,_1948

    Amongst other things, it is interesting that such fundamental constitutional change occurred in Newfoundland on such a small majority.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
  • Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
  • Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She’s surely not saying come to the Conservatives because Labour are anti Semitic?
    I understand she is looking beyond brexit to centre ground policies
  • Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She’s surely not saying come to the Conservatives because Labour are anti Semitic?
    I understand she is looking beyond brexit to centre ground policies
    That’s not mad at all. That’s quite sensible. If your opponents choose to voluntarily vacate key part of the battle map, seize and hold it.
  • Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She’s surely not saying come to the Conservatives because Labour are anti Semitic?
    I understand she is looking beyond brexit to centre ground policies
    That’s not mad at all. That’s quite sensible. If your opponents choose to voluntarily vacate key part of the battle map, seize and hold it.
    Agreed and that is why I challenged Jonathan who said she was mad
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    I honestly thought this Wooferendum thing was ironic. Remainers with a sense of humour jibing at the people’s vote malarkey.

    But no, it’s real, and just an absolute joke instead.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    Asking Labour voters to join the Tory party? We’re against the Tory party. We think it’s a bad thing. We don’t like May, Mogg and Boris. That’s why we vote against it. We want it out of office. We’re not going to join it.

    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Happens all the time - I support all British teams as they progress through the Champions League for instance. Sometimes with gritted teeth in fairness.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    Asking Labour voters to join the Tory party? We’re against the Tory party. We think it’s a bad thing. We don’t like May, Mogg and Boris. That’s why we vote against it. We want it out of office. We’re not going to join it.

    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    If you take that to it's logical conclusion why should labour or lib dems appeal to conservative voters, which labour need to get into government

    Maybe there are many labour supporters in anguish with Corbyn who are looking for a centre party.

    She will not lose voters by extending her invitation to the non conservatives.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    Well that is sort of her job - though you might question whether it is the most effective use of her time.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    Asking Labour voters to join the Tory party? We’re against the Tory party. We think it’s a bad thing. We don’t like May, Mogg and Boris. That’s why we vote against it. We want it out of office. We’re not going to join it.

    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Good for you Jon. But she don’t need to win over 10M of you, just shave off a million with centre ground policies v radical left manifesto would be enough.
  • Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    Well that is sort of her job - though you might question whether it is the most effective use of her time.
    I am quite amused with her new found confidence that she would even do it. My take is good on her
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Happens all the time - I support all British teams as they progress through the Champions League for instance. Sometimes with gritted teeth in fairness.
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you. By all means get them to stay at home, vote liberal or maybe ask them to lend you a vote. But no self respecting Labour voter could join a party in favour of things like universal credit and stand shoulder to shoulder with Mogg.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited October 2018
    O/T

    I'm guessing this will divide opinion:


    "Cambridge marks women’s equality struggle – with a two-storey vulva

    Cathy de Monchaux sculpture at Newnham College celebrates 70 years since the university allowed women to graduate"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/06/cambridge-marks-women-equality-cathy-de-monchaux-vulva-bronze-sculpture
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,882
    Theresa May got her initial honeymoon boost by parroting 2015 Ed Miliband.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    Asking Labour voters to join the Tory party? We’re against the Tory party. We think it’s a bad thing. We don’t like May, Mogg and Boris. That’s why we vote against it. We want it out of office. We’re not going to join it.

    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Good for you Jon. But she don’t need to win over 10M of you, just shave off a million with centre ground policies v radical left manifesto would be enough.
    She’s clearly given up convincing her own party to back her. Desperate times.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    At every general election at least hundreds of thousands of people who voted Labour at the previous election will vote Conservative, and vice versa, just as part of the normal churn of voters between elections. When you take that into account, it isn't such a bad idea.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited October 2018
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Happens all the time - I support all British teams as they progress through the Champions League for instance. Sometimes with gritted teeth in fairness.
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you. By all means get them to stay at home, vote liberal or maybe ask them to lend you a vote. But no self respecting Labour voter could join a party in favour of things like universal credit and stand shoulder to shoulder with Mogg.

    JRM is not the leader of the party.

    You may well be surprised how many TM will collect off labour if they carry on down their chosen route with comrade Corbyn

    In fact if Hyfud is around he will no doubt be able give you figures of how many have already done it
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited October 2018
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Happens all the time - I support all British teams as they progress through the Champions League for instance. Sometimes with gritted teeth in fairness.
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you. By all means get them to stay at home, vote liberal or maybe ask them to lend you a vote. But no self respecting Labour voter could join a party in favour of things like universal credit and stand shoulder to shoulder with Mogg.

    I think you missed my main point, which is I doubt May honestly thinks she will be able to get many, if any, to do a direct switch and join the Tories. But there's zero harm in trying, and it projects an aura of strength, even if that is temporary and ephemeral at best, given the circumstances. What it isn't, is mad, unless she really thinks it will be very effective. I suspect she has more realistic expectations.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    Asking Labour voters to join the Tory party? We’re against the Tory party. We think it’s a bad thing. We don’t like May, Mogg and Boris. That’s why we vote against it. We want it out of office. We’re not going to join it.

    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Good for you Jon. But she don’t need to win over 10M of you, just shave off a million with centre ground policies v radical left manifesto would be enough.
    She’s clearly given up convincing her own party to back her. Desperate times.
    You mean the more Tories who voted for Blair, the more the crazy leftist views at this years Labour Conference was buried?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,267
    edited October 2018
    There's a fresh post-conferences poll from Opinium, showing Labour 3 up over last week and the parties back on 39 each, as some of us expected. It's odd that both conferences seem to have had negative effects, but there may be some random variation in there, and essentially I don't think anything happened tochange many minds. What the poll does show is a decisive edge for May over Boris (although the figures are generally not great for either of them - curiously, Conservative voters see them both as more divisive than voters at large):

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/06/voters-back-trustworthy-theresa-may-boris-johnson-leadership-campaign
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    Asking Labour voters to join the Tory party? We’re against the Tory party. We think it’s a bad thing. We don’t like May, Mogg and Boris. That’s why we vote against it. We want it out of office. We’re not going to join it.

    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Good for you Jon. But she don’t need to win over 10M of you, just shave off a million with centre ground policies v radical left manifesto would be enough.
    She’s clearly given up convincing her own party to back her. Desperate times.
    Yes, it has been clear for some time she needs Labour votes to get anything through parliament (frankly given the number of likely rebels for anything, it was probably necessary on 2015 numbers as well), so about time she tried to make a play for Labour voters and members. Bit late in the day really.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    Asking Labour voters to join the Tory party? We’re against the Tory party. We think it’s a bad thing. We don’t like May, Mogg and Boris. That’s why we vote against it. We want it out of office. We’re not going to join it.

    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Good for you Jon. But she don’t need to win over 10M of you, just shave off a million with centre ground policies v radical left manifesto would be enough.
    She’s clearly given up convincing her own party to back her. Desperate times.
    How is Corbyn doing on that score
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    Asking Labour voters to join the Tory party? We’re against the Tory party. We think it’s a bad thing. We don’t like May, Mogg and Boris. That’s why we vote against it. We want it out of office. We’re not going to join it.

    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Good for you Jon. But she don’t need to win over 10M of you, just shave off a million with centre ground policies v radical left manifesto would be enough.
    She’s clearly given up convincing her own party to back her. Desperate times.
    You mean the more Tories who voted for Blair, the more the crazy leftist views at this years Labour Conference was buried?
    Gordon Brown tried the same thing. It’s not what you do if you are confident. It’s was you do if you are desperate and maybe a little bit out of touch.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,237

    There's a fresh post-conferences poll from Opinium, showing Labour 3 up over last week and the parties back on 39 each, as some of us expected. It's odd that both conferences seem to have had negative effects, but there may be some random variation in there, and essentially I don't think anything happened tochange many minds. What the poll does show is a decisive edge for May over Boris (although the figures are generally not great for either of them - curiously, Conservative voters see them both as more divisive than voters at large):

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/06/voters-back-trustworthy-theresa-may-boris-johnson-leadership-campaign

    Am I correct in thinking that in the short-term, the post-conference polls are exactly the same as the pre-conference polls?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780


    At least your not discounting these figures. I’ll agree it’s clearly not (with caveat though all these stats likely somewhat higher in reality rather than lower, we’ll never know the true picture).

    Do you agree these are massively high stats for drug problem and STD rates?

    is it liberal politicians and judges or Conservative politicians and judges who have the values to bring these %s down would you say?

    Look, we shouldn't have to argue about these things. Data will tell us the answer.

    1. Do more liberal countries have higher rates of STDs and drug use?
    2. Is there a correlation between a country becoming liberal and drug and STD rates increasing?

    We also have to control for an ageing population, as likelihood of being on prescription medication increases with age. Cohort analysis will also be very useful.

    Finally, we need to not remove data simply because it doesn't fit our narrative. Alcohol and tobacco are, on any objective measure, worse things to have a dependance on than statins and cannabis.
  • Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Happens all the time - I support all British teams as they progress through the Champions League for instance. Sometimes with gritted teeth in fairness.
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you. By all means get them to stay at home, vote liberal or maybe ask them to lend you a vote. But no self respecting Labour voter could join a party in favour of things like universal credit and stand shoulder to shoulder with Mogg.

    JRM is not the leader of the party.

    You may well be surprised how many TM will collect off labour if they carry on down their chosen route with comrade Corbyn

    In fact if Hyfud is around he will no doubt be able give you figures of how many have already done it
    I don’t think such a thing will come us much a surprise. I’m sure the die of the 2022 Tory election win has already been cast by Labours leftist lurch.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    It's odd that both conferences seem to have had negative effects

    Is it? I think it was Southam saying they don't particularly recall conference 'bounces' ever being much of a thing. And to be honest both are in pretty bitter divides at the moment, albeit to different levels and on different issues, seeing them take centre stage isn't likely to see much approval I'd have thought, so either getting a bounce would be a surprising bonus as far as I can see.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She’s surely not saying come to the Conservatives because Labour are anti Semitic?
    I understand she is looking beyond brexit to centre ground policies
    That’s not mad at all. That’s quite sensible. If your opponents choose to voluntarily vacate key part of the battle map, seize and hold it.
    I am not sure that having a leader from the left necessarily means Labour have vacated the centre ground. The last Labour Party manifesto was pretty moderate, and if their recent conference is anything to go by the next one won't be too far different. And judging by what was coming out of the Tory conference, they seem to be heading in the same general direction as Labour is. I think we'll be coining an update of Butskellism soon. (I know this isn't what a lot of the more frothy mouthed commentators on here are saying.)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    Asking Labour voters to join the Tory party? We’re against the Tory party. We think it’s a bad thing. We don’t like May, Mogg and Boris. That’s why we vote against it. We want it out of office. We’re not going to join it.

    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Good for you Jon. But she don’t need to win over 10M of you, just shave off a million with centre ground policies v radical left manifesto would be enough.
    She’s clearly given up convincing her own party to back her. Desperate times.
    How is Corbyn doing on that score
    He's won. Some MPs moan a bit every now and then to assure themselves he hasn't, but he has.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Happens all the time - I support all British teams as they progress through the Champions League for instance. Sometimes with gritted teeth in fairness.
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you. By all means get them to stay at home, vote liberal or maybe ask them to lend you a vote. But no self respecting Labour voter could join a party in favour of things like universal credit and stand shoulder to shoulder with Mogg.

    I don't think a lot of Tories would either. Their party has been drifting away from their values for years now.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    Asking Labour voters to join the Tory party? We’re against the Tory party. We think it’s a bad thing. We don’t like May, Mogg and Boris. That’s why we vote against it. We want it out of office. We’re not going to join it.

    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Good for you Jon. But she don’t need to win over 10M of you, just shave off a million with centre ground policies v radical left manifesto would be enough.
    She’s clearly given up convincing her own party to back her. Desperate times.
    You mean the more Tories who voted for Blair, the more the crazy leftist views at this years Labour Conference was buried?
    Gordon Brown tried the same thing. It’s not what you do if you are confident. It’s was you do if you are desperate and maybe a little bit out of touch.
    Of course it is not. TM sees the shambles that is Corbyn's labour, the demands for a new centre party, and makes a pitch for those disaffected centre ground supporters

    Touche
  • viewcode said:

    There's a fresh post-conferences poll from Opinium, showing Labour 3 up over last week and the parties back on 39 each, as some of us expected. It's odd that both conferences seem to have had negative effects, but there may be some random variation in there, and essentially I don't think anything happened tochange many minds. What the poll does show is a decisive edge for May over Boris (although the figures are generally not great for either of them - curiously, Conservative voters see them both as more divisive than voters at large):

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/06/voters-back-trustworthy-theresa-may-boris-johnson-leadership-campaign

    Am I correct in thinking that in the short-term, the post-conference polls are exactly the same as the pre-conference polls?
    Seems so but TM approval has risen more than Corbyn's
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    It’s straight out of the Brown playbook.


    Mr Brown said: "I want us not to be in any way sectional but be a government that genuinely unifies the country.

    "The reason that people are fed up with the old politics of division is that people recognise that we face new challenges and these challenges need to be met in new and different ways."

    “People also recognise that there are new ideas that come from people with something to offer but are often from outside traditional politics and certainly outside one particular party," he said. "It's the responsibility of the Government and leaders to draw on these new ideas."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562012/Gordon-Browns-Tory-appeal-ignites-poll-fever.html

  • rcs1000 said:


    At least your not discounting these figures. I’ll agree it’s clearly not (with caveat though all these stats likely somewhat higher in reality rather than lower, we’ll never know the true picture).

    Do you agree these are massively high stats for drug problem and STD rates?

    is it liberal politicians and judges or Conservative politicians and judges who have the values to bring these %s down would you say?

    Look, we shouldn't have to argue about these things. Data will tell us the answer.

    1. Do more liberal countries have higher rates of STDs and drug use?
    2. Is there a correlation between a country becoming liberal and drug and STD rates increasing?

    We also have to control for an ageing population, as likelihood of being on prescription medication increases with age. Cohort analysis will also be very useful.

    Finally, we need to not remove data simply because it doesn't fit our narrative. Alcohol and tobacco are, on any objective measure, worse things to have a dependance on than statins and cannabis.
    Yes I am completely on board. What are the answers to questions one and two?

    Because anyone who feels 25% with untreatable STD and rising, And 1 in 10 with illegal Drug abuse problem and rising are stats that need reversing asap need to know who to vote for.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,237

    viewcode said:

    There's a fresh post-conferences poll from Opinium, showing Labour 3 up over last week and the parties back on 39 each, as some of us expected. It's odd that both conferences seem to have had negative effects, but there may be some random variation in there, and essentially I don't think anything happened tochange many minds. What the poll does show is a decisive edge for May over Boris (although the figures are generally not great for either of them - curiously, Conservative voters see them both as more divisive than voters at large):

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/06/voters-back-trustworthy-theresa-may-boris-johnson-leadership-campaign

    Am I correct in thinking that in the short-term, the post-conference polls are exactly the same as the pre-conference polls?
    Seems so but TM approval has risen more than Corbyn's
    Thank you
  • Jonathan said:

    It’s straight out of the Brown playbook.


    Mr Brown said: "I want us not to be in any way sectional but be a government that genuinely unifies the country.

    "The reason that people are fed up with the old politics of division is that people recognise that we face new challenges and these challenges need to be met in new and different ways."

    “People also recognise that there are new ideas that come from people with something to offer but are often from outside traditional politics and certainly outside one particular party," he said. "It's the responsibility of the Government and leaders to draw on these new ideas."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562012/Gordon-Browns-Tory-appeal-ignites-poll-fever.html

    You seem rather upset by it. It is called politics
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Happens all the time - I support all British teams as they progress through the Champions League for instance. Sometimes with gritted teeth in fairness.
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you. By all means get them to stay at home, vote liberal or maybe ask them to lend you a vote. But no self respecting Labour voter could join a party in favour of things like universal credit and stand shoulder to shoulder with Mogg.

    JRM is not the leader of the party.

    You may well be surprised how many TM will collect off labour if they carry on down their chosen route with comrade Corbyn

    In fact if Hyfud is around he will no doubt be able give you figures of how many have already done it
    Indeed, as I posted earlier 4% of 2017 Lab voters have switched to the Tories and 6% of LDs though 7% of Tories have switched to UKIP


    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nefkp5sk7j/Times_181001_VI_Results_w.pdf
  • HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Happens all the time - I support all British teams as they progress through the Champions League for instance. Sometimes with gritted teeth in fairness.
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you. By all means get them to stay at home, vote liberal or maybe ask them to lend you a vote. But no self respecting Labour voter could join a party in favour of things like universal credit and stand shoulder to shoulder with Mogg.

    JRM is not the leader of the party.

    You may well be surprised how many TM will collect off labour if they carry on down their chosen route with comrade Corbyn

    In fact if Hyfud is around he will no doubt be able give you figures of how many have already done it
    Indeed, as I posted earlier 4% of 2017 Lab voters have switched to the Tories and 6% of LDs though 7% of Tories have switched to UKIP


    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nefkp5sk7j/Times_181001_VI_Results_w.pdf
    I knew I could trust you to have the stats. Thanks
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    It’s straight out of the Brown playbook.


    Mr Brown said: "I want us not to be in any way sectional but be a government that genuinely unifies the country.

    "The reason that people are fed up with the old politics of division is that people recognise that we face new challenges and these challenges need to be met in new and different ways."

    “People also recognise that there are new ideas that come from people with something to offer but are often from outside traditional politics and certainly outside one particular party," he said. "It's the responsibility of the Government and leaders to draw on these new ideas."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562012/Gordon-Browns-Tory-appeal-ignites-poll-fever.html

    You seem rather upset by it. It is called politics
    No. Just depressed by the tedious predictability of it all. History repeats itself. If you think May is doing this because she is strong, I am depressed even more.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Happens all the time - I support all British teams as they progress through the Champions League for instance. Sometimes with gritted teeth in fairness.
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you. By all means get them to stay at home, vote liberal or maybe ask them to lend you a vote. But no self respecting Labour voter could join a party in favour of things like universal credit and stand shoulder to shoulder with Mogg.

    JRM is not the leader of the party.

    You may well be surprised how many TM will collect off labour if they carry on down their chosen route with comrade Corbyn

    In fact if Hyfud is around he will no doubt be able give you figures of how many have already done it
    Indeed, as I posted earlier 4% of 2017 Lab voters have switched to the Tories and 6% of LDs though 7% of Tories have switched to UKIP


    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nefkp5sk7j/Times_181001_VI_Results_w.pdf
    Though in that same survey, 3% of 2017 Con voters have switched to Labour and 2% of 2017 Con to LD.

    It looks to me to be a bit of churn with little or no net effect.
  • Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She’s surely not saying come to the Conservatives because Labour are anti Semitic?
    I understand she is looking beyond brexit to centre ground policies
    That’s not mad at all. That’s quite sensible. If your opponents choose to voluntarily vacate key part of the battle map, seize and hold it.
    I am not sure that having a leader from the left necessarily means Labour have vacated the centre ground. The last Labour Party manifesto was pretty moderate, and if their recent conference is anything to go by the next one won't be too far different. And judging by what was coming out of the Tory conference, they seem to be heading in the same general direction as Labour is. I think we'll be coining an update of Butskellism soon. (I know this isn't what a lot of the more frothy mouthed commentators on here are saying.)
    Have Labour ever had a top team and manifesto as left wing as this and won the centre ground and therefore power? When more left leaning Labour governments of 40s, 60s, 70s in power it’s been as a broad church sat around the cabinet table, a broad church together in the election campaigns, but here the moderates are nowhere. When New Labour got in it’s because the two top guys were centre right politicians.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612

    The ERG have blinked and look to sell out Northern Ireland.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1048676793283223552

    TSE this is a completely inaccurate interpretation of what they said. The ERG are talking about keeping NI within the UK internal market but saying that they would extend the existing arrangements where UK and EU customs staff help enforce each others rules. This is a sensible approach. Creating a regulatory border down the Irish Sea is not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Happens all the time - I support all British teams as they progress through the Champions League for instance. Sometimes with gritted teeth in fairness.
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you. By all means get them to stay at home, vote liberal or maybe ask them to lend you a vote. But no self respecting Labour voter could join a party in favour of things like universal credit and stand shoulder to shoulder with Mogg.

    JRM is not the leader of the party.

    You may well be surprised how many TM will collect off labour if they carry on down their chosen route with comrade Corbyn

    In fact if Hyfud is around he will no doubt be able give you figures of how many have already done it
    Indeed, as I posted earlier 4% of 2017 Lab voters have switched to the Tories and 6% of LDs though 7% of Tories have switched to UKIP


    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nefkp5sk7j/Times_181001_VI_Results_w.pdf
    I knew I could trust you to have the stats. Thanks
    Glad to be of help
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    I've just read Mrs May's appeal in the Observer - which needless to say isn't quite how some posters have portrayed it. It's quite good. The trouble is that although I would believe her and Phillip Hammond, the bulk of the Tory persona at the moment resemble the clientele of the Prancing Pony as portrayed in the Hobbit film. They don't look remotely like a good option for the moderate and patriotic voter.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/06/theresa-may-bids-for-centre-ground-with-appeal-to-labour-voters
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    edited October 2018

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She’s surely not saying come to the Conservatives because Labour are anti Semitic?
    I understand she is looking beyond brexit to centre ground policies
    That’s not mad at all. That’s quite sensible. If your opponents choose to voluntarily vacate key part of the battle map, seize and hold it.
    I am not sure that having a leader from the left necessarily means Labour have vacated the centre ground. The last Labour Party manifesto was pretty moderate, and if their recent conference is anything to go by the next one won't be too far different. And judging by what was coming out of the Tory conference, they seem to be heading in the same general direction as Labour is. I think we'll be coining an update of Butskellism soon. (I know this isn't what a lot of the more frothy mouthed commentators on here are saying.)
    Have Labour ever had a top team and manifesto as left wing as this and won the centre ground and therefore power? When more left leaning Labour governments of 40s, 60s, 70s in power it’s been as a broad church sat around the cabinet table, a broad church together in the election campaigns, but here the moderates are nowhere. When New Labour got in it’s because the two top guys were centre right politicians.
    I think that both Attlee and Wilson would find McDonnell 's nationalisation programme familiar, albeit not as ambitious as their own governments!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have more luck getting Chelsea fans to support Arsenal.
    Happens all the time - I support all British teams as they progress through the Champions League for instance. Sometimes with gritted teeth in fairness.
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you. By all means get them to stay at home, vote liberal or maybe ask them to lend you a vote. But no self respecting Labour voter could join a party in favour of things like universal credit and stand shoulder to shoulder with Mogg.

    JRM is not the leader of the party.

    You may well be surprised how many TM will collect off labour if they carry on down their chosen route with comrade Corbyn

    In fact if Hyfud is around he will no doubt be able give you figures of how many have already done it
    Indeed, as I posted earlier 4% of 2017 Lab voters have switched to the Tories and 6% of LDs though 7% of Tories have switched to UKIP


    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nefkp5sk7j/Times_181001_VI_Results_w.pdf
    Though in that same survey, 3% of 2017 Con voters have switched to Labour and 2% of 2017 Con to LD.

    It looks to me to be a bit of churn with little or no net effect.
    So still a net Lab and LD swing to Con then to somewhat counteract the net Con swing to UKIP
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    edited October 2018
    It is difficult to appeal to the Centre ground if you don't know where it is. Blair was superb in opposition at that.
    May, I think, is groping towards it, but there are a great many Tories who have no idea (see Boris' Thatcherite solutions). The centre post GFC and post GE 2017 has moved leftwards quite substantially.
    Labour's manifesto was popular. If you assert that rail and water nationalisation are loony, radical Left policies, you are, quite simply, out of touch with the electorate, who surveys say find them eminently reasonable.
    Sure, you can oppose them of course. But if you do so in the name of the Centre Ground, you are simply deluding yourself.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She’s surely not saying come to the Conservatives because Labour are anti Semitic?
    I understand she is looking beyond brexit to centre ground policies
    That’s not mad at all. That’s quite sensible. If your opponents choose to voluntarily vacate key part of the battle map, seize and hold it.
    I am not sure that having a leader from the left necessarily means Labour have vacated the centre ground. The last Labour Party manifesto was pretty moderate, and if their recent conference is anything to go by the next one won't be too far different. And judging by what was coming out of the Tory conference, they seem to be heading in the same general direction as Labour is. I think we'll be coining an update of Butskellism soon. (I know this isn't what a lot of the more frothy mouthed commentators on here are saying.)
    Have Labour ever had a top team and manifesto as left wing as this and won the centre ground and therefore power? When more left leaning Labour governments of 40s, 60s, 70s in power it’s been as a broad church sat around the cabinet table, a broad church together in the election campaigns, but here the moderates are nowhere. When New Labour got in it’s because the two top guys were centre right politicians.
    It didn't strike me as an especially left wing manifesto. The biggest problem I have with Labour at the moment is that the front bench are a bit lacking in experience and seem to be a bit short of brain power. But we only have two options at the moment and it's not as if the other option is vastly better. A slight edge at best.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited October 2018
    dixiedean said:

    It is difficult to appeal to the Centre ground if you don't know where it is. Blair was superb in opposition at that.
    May, I think, is groping towards it, but there are a great many Tories who have no idea (see Boris' Thatcherite solutions). The centre post GFC and post GE 2017 has moved leftwards quite substantially.
    Labour's manifesto was popular. If you assert that rail and water nationalisation are loony, radical Left policies, you are, quite simply, out of touch with the electorate, who surveys say find them eminently reasonable.
    Sure, you can oppose them of course. But if you do so in the name of the Centre Ground, you are simply deluding yourself.

    The current centre ground is pro nationalisation of utilities and the railways, anti low skilled immigration, tough on crime, wants reduced welfare, higher taxes on the rich but low inheritance tax, Brexit but with a Deal, more housing but not in their backyard and spoiling their view and more money for the NHS. It is neither right nor left but a mixture of populism from both
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    edited October 2018
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you.
    JRM is not the leader of the party.

    You may well be surprised how many TM will collect off labour if they carry on down their chosen route with comrade Corbyn

    In fact if Hyfud is around he will no doubt be able give you figures of how many have already done it
    Indeed, as I posted earlier 4% of 2017 Lab voters have switched to the Tories and 6% of LDs though 7% of Tories have switched to UKIP


    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nefkp5sk7j/Times_181001_VI_Results_w.pdf
    Though in that same survey, 3% of 2017 Con voters have switched to Labour and 2% of 2017 Con to LD.

    It looks to me to be a bit of churn with little or no net effect.
    So still a net Lab and LD swing to Con then to somewhat counteract the net Con swing to UKIP
    Not really,as 2% of 42% moving Con to LD is bigger than 6% of 8% moving LD to Con, so net roughly 0.5% of total electorate move Con to LD, and net 1% of 42% moving Lab to Con, once again about 0.5% of total electorate.

    In summary, a bit of churn but no net overall movement, and that matches the stasis over the last year.
  • I've just read Mrs May's appeal in the Observer - which needless to say isn't quite how some posters have portrayed it. It's quite good. The trouble is that although I would believe her and Phillip Hammond, the bulk of the Tory persona at the moment resemble the clientele of the Prancing Pony as portrayed in the Hobbit film. They don't look remotely like a good option for the moderate and patriotic voter.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/06/theresa-may-bids-for-centre-ground-with-appeal-to-labour-voters

    God awful analogy based on what Strider told the Hobbits. The extremely dodgy and dangerous looking guy in the corner is actually the future King of all Middle Earth.

    Anyway the movies were a bad director making a bad adaption of the book.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780

    rcs1000 said:


    At least your not discounting these figures. I’ll agree it’s clearly not (with caveat though all these stats likely somewhat higher in reality rather than lower, we’ll never know the true picture).

    Do you agree these are massively high stats for drug problem and STD rates?

    is it liberal politicians and judges or Conservative politicians and judges who have the values to bring these %s down would you say?

    Look, we shouldn't have to argue about these things. Data will tell us the answer.

    1. Do more liberal countries have higher rates of STDs and drug use?
    2. Is there a correlation between a country becoming liberal and drug and STD rates increasing?

    We also have to control for an ageing population, as likelihood of being on prescription medication increases with age. Cohort analysis will also be very useful.

    Finally, we need to not remove data simply because it doesn't fit our narrative. Alcohol and tobacco are, on any objective measure, worse things to have a dependance on than statins and cannabis.
    Yes I am completely on board. What are the answers to questions one and two?

    Because anyone who feels 25% with untreatable STD and rising, And 1 in 10 with illegal Drug abuse problem and rising are stats that need reversing asap need to know who to vote for.
    We also need to measure liberal vs conservative. One data set could be on attitude towards premarital sex, because that is available for multiple countries and states. Religoisity might also be good proxy. We could easily compare that to STD prevalence and understand if changing attitudes cause an increase in STDs.

    Other measures to look at - in terms of societal problems - are levels of teenage pregnancy and divorce rates.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Not really. Yes, it won't work (although frankly more people should consider it in either direction, as being 'against' Tories/Labour as part of one's core identity can be extremely silly when, if you look at the policies people support, sometimes it would make perfect sense even if they swear it would be terrible), and will provoke guffaws at best I have no doubt. But it also does no harm, it distracts from other things, and is a way to needle the opposition, albeit in minor fashion.

    It'd be mad if she thinks it will lead to an exodus from Labour to the Tories, or any significant amount in fact, but who is to say she would honestly expect that?
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Blatant appeal by TM to labour supporters to consider joining the conservative party in an article in the Observer tomorrow

    She must be mad.
    Why
    You’ll have
    Oh come on, it’s a hell of a stretch to get people who vote against you to join you.
    JRM is not the leader of the party.

    You may well be surprised how many TM will collect off labour if they carry on down their chosen route with comrade Corbyn

    In fact if Hyfud is around he will no doubt be able give you figures of how many have already done it
    Indeed, as I posted epdf
    Though in that same survey, 3% of 2017 Con voters have switched to Labour and 2% of 2017 Con to LD.

    It looks to me to be a bit of churn with little or no net effect.
    So still a net Lab and LD swing to Con then to somewhat counteract the net Con swing to UKIP
    Not really,as 2% of 42% moving Con to LD is bigger than 6% of 8% moving LD to Con, so net roughly 0.5% of total electorate move Con to LD, and net 1% of 42% moving Lab to Con, once again about 0.5% of total electorate.

    In summary, a bit of churn but no net overall movement, and that matches the stasis over the last year.
    7% of 2017 Tories are now voting UKIP, of course there has been net Labour and LD movement to the Tories otherwise how are the Tories still on 42% unless it is all coming from 2017 non voters?


  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    It is difficult to appeal to the Centre ground if you don't know where it is. Blair was superb in opposition at that.
    May, I think, is groping towards it, but there are a great many Tories who have no idea (see Boris' Thatcherite solutions). The centre post GFC and post GE 2017 has moved leftwards quite substantially.
    Labour's manifesto was popular. If you assert that rail and water nationalisation are loony, radical Left policies, you are, quite simply, out of touch with the electorate, who surveys say find them eminently reasonable.
    Sure, you can oppose them of course. But if you do so in the name of the Centre Ground, you are simply deluding yourself.

    The current centre ground is pro nationalisation of utilities and the railways, anti low skilled immigration, tough on crime, wants reduced welfare, higher taxes on the rich but low inheritance tax, Brexit but with a Deal, more housing but not in their backyard and spoiling their view and more money for the NHS. It is neither right nor left but a mixture of populism from both
    Well indeed. Am not arguing with any of that. Some of it is Labour policy, some Conservative. We have moved significantly, as a Nation, to the left economically, but to the right socially in recent years. All talk of what Blair or Thatcher did is essentially redundant as we live in a very different society.
    Their solutions are not the answers for now.
    But, if Conservatives intend to appeal to Labour voters by simply saying their economic policies are insane, then I fear that won't work. Do think May gets this, but I doubt her Cabinet, let alone MPs or membership will allow her to proceed along these lines and embrace the actual centre ground.
    The same applies to Corbyn too of course. He fails to get the crime, immigration welfare bit.
    We need younger, better leaders with fresh ideas.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900

    There's a fresh post-conferences poll from Opinium, showing Labour 3 up over last week and the parties back on 39 each, as some of us expected. It's odd that both conferences seem to have had negative effects ......

    It really isn't :-)
  • dixiedean said:

    It is difficult to appeal to the Centre ground if you don't know where it is. Blair was superb in opposition at that.
    May, I think, is groping towards it, but there are a great many Tories who have no idea (see Boris' Thatcherite solutions). The centre post GFC and post GE 2017 has moved leftwards quite substantially.
    Labour's manifesto was popular. If you assert that rail and water nationalisation are loony, radical Left policies, you are, quite simply, out of touch with the electorate, who surveys say find them eminently reasonable.
    Sure, you can oppose them of course. But if you do so in the name of the Centre Ground, you are simply deluding yourself.

    As the LordOfReason I oppose them on the grounds of Reason. And I don’t even need many words to dismantle rail privatisation and getting every centre ground voter shunning the proposal.

    The current set up is state and private investment into it. If there’s a radical change where the private investment disappears, what cost to the taxpayer and consumer?

    There it’s dead. Your not going to win votes trying to answer those questions at election time.

    Here’s the centre ground winning policy: still a mixture of public and finance money, but a change to give the state more influence, coordination, standardisation, without scaring off that private finance investment.

    Who’s deluded did you say?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited October 2018
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    It is difficult to appeal to the Centre ground if you don't know where it is. Blair was superb in opposition at that.
    May, I think, is groping towards it, but there are a great many Tories who have no idea (see Boris' Thatcherite solutions). The centre post GFC and post GE 2017 has moved leftwards quite substantially.
    Labour's manifesto was popular. If you assert that rail and water nationalisation are loony, radical Left policies, you are, quite simply, out of touch with the electorate, who surveys say find them eminently reasonable.
    Sure, you can oppose them of course. But if you do so in the name of the Centre Ground, you are simply deluding yourself.

    The current centre ground is pro nationalisation of utilities and the railways, anti low skilled immigration, tough on crime, wants reduced welfare, higher taxes on the rich but low inheritance tax, Brexit but with a Deal, more housing but not in their backyard and spoiling their view and more money for the NHS. It is neither right nor left but a mixture of populism from both
    Well indeed. Am not arguing with any of that. Some of it is Labour policy, some Conservative. We have moved significantly, as a Nation, to the left economically, but to the right socially in recent years. All talk of what Blair or Thatcher did is essentially redundant as we live in a very different society.
    Their solutions are not the answers for now.
    But, if Conservatives intend to appeal to Labour voters by simply saying their economic policies are insane, then I fear that won't work. Do think May gets this, but I doubt her Cabinet, let alone MPs or membership will allow her to proceed along these lines and embrace the actual centre ground.
    The same applies to Corbyn too of course. He fails to get the crime, immigration welfare bit.
    We need younger, better leaders with fresh ideas.
    Certainly since the coalition which was economically right but socially liberal, both May and Corbyn are more economically left, even May talked of the 'end of austerity' this week and Corbyn is socially more conservative than Ed Miliband was. The centre ground has shifted as a result reflecting the shift the Brexit vote created
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,267



    It didn't strike me as an especially left wing manifesto. The biggest problem I have with Labour at the moment is that the front bench are a bit lacking in experience and seem to be a bit short of brain power. But we only have two options at the moment and it's not as if the other option is vastly better. A slight edge at best.

    Wilson always used to argue that Labour was best led from the left (not that he was more than very mildly left-wing), since its USP was basic reformist idealism and if the leader was too centrist people didn't really believe you were actually reformist at all. Labour's front-bench problem is not really a lack of talent but a lack of familiarity - I know several of them who are highly competent and almost totally unknown (Sue Hayman, for example). The lasting effect of the Corbyn-PLP row has been that the familiar older faces like Yvette Cooper are not on the front bench.

    I think that there ought to be scope for a deal between the leadership and the more constructive centrists to the effect that they get welcomed back on the front bench in return for credible assurances that they're not going to stage another revolt this side of the GE. But we probably need Brexit to play out first.
  • Panelbase Holyrood Poll

    Today’s poll puts support for the SNP at Holyrood up one point since June to 41% in the constituency vote, with Ruth Davidson’s Conservatives down two points on 26% and Labour down three points to 21%. The Lib Dems are unchanged on 6%, Greens up one point to 3% and Ukip up two points to 2%. In the regional proportional representation vote, the SNP is on 35% (-1), ahead of the Tories on 26% (no change), Labour on 20% (-3), Lib Dems on 8% (+2), Greens on 7% (no change) and Ukip on 2% (+1) and others on 1%.

    It would translate into 56 Scottish parliament seats (down seven since the last election), which with six Green MSPs (unchanged) would still leave Sturgeon three seats short of an independence majority at Holyrood, with the Tories on 34 (+3), Labour on 26 (+2) and Lib Dems on 7 (+2).
  • Support for Scottish independence will grow to within touching distance of a majority in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to a new poll for The Sunday Times.

    The Panelbase survey of 1,024 voters in Scotland finds that backing for independence would rise from 45% in September 2014 to 48%, while support for the Union would fall from 55% to 52% if the UK left the EU without an agreement on future trading arrangements....

    ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    SNP commissioned survey by Survation finds support for Scottish independence rising from 46% to 52% if there is a No Deal Brexit with support for the Union falling from 54% to 48%
    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16966029.poll-1-50-of-scots-would-vote-for-independence-after-brexit/
  • The Panelbase poll puts support for independence at 44% (nc) and opposition at 56% (nc) changes since June....
  • Some 19% (no change) say another Indyref should be held while the UK is negotiating to leave the EU, 28% (+2) want one when the UK has finished negotiating to leave the EU and 53% (-2) say there should not be another one in the next few years.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842

    dixiedean said:

    It is difficult to appeal to the Centre ground if you don't know where it is. Blair was superb in opposition at that.
    May, I think, is groping towards it, but there are a great many Tories who have no idea (see Boris' Thatcherite solutions). The centre post GFC and post GE 2017 has moved leftwards quite substantially.
    Labour's manifesto was popular. If you assert that rail and water nationalisation are loony, radical Left policies, you are, quite simply, out of touch with the electorate, who surveys say find them eminently reasonable.
    Sure, you can oppose them of course. But if you do so in the name of the Centre Ground, you are simply deluding yourself.

    As the LordOfReason I oppose them on the grounds of Reason. And I don’t even need many words to dismantle rail privatisation and getting every centre ground voter shunning the proposal.

    The current set up is state and private investment into it. If there’s a radical change where the private investment disappears, what cost to the taxpayer and consumer?

    There it’s dead. Your not going to win votes trying to answer those questions at election time.

    Here’s the centre ground winning policy: still a mixture of public and finance money, but a change to give the state more influence, coordination, standardisation, without scaring off that private finance investment.

    Who’s deluded did you say?
    1 No one was calling you deluded. Unless you are arguing it as a centrist policy.
    2 The centre ground voter finds rail privatisation sensible. They are a long way from shunning it, even at election time. Lots and lots of work to do there dismantling it.
    3 Conservatives love simplistic appeals to Reason on economic matters. (Keynes always was a little more highbrow). Less so on social policy. Why should it be a matter for the State to determine who has sex with whom and what drugs they take provided they don't harm others? That is a purely emotional reaction. You still have failed to explain why the USA, with archaic abstinence-based attitudes to sex and drugs education has the high rates of drug taking and STDs you allude to, compared to say the Netherlands who focus on information and harm reduction?
  • dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    It is difficult to appeal to the Centre ground if you don't know where it is. Blair was superb in opposition at that.
    May, I think, is groping towards it, but there are a great many Tories who have no idea (see Boris' Thatcherite solutions). The centre post GFC and post GE 2017 has moved leftwards quite substantially.

    The current centre ground is pro nationalisation of utilities and the railways
    Well indeed. Am not arguing with any of that. Some of it is Labour policy, some Conservative. We have moved significantly, as a Nation, to the left economically, but to the right socially in recent years. All talk of what Blair or Thatcher did is essentially redundant as we live in a very different society.
    Their solutions are not the answers for now.
    I don’t think talk of what Blair and Thatcher done is redundant, I think it’s key.

    Thatcher and Major presided over the end of the post war consensus, Britain’s social market economy butchered. Even Super Mac complained it was selling off the family silver. Blair himself campaigned against rail privatisation shortly before coming PM. In many ways the privatisations were botched, energy for example.
    Blair and Brown had 13 years and healthy majorities, they presided over no change at all. They inherited Thatcherism, they delivered Thatcherism, warts and all to Cameron.

    Let’s be fair to Cameron, one day over breakfast he met energy customers who convinced him how bad the set up is, he then suggested, to put it briefly, unpicking the eighties and going back to the seventies, for one amazing day no one could come to a mic and explain what the governments energy policy was. next day it was back to same old no plan to change it.

    Another example of Thatcher and Majors legacy, reduction in progressive taxation, rise and spread in consumption and flat taxes. 13 years of New Labour hardly moved the dial on that either. In practice, in power, Blair and Brown were centre right.

    Meanwhile, back in the late fifties, Britain had never had it so good under the Conservatives, yet so much was nationalised, which didn’t sit well with some ideologues in their party, so they commissioned a report to inform privatisation policy. Needless to say the post war consensus survived the report.

    Winning politicians know What the centre ground voter wants is solutions that deliver, not ideology.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    edited October 2018

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    It is difficult to appeal to the Centre ground if you don't know where it is. Blair was superb in opposition at that.
    May, I think, is groping towards it, but there are a great many Tories who have no idea (see Boris' Thatcherite solutions). The centre post GFC and post GE 2017 has moved leftwards quite substantially.

    The current centre ground is pro nationalisation of utilities and the railways
    Well indeed. Am not arguing with any of that. Some of it is Labour policy, some Conservative. We have moved significantly, as a Nation, to the left economically, but to the right socially in recent years. All talk of what Blair or Thatcher did is essentially redundant as we live in a very different society.
    Their solutions are not the answers for now.
    I don’t think talk of what Blair and Thatcher done is redundant, I think it’s key.

    Thatcher and Major presided over the end of the post war consensus, Britain’s social market economy butchered. Even Super Mac complained it was selling off the family silver. Blair himself campaigned against rail privatisation shortly before coming PM. In many ways the privatisations were botched, energy for example.
    Blair and Brown had 13 years and healthy majorities, they presided over no change at all. They inherited Thatcherism, they delivered Thatcherism, warts and all to Cameron.

    Let’s be fair to Cameron, one day over breakfast he met energy customers who convinced him how bad the set up is, he then suggested, to put it briefly, unpicking the eighties and going back to the seventies, for one amazing day no one could come to a mic and explain what the governments energy policy was. next day it was back to same old no plan to change it.

    Another example of Thatcher and Majors legacy, reduction in progressive taxation, rise and spread in consumption and flat taxes. 13 years of New Labour hardly moved the dial on that either. In practice, in power, Blair and Brown were centre right.

    Meanwhile, back in the late fifties, Britain had never had it so good under the Conservatives, yet so much was nationalised, which didn’t sit well with some ideologues in their party, so they commissioned a report to inform privatisation policy. Needless to say the post war consensus survived the report.

    Winning politicians know What the centre ground voter wants is solutions that deliver, not ideology.
    Strangely enough, I could not agree with you more on your last paragraph there. Unfortunately, evidence based policy appears to have gone the way of the dodo. Suspect we wouldn't agree on the evidence anyway...Nice disagreeing with you, but I really need to sleep.
    Wish you and all a good night.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    Panelbase Holyrood Poll

    Today’s poll puts support for the SNP at Holyrood up one point since June to 41% in the constituency vote, with Ruth Davidson’s Conservatives down two points on 26% and Labour down three points to 21%. The Lib Dems are unchanged on 6%, Greens up one point to 3% and Ukip up two points to 2%. In the regional proportional representation vote, the SNP is on 35% (-1), ahead of the Tories on 26% (no change), Labour on 20% (-3), Lib Dems on 8% (+2), Greens on 7% (no change) and Ukip on 2% (+1) and others on 1%.

    It would translate into 56 Scottish parliament seats (down seven since the last election), which with six Green MSPs (unchanged) would still leave Sturgeon three seats short of an independence majority at Holyrood, with the Tories on 34 (+3), Labour on 26 (+2) and Lib Dems on 7 (+2).

    Davidson would hold the balance of power on those figures, Sturgeon would need her support to stay FM as the support of Harvie and the Greens would no longer be enough for a majority at Holyrood.
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:


    Labour's manifesto was popular. If you assert that rail and water nationalisation are loony, radical Left policies, you are, quite simply, out of touch with the electorate, who surveys say find them eminently reasonable.
    Sure, you can oppose them of course. But if you do so in the name of the Centre Ground, you are simply deluding yourself.

    The current set up is state and private investment into it. If there’s a radical change where the private investment disappears, what cost to the taxpayer and consumer?

    There it’s dead. Your not going to win votes trying to answer those questions at election time.

    Here’s the centre ground winning policy: still a mixture of public and finance money, but a change to give the state more influence, coordination, standardisation, without scaring off that private finance investment.

    Who’s deluded did you say?
    1 No one was calling you deluded. Unless you are arguing it as a centrist policy.
    2 The centre ground voter finds rail privatisation sensible. They are a long way from shunning it, even at election time. Lots and lots of work to do there dismantling it.
    3 Conservatives love simplistic appeals to Reason on economic matters. (Keynes always was a little more highbrow). Less so on social policy. Why should it be a matter for the State to determine who has sex with whom and what drugs they take provided they don't harm others? That is a purely emotional reaction. You still have failed to explain why the USA, with archaic abstinence-based attitudes to sex and drugs education has the high rates of drug taking and STDs you allude to, compared to say the Netherlands who focus on information and harm reduction?
    1.I’m glad you mentioned Keynes. You do know he was in bed with Nazi Germany? (That’s not a literal reference, though Keynes was homosexual and Germans are a funny race in some ways). But the point being the first part of both Nationisation and Nationstate, is Nation. nationalisation from an age of the Nation State. You cannot sell one on the doorstep without the other.
    2. The current set up is state and private investment into it. If there’s a radical change where the private investment disappears, what cost to the taxpayer and consumer. Good luck answering those questions at election time short of pointing to a magic money tree.
    3. 25% with untreatable STD and rising, And 1 in 10 with illegal Drug abuse problem and rising, what value set it takes to bring such shocking stats down, Conservative or liberal? Our data guru is on the question, I have every confidence he will deliver the killer facts. Far too soon for you to chuck your Wilhelm Reich collection at me in fit of pique.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:


    Labour's manifesto was popular. If you assert that rail and water nationalisation are loony, radical Left policies, you are, quite simply, out of touch with the electorate, who surveys say find them eminently reasonable.
    Sure, you can oppose them of course. But if you do so in the name of the Centre Ground, you are simply deluding yourself.

    The current set up is state and private investment into it. If there’s a radical change where the private investment disappears, what cost to the taxpayer and consumer?

    There it’s dead. Your not going to win votes trying to answer those questions at election time.

    Here’s the centre ground winning policy: still a mixture of public and finance money, but a change to give the state more influence, coordination, standardisation, without scaring off that private finance investment.

    Who’s deluded did you say?
    1 No one was calling you deluded. Unless you are arguing it as a centrist policy.
    2 The centre ground voter finds rail privatisation sensible. They are a long way from shunning it, even at election time. Lots and lots of work to do there dismantling it.
    3 Conservatives love simplistic appeals to Reason on economic matters. (Keynes always was a little more highbrow). Less so on social policy. Why should it be a matter for the State to determine who has sex with whom and what drugs they take provided they don't harm others? That is a purely emotional reaction. You still have failed to explain why the USA, with archaic abstinence-based attitudes to sex and drugs education has the high rates of drug taking and STDs you allude to, compared to say the Netherlands who focus on information and harm reduction?
    1.I’m glad you mentioned Keynes. You do know he was in bed with Nazi Germany? (That’s not a literal reference, though Keynes was homosexual and Germans are a funny race in some ways). But the point being the first part of both Nationisation and Nationstate, is Nation. nationalisation from an age of the Nation State. You cannot sell one on the doorstep without the other.
    2. The current set up is state and private investment into it. If there’s a radical change where the private investment disappears, what cost to the taxpayer and consumer. Good luck answering those questions at election time short of pointing to a magic money tree.
    3. 25% with untreatable STD and rising, And 1 in 10 with illegal Drug abuse problem and rising, what value set it takes to bring such shocking stats down, Conservative or liberal? Our data guru is on the question, I have every confidence he will deliver the killer facts. Far too soon for you to chuck your Wilhelm Reich collection at me in fit of pique.
    What is wrong with being homosexual? Reason,not emotion now.
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:


    Labour's manifesto was popular. If you assert that rail and water nationalisation are loony, radical Left policies, you are, quite simply, out of touch with the electorate, who surveys say find them eminently reasonable.
    Sure, you can oppose them of course. But if you do so in the name of the Centre Ground, you are simply deluding yourself.

    The current set up is state and private investment into it. If there’s a radical change where the private investment disappears, what cost to the taxpayer and consumer?

    There it’s dead. Your not going to win votes trying to answer those questions at election time.

    Here’s the centre ground winning policy: still a mixture of public and finance money, but a change to give the state more influence, coordination, standardisation, without scaring off that private finance investment.

    Who’s deluded did you say?
    3 Conservatives love simplistic appeals to Reason on economic matters. (Keynes always was a little more highbrow). Less so on social policy. Why should it be a matter for the State to determine who has sex with whom and what drugs they take provided they don't harm others? That is a purely emotional reaction. You still have failed to explain why the USA, with archaic abstinence-based attitudes to sex and drugs education has the high rates of drug taking and STDs you allude to, compared to say the Netherlands who focus on information and harm reduction?
    1.I’m glad you mentioned Keynes. You do know he was in bed with Nazi Germany? (That’s not a literal reference, though Keynes was homosexual and Germans are a funny race in some ways). But the point being the first part of both Nationisation and Nationstate, is Nation. nationalisation from an age of the Nation State. You cannot sell one on the doorstep without the other.
    2. The current set up is state and private investment into it. If there’s a radical change where the private investment disappears, what cost to the taxpayer and consumer. Good luck answering those questions at election time short of pointing to a magic money tree.
    3. 25% with untreatable STD and rising, And 1 in 10 with illegal Drug abuse problem and rising, what value set it takes to bring such shocking stats down, Conservative or liberal? Our data guru is on the question, I have every confidence he will deliver the killer facts. Far too soon for you to chuck your Wilhelm Reich collection at me in fit of pique.
    What is wrong with being homosexual? Reason,not emotion now.
    Nothing. I was just clarifying he wasn’t literally in bed with particular Germans, only helping the Nazi regime to thrive.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780
    @LordOfReason:

    OK. I've taken data on STD Prevalence from http://backgroundchecks.org/these-are-the-most-sexually-diseased-states-in-the-us.html and on how liberal/conservative a state is from http://www.newgeography.com/content/004120-the-geography-cultural-attitudes

    And you are right, there is a correlation*.

    The more conservative a state is, the higher the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.

    image

    I'm happy to send you the Excel sheet, or to try this same exercise using different measures of conservative/liberal, or do it on an international basis. Right now, however, the data not only does not support your contention (I thought it would be fairly random), but directly contradicts it.

    * Albeit a fairly weak one
  • rcs1000 said:

    @LordOfReason:

    OK. I've taken data on STD Prevalence from http://backgroundchecks.org/these-are-the-most-sexually-diseased-states-in-the-us.html and on how liberal/conservative a state is from http://www.newgeography.com/content/004120-the-geography-cultural-attitudes

    And you are right, there is a correlation*.

    The more conservative a state is, the higher the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.

    image

    I'm happy to send you the Excel sheet, or to try this same exercise using different measures of conservative/liberal, or do it on an international basis. Right now, however, the data not only does not support your contention (I thought it would be fairly random), but directly contradicts it.

    * Albeit a fairly weak one

    Thank you for the work. It’s out there for all to see. The power of data analysis.

    The conclusion for policy would be, frown upon education and restricting tools for protection leads to a bigger problem? Similar to when liberals say, make it illegal and drive it underground just makes it harder to deal with?

    And maybe Making it sin just makes it more exciting?


  • It didn't strike me as an especially left wing manifesto. The biggest problem I have with Labour at the moment is that the front bench are a bit lacking in experience and seem to be a bit short of brain power. But we only have two options at the moment and it's not as if the other option is vastly better. A slight edge at best.

    Wilson always used to argue that Labour was best led from the left (not that he was more than very mildly left-wing), since its USP was basic reformist idealism and if the leader was too centrist people didn't really believe you were actually reformist at all. Labour's front-bench problem is not really a lack of talent but a lack of familiarity - I know several of them who are highly competent and almost totally unknown (Sue Hayman, for example). The lasting effect of the Corbyn-PLP row has been that the familiar older faces like Yvette Cooper are not on the front bench.

    I think that there ought to be scope for a deal between the leadership and the more constructive centrists to the effect that they get welcomed back on the front bench in return for credible assurances that they're not going to stage another revolt this side of the GE. But we probably need Brexit to play out first.
    So who gets dumped in order to squeeze token moderates onto the ticket? And as Mc D said, where would be the fairness in that?

    As I remember, when everyone from Eagle to Nandy walked out, in the rioting sunlight after Brexit vote, it was triggered by the dismissal of Benn, but driven by decision making not consensual enough. So, without that changing, what exactly is in it for the moderate to return, sit there, quietly, with a straight face and Hamas flag draped over her head, whilst Sectoral collective bargaining, scrapping of nuclear deterrent, segregation on trains, etc etc added to manifesto for her to go out and sell on doorsteps and into cameras? Certainly nothing for her credibility!
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    rcs1000 said:

    @LordOfReason:

    OK. I've taken data on STD Prevalence from http://backgroundchecks.org/these-are-the-most-sexually-diseased-states-in-the-us.html and on how liberal/conservative a state is from http://www.newgeography.com/content/004120-the-geography-cultural-attitudes

    And you are right, there is a correlation*.

    The more conservative a state is, the higher the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.

    image

    I'm happy to send you the Excel sheet, or to try this same exercise using different measures of conservative/liberal, or do it on an international basis. Right now, however, the data not only does not support your contention (I thought it would be fairly random), but directly contradicts it.

    * Albeit a fairly weak one

    FWIW I would have thought that the correlation shown by this pattern would not be statistically significant but maybe you can confirm.

    The obvious issue here is that if 'liberal' states are wealthier than 'conservative' states (and I am assuming this must be the case in the US on a state by state basis) then medical intervention is likely to be higher in liberal states which would skew this analysis. I expect there would be a correlation between STD prevalence and poverty as well.

    Overall, the whole argument just seems a bit absurd!
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612

    Support for Scottish independence will grow to within touching distance of a majority in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to a new poll for The Sunday Times.

    The Panelbase survey of 1,024 voters in Scotland finds that backing for independence would rise from 45% in September 2014 to 48%, while support for the Union would fall from 55% to 52% if the UK left the EU without an agreement on future trading arrangements....

    ...

    Hard Brexit is the end of Scottish independence. Apart from the fact that Scotland would have to leave the UK, apply to join the EU (taking a few years) and adopt the Euro, they would also need a hard border between Scotland and England which would finish off the Scottish economy in a second. Once the reality of this hits home, the whole idea will evaporate.

    See - Hard Brexit saves the Union :)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited October 2018
    "China has designs on Europe. Here is how Europe should respond

    As Chinese investment pours into the European Union, the Europeans are beginning to worry"

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/10/04/china-has-designs-on-europe-here-is-how-europe-should-respond
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780

    rcs1000 said:

    @LordOfReason:

    OK. I've taken data on STD Prevalence from http://backgroundchecks.org/these-are-the-most-sexually-diseased-states-in-the-us.html and on how liberal/conservative a state is from http://www.newgeography.com/content/004120-the-geography-cultural-attitudes

    And you are right, there is a correlation*.

    The more conservative a state is, the higher the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.

    image

    I'm happy to send you the Excel sheet, or to try this same exercise using different measures of conservative/liberal, or do it on an international basis. Right now, however, the data not only does not support your contention (I thought it would be fairly random), but directly contradicts it.

    * Albeit a fairly weak one

    FWIW I would have thought that the correlation shown by this pattern would not be statistically significant but maybe you can confirm.

    The obvious issue here is that if 'liberal' states are wealthier than 'conservative' states (and I am assuming this must be the case in the US on a state by state basis) then medical intervention is likely to be higher in liberal states which would skew this analysis. I expect there would be a correlation between STD prevalence and poverty as well.

    Overall, the whole argument just seems a bit absurd!
    There is a correlation, albeit a fairly weak one. If you pick two states at random, there is a 85% chance the more liberal one has a lower STD incidence.

    My hypothesis, and I have no data to back this up, is that "abstinence only" sex education reduces the amount of sex people have, but this effect is swamped by lower usage of condoms
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Brexiteers have issued a last-ditch threat to vote down the budget and destroy the government unless Theresa May takes a tougher line with Brussels — amid signs that she is on course to secure a deal with the European Union.

    Leading members of the hardline European Research Group (ERG) last night vowed to vote down government legislation


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexiteers-threaten-to-sabotage-the-budget-vg7c9zgmh
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @LordOfReason:

    OK. I've taken data on STD Prevalence from http://backgroundchecks.org/these-are-the-most-sexually-diseased-states-in-the-us.html and on how liberal/conservative a state is from http://www.newgeography.com/content/004120-the-geography-cultural-attitudes

    And you are right, there is a correlation*.

    The more conservative a state is, the higher the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.

    image

    I'm happy to send you the Excel sheet, or to try this same exercise using different measures of conservative/liberal, or do it on an international basis. Right now, however, the data not only does not support your contention (I thought it would be fairly random), but directly contradicts it.

    * Albeit a fairly weak one

    FWIW I would have thought that the correlation shown by this pattern would not be statistically significant but maybe you can confirm.

    The obvious issue here is that if 'liberal' states are wealthier than 'conservative' states (and I am assuming this must be the case in the US on a state by state basis) then medical intervention is likely to be higher in liberal states which would skew this analysis. I expect there would be a correlation between STD prevalence and poverty as well.

    Overall, the whole argument just seems a bit absurd!
    There is a correlation, albeit a fairly weak one. If you pick two states at random, there is a 85% chance the more liberal one has a lower STD incidence.

    My hypothesis, and I have no data to back this up, is that "abstinence only" sex education reduces the amount of sex people have, but this effect is swamped by lower usage of condoms
    I like your hypothesis. :) I’m glad we have ended up on the same side, as I never argue with proper data analysis.
    But for some this whole thing is a bit of a revelatory volteface? Walk on the wild side, vote Conservative. And The Liberals are now, as Ovid put it, those “who wear hairbands and ankle-length skirts”.

    But the bottom line is to discover cause and effect to assist policy makers? My brainwave is, rather than extrapolate this research to an Ishikawa fishbone, build it onto something totally original: a French tickler diagram.

    After all this thread has already shown us a flangetastic two storey vulva, now as we reach something of an orgone conclusion (Wilhelm Reich could be doing something in his grave right now, something necessary) - it could be future generations of policy makers and voters thank us for this moment. This could usher in the sixties all over again. As pop culture would dub it, the whoring twenties.

    It was a joint effort wasn’t it?
This discussion has been closed.