Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » No Leader of the Opposition has rated even nearly as badly as

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 6 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » No Leader of the Opposition has rated even nearly as badly as Corbyn and become Prime Minister. An analysis into the satisfaction ratings of leaders of the opposition

The Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition is a position of great responsibility and impotence. It is traditionally the delicate art of attention grabbing, agenda setting, holding the government to account, and providing an inspiring alternative vision for government on the major issues of the day. Or if all that fails (unkind commentators might suggest that not all the holders of the office have achieved all of those objectives) at least try not to get people to remember to hate you more than the Prime Minister.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Superb work Corporeal, much appreciated.
  • Was that an e pluribus unum?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,060

    Was that an e pluribus unum?

    Where’s that judge-led inquiry?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641
    edited January 6
    Please tell me that first sentence is deliberate! It's perfect!

    Although Corbyn may not appreciate having his manhood questioned as well...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,971
    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,060
    ydoethur said:

    Please tell me that first sentence is deliberate! It's perfect!

    Although Corbyn may not appreciate having his manhood questioned as well...

    Hah, but indeed true.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,249
    Fpt:
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Sean_F said:

    It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

    And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
    The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
    We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
    Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).

    And that’s just for the apperitif.
    In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.

    The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.

    It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.

    Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.

    We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
    Tell 20% unemployment Greece and 16% unemployment Spain and 11% unemployment Italy how well the Euro is working out for them? Our unemployment rate is just 4%
    It would have been a different currency if we had joined it. And we'd have had more influence on the decisions.
    Frankly, I suspect it might have fallen apart in the aftermath of 2008 had we been members of the Eurozone.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,037
    I think this is the best thread header of the day. Perhaps we won’t have to live in a People’s Republic after all.
  • ydoethur said:

    Please tell me that first sentence is deliberate! It's perfect!

    Although Corbyn may not appreciate having his manhood questioned as well...

    Can you tell that

    1) For many years I've encouraged Corporeal to write threads for PB

    2) I was the publisher/editor of these threads
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,356
    Mortimer said:

    Fpt:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Sean_F said:

    It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

    And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
    The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
    We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
    Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).

    And that’s just for the apperitif.
    In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.

    The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.

    It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.

    Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.

    We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
    Tell 20% unemployment Greece and 16% unemployment Spain and 11% unemployment Italy how well the Euro is working out for them? Our unemployment rate is just 4%
    It would have been a different currency if we had joined it. And we'd have had more influence on the decisions.
    Frankly, I suspect it might have fallen apart in the aftermath of 2008 had we been members of the Eurozone.
    Who knows. Economics is a mystery to all of us, especially economists. But it is a political project and I suspect the political willpower would have carried it though.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,834
    Still 9 points down on Miliband.

    But then, Corbyn does not deserve to be PM.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 73,219
    edited January 6
    RoyalBlue said:

    I think this is the best thread header of the day. Perhaps we won’t have to live in a People’s Republic after all.

    I know a few Leavers convinced that No Deal ensures a Corbyn Premiership.

    I think this is why Gove and others are backing the deal.

    The legacy of JRM, IDS, and the ERG might well be enable a Corbyn Premiership.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,536
    ydoethur said:

    Please tell me that first sentence is deliberate! It's perfect!

    Although Corbyn may not appreciate having his manhood questioned as well...

    I spent a lot of time hashing through different versions to get to that one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641
    corporeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    Please tell me that first sentence is deliberate! It's perfect!

    Although Corbyn may not appreciate having his manhood questioned as well...

    I spent a lot of time hashing through different versions to get to that one.
    Well, unlike Corbyn's leadership, it didn't flop.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,834
    Excellent body of work, Corporeal. Many thanks.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,039
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Sean_F said:

    It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

    And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
    The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
    We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
    Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).

    And that’s just for the apperitif.
    In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.

    The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.

    It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.

    Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.

    We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
    Tell 20% unemployment Greece and 16% unemployment Spain and 11% unemployment Italy how well the Euro is working out for them? Our unemployment rate is just 4%
    It would have been a different currency if we had joined it. And we'd have had more influence on the decisions.
    Frankly, I suspect it might have fallen apart in the aftermath of 2008 had we been members of the Eurozone.
    Gordon Brown could have saved the world Euro.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    Great interactive charts Corporeal!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641
    edited January 6
    RoyalBlue said:
    I very much doubt if this is correct. As I recall the Parliament Act 1911 was put forward four times, and the European Elections Act 1998 put forward six times.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,536

    ydoethur said:

    Please tell me that first sentence is deliberate! It's perfect!

    Although Corbyn may not appreciate having his manhood questioned as well...

    Can you tell that

    1) For many years I've encouraged Corporeal to write threads for PB

    2) I was the publisher/editor of these threads
    TSE is the Svengali to my humble Trilby.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    Kinnock had to gain too many seats in one election to win in 1992. Any insider will tell you that, politicians have to claim they will win outright when it is patently obvious to those on the inside they are being economical with the truth.

    The basic rule of thumb for Labour or the Tories is 70 target seats where they actually concentrate resources and time. The rest are paper targets that are welcome if they win them but ignored by much of the campaign machinery. Occasionally an election will see an opposition party gain more seats than the 70 they target. 1997 and 2010 are examples of this process where the main opposition party make substantial gains.
  • corporeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    Please tell me that first sentence is deliberate! It's perfect!

    Although Corbyn may not appreciate having his manhood questioned as well...

    Can you tell that

    1) For many years I've encouraged Corporeal to write threads for PB

    2) I was the publisher/editor of these threads
    TSE is the Svengali to my humble Trilby.
    I like to think I'm the Tenzing Norgay to your Sir Edmund Hillary.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641
    edited January 6

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    Kinnock had to gain too many seats in one election to win in 1992. Any insider will tell you that, politicians have to claim they will win outright when it is patently obvious to those on the inside they are being economical with the truth.

    The basic rule of thumb for Labour or the Tories is 70 target seats where they actually concentrate resources and time. The rest are paper targets that are welcome if they win them but ignored by much of the campaign machinery. Occasionally an election will see an opposition party gain more seats than the 70 they target. 1997 and 2010 are examples of this process where the main opposition party make substantial gains.
    Even so, he considerably outperformed the UNS. If Kinnock had taken seats proportionate to his rise in votes, Major would have had a majority of 77, and it's not hard to imagine the history of his premiership might have been somewhat different. For a start, Maastricht would have been much easier to pass.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    I very much doubt if this is correct. As I recall the Parliament Act 1911 was put forward four times, and the European Elections Act 1998 put forward six times.
    I think you are talking about a different situation - namely where the Lords try to block legislation which the HoC has passed. (That's the case with the European Elections Act 1999 anyway).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 23,622
    Thanks for a very informative trio of articles, @Corporeal.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    I very much doubt if this is correct. As I recall the Parliament Act 1911 was put forward four times, and the European Elections Act 1998 put forward six times.
    I think you are talking about a different situation - namely where the Lords try to block legislation which the HoC has passed. (That's the case with the European Elections Act 1999 anyway).
    Which means May has another option nobody is considering - she could introduce this in the Lords.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 7,661
    Thank you Corporeal - some very interesting analysis.

    If John McDonnell is reading this thread I imagine there is a smile on his face...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641

    Thank you Corporeal - some very interesting analysis.

    If John McDonnell is reading this thread I imagine there is a smile on his face...

    Do you mind? Some of us have eaten in the last twelve hours,
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,060
    Yes, thanks for the header Corporeal!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 18,574
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    I very much doubt if this is correct. As I recall the Parliament Act 1911 was put forward four times, and the European Elections Act 1998 put forward six times.
    I think you are talking about a different situation - namely where the Lords try to block legislation which the HoC has passed. (That's the case with the European Elections Act 1999 anyway).
    Which means May has another option nobody is considering - she could introduce this in the Lords.
    You think May would find a majority in the Lords!?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,834

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    I very much doubt if this is correct. As I recall the Parliament Act 1911 was put forward four times, and the European Elections Act 1998 put forward six times.
    I think you are talking about a different situation - namely where the Lords try to block legislation which the HoC has passed. (That's the case with the European Elections Act 1999 anyway).
    Which means May has another option nobody is considering - she could introduce this in the Lords.
    You think May would find a majority in the Lords!?
    But it would run down the clock.

    Tick, tock......
  • MJWMJW Posts: 550
    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    It's an interesting question that's rather been masked by the focus on Brexit (and its electoral effects) and the Tories own ineptness - was there an element to Labour's 2017 surge that was people taking a free hit at a government liberal voters didn't like and that made itself look dreadful during the campaign? Would the same people vote to make Corbyn PM rather than to deny the Tories hegemony? Currently the problem for Labour is that Corbyn's divisiveness means they have a lower ceiling than most oppositions do - they can cobble together a winning coalition just with people who don't like Corbyn but hate the Tories or Brexit more, but if they start peeling off, get fed up or have second thoughts, Labour is in big trouble. Hence why the big plan at the moment appears to be to sit on their hands and hope the Tories eviscerate themselves (by no means an idle hope, but one with a poor history of succeeding).
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    Kinnock had to gain too many seats in one election to win in 1992. Any insider will tell you that, politicians have to claim they will win outright when it is patently obvious to those on the inside they are being economical with the truth.

    The basic rule of thumb for Labour or the Tories is 70 target seats where they actually concentrate resources and time. The rest are paper targets that are welcome if they win them but ignored by much of the campaign machinery. Occasionally an election will see an opposition party gain more seats than the 70 they target. 1997 and 2010 are examples of this process where the main opposition party make substantial gains.
    Even so, he considerably outperformed the UNS. If Kinnock had taken seats proportionate to his rise in votes, Major would have had a majority of 77, and it's not hard to imagine the history of his premiership might have been somewhat different. For a start, Maastricht would have been much easier to pass.
    True, I think tactical voting was partly responsible for the majority of 21.

    The press turned against the Tories in the end and that was the real killer for them post 1992. Given Tony Blairs perpetual courtship and obsession with the media and its management I think the impact of the loss of the media to the Tories after 1992 is undervalued. Compare the current divisions in the Conservative Party, which are much more stark and damaging. The Conservatives are supported in office by the media at this time. It is not the voters the Tories are afraid of but the media turning on them once again over Brexit.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,840
    RoyalBlue said:
    If I'm correct that most MP's see advantage from No Deal, that's what it will be.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,889
    Evening all :)

    First, thanks to Corporeal for a superb series of threads today. I'm not sure I entirely agree with all the premise but it's a more than valid argument.

    Needless to say, IF Labour had a scintilla of political nous it would dump Corbyn at once but the Conservatives never dumped Hague and took over two years to dump IDS so there can be none as blind and deaf as political parties on occasion (and before anyone chips in, Vince Cable is another good example).

    To nitpick slightly, I wonder, had he lived, where John Smith's rating would have ended in 1997 - not as high as Blair's perhaps but higher than shown. Given Major's huge unpopularity, it might not have mattered.

    As I've asked before, what props up the 40% Conservative vote share? Fear of or antipathy toward Corbyn - to an extent. We've seen the hypothetical polling showing supporting Brexit might do to Labour - I'd love to see some polling showing what revoking A50 would do to the Conservative share.

    IF the WA falls in the Commons, despite May continuing to play Project Fear wittering on about "uncharted waters" this morning, we move toward a No Deal and we will see how unprepared Government really is and it's the lack of preparation for which May and her Ministers need to be held accountable.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,536
    As before, a few extra charts being thrown out on my twitter.

    https://twitter.com/PBcorporeal
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,356
    Why would he lie about not knowing who And and Dec are?
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,536

    Great interactive charts Corporeal!

    Thanks, I love using them.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 13,610
    Thanks for the 3 pieces Corporeal.

    Not entirely off topic, an interesting programme on R4 about the history of polling, including contributions by Sir John Curtice, has just finished, The Forum if you're looking for it on Iplayer.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    I very much doubt if this is correct. As I recall the Parliament Act 1911 was put forward four times, and the European Elections Act 1998 put forward six times.
    I think you are talking about a different situation - namely where the Lords try to block legislation which the HoC has passed. (That's the case with the European Elections Act 1999 anyway).
    Which means May has another option nobody is considering - she could introduce this in the Lords.
    Er?? How does that help? It still has to pass in the HoC.

    Tbf I think the Independent is wrong, the rule against reintroducing a defeated motion in the same session of the HoC only applies to Bills, not to this meaningful vote IIUIC.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 29,045
    Interesting trio of threads, Corporeal. Many thanks!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,840
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    First, thanks to Corporeal for a superb series of threads today. I'm not sure I entirely agree with all the premise but it's a more than valid argument.



    As I've asked before, what props up the 40% Conservative vote share? Fear of or antipathy toward Corbyn - to an extent. We've seen the hypothetical polling showing supporting Brexit might do to Labour - I'd love to see some polling showing what revoking A50 would do to the Conservative share.

    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 29,045
    FPT


    Richard, I'm fluent in French and German, which are two of the six languages I'm fluent in.

    [Swaggering] That's nothing! I have GCSE A-grades in French and German :)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    RoyalBlue said:
    I think that only applies to bills - this is not a bill.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,889
    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,840
    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    If I had to guess, I expect a hypothetical poll would be something like Lab 40%, Con 25%, UKIP 15%.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,741
    edited January 6
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,204

    Great interactive charts Corporeal!

    +1
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,971
    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,356
    AndyJS said:
    It's just one guy's opinion though. I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that economics and identity are both important motivators which are sometimes in conflict. But he doesn't have any insight into how it plays out.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,971
    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,971

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    Kinnock had to gain too many seats in one election to win in 1992. Any insider will tell you that, politicians have to claim they will win outright when it is patently obvious to those on the inside they are being economical with the truth.

    The basic rule of thumb for Labour or the Tories is 70 target seats where they actually concentrate resources and time. The rest are paper targets that are welcome if they win them but ignored by much of the campaign machinery. Occasionally an election will see an opposition party gain more seats than the 70 they target. 1997 and 2010 are examples of this process where the main opposition party make substantial gains.
    On today's YouGov it is the Tories who would gain seats not Labour as Labour Remainers move to the LDs
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
    You are making the gigantic assumption that the Deal and No Deal MPs could be persuaded to vote together for a referendum. Not happening.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,971
    MJW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    It's an interesting question that's rather been masked by the focus on Brexit (and its electoral effects) and the Tories own ineptness - was there an element to Labour's 2017 surge that was people taking a free hit at a government liberal voters didn't like and that made itself look dreadful during the campaign? Would the same people vote to make Corbyn PM rather than to deny the Tories hegemony? Currently the problem for Labour is that Corbyn's divisiveness means they have a lower ceiling than most oppositions do - they can cobble together a winning coalition just with people who don't like Corbyn but hate the Tories or Brexit more, but if they start peeling off, get fed up or have second thoughts, Labour is in big trouble. Hence why the big plan at the moment appears to be to sit on their hands and hope the Tories eviscerate themselves (by no means an idle hope, but one with a poor history of succeeding).
    The closer Brexit day dawns the less easy it becomes for Labour to sit on its hands without losing votes for refusing to push EUref2
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,971
    edited January 6

    And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.

    Since when is Labour being down 6% from 2017 to just 34% today evidence of 'Labour's polling is remarkably resilient'?

    There is no loss of Tory support to the LDs, the movement is from Labour to the LDs
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 29,045

    And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.

    That's just the Corbynista in you talking :)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,971
    edited January 6

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
    You are making the gigantic assumption that the Deal and No Deal MPs could be persuaded to vote together for a referendum. Not happening.
    Why not? As long as Remain is not an option I believe they could. Not one of them now backs EUref2 with a Remain option.


    Given neither the Deal nor EUref2 have the 326 MPs backing them needed for a majority according to Rentoul but a majority do back the Deal or No Deal that may be a way out
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    edited January 6
    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    HYUFD said:

    And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.

    Since when is Labour being down 6% from 2017 to just 34% today evidence of 'Labour's polling is remarkably resilient'?

    There is no loss of Tory support to the LDs, the movement is from Labour to the LDs

    And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.

    That's just the Corbynista in you talking :)
    Unlike your bar charts that’s still funny. 😂
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,039
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
    You are making the gigantic assumption that the Deal and No Deal MPs could be persuaded to vote together for a referendum. Not happening.
    Why not? As long as Remain is not an option I believe they could. Not one of them now backs EUref2 with a Remain option.
    That's totally wrong. The Lib Dems tabled an amendment to back the deal subject to a people's vote with the option to Remain.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    HYUFD said:

    And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.

    Since when is Labour being down 6% from 2017 to just 34% today evidence of 'Labour's polling is remarkably resilient'?

    There is no loss of Tory support to the LDs, the movement is from Labour to the LDs

    Polls fluctuate over time and are often wrong. Treating the latest as gospel is unbelievably naive, particularly given what happened in the last election.

    I didn’t say there was a loss of support. I said there could be. Given the number of Tory Remain MPs threatening to resign the whip and Grieve openly speculating about Brexit leading to a split in the Tory Party, I think your complacency is worryingly naive.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,889
    HYUFD said:


    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May

    Apart from the fact she has repeatedly and explicitly ruled out a Second Referendum but then of course she repeatedly and explicitly ruled out calling a GE in late 2016 and early 2017 so we all know how much her "pledges" and "commitments" are really worth.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,195

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    Kinnock had to gain too many seats in one election to win in 1992. Any insider will tell you that, politicians have to claim they will win outright when it is patently obvious to those on the inside they are being economical with the truth.

    The basic rule of thumb for Labour or the Tories is 70 target seats where they actually concentrate resources and time. The rest are paper targets that are welcome if they win them but ignored by much of the campaign machinery. Occasionally an election will see an opposition party gain more seats than the 70 they target. 1997 and 2010 are examples of this process where the main opposition party make substantial gains.
    Even so, he considerably outperformed the UNS. If Kinnock had taken seats proportionate to his rise in votes, Major would have had a majority of 77, and it's not hard to imagine the history of his premiership might have been somewhat different. For a start, Maastricht would have been much easier to pass.
    True, I think tactical voting was partly responsible for the majority of 21.

    The press turned against the Tories in the end and that was the real killer for them post 1992. Given Tony Blairs perpetual courtship and obsession with the media and its management I think the impact of the loss of the media to the Tories after 1992 is undervalued. Compare the current divisions in the Conservative Party, which are much more stark and damaging. The Conservatives are supported in office by the media at this time. It is not the voters the Tories are afraid of but the media turning on them once again over Brexit.
    But which matters more now, the print media or the social media?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 29,045
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    Kinnock had to gain too many seats in one election to win in 1992. Any insider will tell you that, politicians have to claim they will win outright when it is patently obvious to those on the inside they are being economical with the truth.

    The basic rule of thumb for Labour or the Tories is 70 target seats where they actually concentrate resources and time. The rest are paper targets that are welcome if they win them but ignored by much of the campaign machinery. Occasionally an election will see an opposition party gain more seats than the 70 they target. 1997 and 2010 are examples of this process where the main opposition party make substantial gains.
    Even so, he considerably outperformed the UNS. If Kinnock had taken seats proportionate to his rise in votes, Major would have had a majority of 77, and it's not hard to imagine the history of his premiership might have been somewhat different. For a start, Maastricht would have been much easier to pass.
    True, I think tactical voting was partly responsible for the majority of 21.

    The press turned against the Tories in the end and that was the real killer for them post 1992. Given Tony Blairs perpetual courtship and obsession with the media and its management I think the impact of the loss of the media to the Tories after 1992 is undervalued. Compare the current divisions in the Conservative Party, which are much more stark and damaging. The Conservatives are supported in office by the media at this time. It is not the voters the Tories are afraid of but the media turning on them once again over Brexit.
    But which matters more now, the print media or the social media?
    For Labour supporters, surely the Socialist Media?

    (I thank you!)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,037

    HYUFD said:

    And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.

    Since when is Labour being down 6% from 2017 to just 34% today evidence of 'Labour's polling is remarkably resilient'?

    There is no loss of Tory support to the LDs, the movement is from Labour to the LDs

    Polls fluctuate over time and are often wrong. Treating the latest as gospel is unbelievably naive, particularly given what happened in the last election.

    I didn’t say there was a loss of support. I said there could be. Given the number of Tory Remain MPs threatening to resign the whip and Grieve openly speculating about Brexit leading to a split in the Tory Party, I think your complacency is worryingly naive.
    You’ve said this before, and it’s still wrong. Less than 10 Tory MPs resigning is not a split. They would be leaving the party and guaranteeing their own political extinction.

    If they think putting Corbyn into 10 Downing Street for a chance at a second referendum is a price worth paying, good riddance.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,971

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
    You are making the gigantic assumption that the Deal and No Deal MPs could be persuaded to vote together for a referendum. Not happening.
    Why not? As long as Remain is not an option I believe they could. Not one of them now backs EUref2 with a Remain option.
    That's totally wrong. The Lib Dems tabled an amendment to back the deal subject to a people's vote with the option to Remain.
    Since when are any LD MPs bar Lloyd not going to be in the 300 MPs who back Euref2 with Remain rather than the 339 MPs who back Leaving with the Deal or No Deal?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,113

    AndyJS said:
    It's just one guy's opinion though. I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that economics and identity are both important motivators which are sometimes in conflict. But he doesn't have any insight into how it plays out.
    Rory Sutherland "doesn't have any insight".
    That's a keeper.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,971

    HYUFD said:

    And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.

    Since when is Labour being down 6% from 2017 to just 34% today evidence of 'Labour's polling is remarkably resilient'?

    There is no loss of Tory support to the LDs, the movement is from Labour to the LDs

    Polls fluctuate over time and are often wrong. Treating the latest as gospel is unbelievably naive, particularly given what happened in the last election.

    I didn’t say there was a loss of support. I said there could be. Given the number of Tory Remain MPs threatening to resign the whip and Grieve openly speculating about Brexit leading to a split in the Tory Party, I think your complacency is worryingly naive.
    The vast majority of Tory voters either back Deal or No Deal in the polls, barely a handful back Remain now and want to reverse Brexit. The Tories are far more at risk of losing voters to UKIP by revoking Brexit than they are of losing voters to the LDs even in the event of No Deal.

    The vast majority of Labour voters though back Remain and EUref2 so the longer Corbyn refuses to back EUref2 with a Remain option the more Labour is likely to continue to lose voters to the LDs
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,039
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
    You are making the gigantic assumption that the Deal and No Deal MPs could be persuaded to vote together for a referendum. Not happening.
    Why not? As long as Remain is not an option I believe they could. Not one of them now backs EUref2 with a Remain option.
    That's totally wrong. The Lib Dems tabled an amendment to back the deal subject to a people's vote with the option to Remain.
    Since when are any LD MPs bar Lloyd not going to be in the 300 MPs who back Euref2 with Remain rather than the 339 MPs who back Leaving with the Deal or No Deal?
    You're creating a completely artificial division and conflating voting for the deal with support for leaving with the deal. Ken Clarke will be voting for the deal, but he doesn't support leaving.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.

    Since when is Labour being down 6% from 2017 to just 34% today evidence of 'Labour's polling is remarkably resilient'?

    There is no loss of Tory support to the LDs, the movement is from Labour to the LDs

    Polls fluctuate over time and are often wrong. Treating the latest as gospel is unbelievably naive, particularly given what happened in the last election.

    I didn’t say there was a loss of support. I said there could be. Given the number of Tory Remain MPs threatening to resign the whip and Grieve openly speculating about Brexit leading to a split in the Tory Party, I think your complacency is worryingly naive.
    You’ve said this before, and it’s still wrong. Less than 10 Tory MPs resigning is not a split. They would be leaving the party and guaranteeing their own political extinction.

    If they think putting Corbyn into 10 Downing Street for a chance at a second referendum is a price worth paying, good riddance.
    Who is to say it will only be 10 if it happens. And they clearly don’t care about Corbyn becoming PM to even contemplate it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,971

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
    You are making the gigantic assumption that the Deal and No Deal MPs could be persuaded to vote together for a referendum. Not happening.
    Why not? As long as Remain is not an option I believe they could. Not one of them now backs EUref2 with a Remain option.
    That's totally wrong. The Lib Dems tabled an amendment to back the deal subject to a people's vote with the option to Remain.
    Since when are any LD MPs bar Lloyd not going to be in the 300 MPs who back Euref2 with Remain rather than the 339 MPs who back Leaving with the Deal or No Deal?
    You're creating a completely artificial division and conflating voting for the deal with support for leaving with the deal. Ken Clarke will be voting for the deal, but he doesn't support leaving.
    Bar Ken Clarke there are barely any Tory MPs who really want to cancel Brexit and Remain who will not be in the 9 Rentoul had as already in the 300 MPs voting for EUref2 with a Remain option
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,204

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    Darren Pencille, 35, of Willbury Road, Farnham, is accused of killing Lee Pomeroy, 51, on a Guildford to London train on Friday.
    Chelsea Mitchell, 27, also of Willbury Road, has been charged with assisting an offender.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.

    Since when is Labour being down 6% from 2017 to just 34% today evidence of 'Labour's polling is remarkably resilient'?

    There is no loss of Tory support to the LDs, the movement is from Labour to the LDs

    Polls fluctuate over time and are often wrong. Treating the latest as gospel is unbelievably naive, particularly given what happened in the last election.

    I didn’t say there was a loss of support. I said there could be. Given the number of Tory Remain MPs threatening to resign the whip and Grieve openly speculating about Brexit leading to a split in the Tory Party, I think your complacency is worryingly naive.
    The vast majority of Tory voters either back Deal or No Deal in the polls, barely a handful back Remain now and want to reverse Brexit. The Tories are far more at risk of losing voters to UKIP by revoking Brexit than they are of losing voters to the LDs even in the event of No Deal.

    The vast majority of Labour voters though back Remain and EUref2 so the longer Corbyn refuses to back EUref2 with a Remain option the more Labour is likely to continue to lose voters to the LDs
    The parliamentary Tory Party is still heavily Remain oriented and many of those constituencies could easily be lost - Putney, Richmond, Winchester, Eastleigh etc

    UKIP are a busted flush. They have gone from being a one trick pony on immigration to a one trick party obsessed with Islam.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    edited January 6
    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    Wayne Rooney's arrest for public intoxication was a result of feeling "disorientated" after taking sleeping tablets on a flight while drinking, says his spokesman.

    Pulling the old Rosie o’Donnell excuse!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,204

    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
    Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 7,512
    I'm not sure it's any use any more pointing out the colossal stupidity of MPs: surely we should have factored it in by now. However, having said that, there's no harm in reminders, so please carry on.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 7,512

    Great interactive charts Corporeal!

    +2
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    edited January 6
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
    Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
    You would have thought that nfl would have learned from simple change of extra point rule. Adding those extra yards has turned it from a waste of time never will miss to a real pressure kick where there’s have been plenty of misses. Has added uncertainty and excitement.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    Kinnock had to gain too many seats in one election to win in 1992. Any insider will tell you that, politicians have to claim they will win outright when it is patently obvious to those on the inside they are being economical with the truth.

    Even so, he considerably outperformed the UNS. If Kinnock had taken seats proportionate to his rise in votes, Major would have had a majority of 77, and it's not hard to imagine the history of his premiership might have been somewhat different. For a start, Maastricht would have been much easier to pass.
    True, I think tactical voting was partly responsible for the majority of 21.

    The press turned against the Tories in the end and that was the real killer for them post 1992. Given Tony Blairs perpetual courtship and obsession with the media and its management I think the impact of the loss of the media to the Tories after 1992 is undervalued. Compare the current divisions in the Conservative Party, which are much more stark and damaging. The Conservatives are supported in office by the media at this time. It is not the voters the Tories are afraid of but the media turning on them once again over Brexit.
    But which matters more now, the print media or the social media?
    It depends on the demographics you want to communicate a message toward and gain votes from that specific group of people.

    The older voters who historically have a higher propensity to vote are more likely to take information on board via print media. Obviously you will always find an exception to the rule but even today the printed media is highly influential with older voters. If the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph and Express all withdraw their mainly supportive coverage like they did in the 1990s then the Tories will be in serious trouble. It is the drip-drip effect of news over years that can damage political parties.

    Social media is an interesting development but I do wonder about the longevity of it in its current form. The ability to tailor a message to the users might be useful in a referendum campaign but I am sceptical of its use in General Elections as people tend to have more focused views and are less susceptible to change their vote due to communications from social media.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,189
    viewcode said:

    I'm not sure it's any use any more pointing out the colossal stupidity of MPs: surely we should have factored it in by now. However, having said that, there's no harm in reminders, so please carry on.
    In a sane world, one might have expected at least a nod towards humility just now from the architect of Universal Credit.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 29,045
    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    Real football should be played with the feet!
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,037
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
    Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
    Do you think the NFL has a long-term future as America’s leading sport? I struggle to see it considering declining viewing audiences, growing numbers of parents who won’t let their sons play because of the brain damage issue, and demographic chance aiding the rise of football.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    edited January 6
    RoyalBlue said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
    Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
    Do you think the NFL has a long-term future as America’s leading sport? I struggle to see it considering declining viewing audiences, growing numbers of parents who won’t let their sons play because of the brain damage issue, and demographic chance aiding the rise of football.
    What sport will overtake it? Baseball is down the pan more than NFL & and YouTube generation are even more unlikely to be excited by a long game where nothing exciting happens for ages. NBA just doesn’t have the same level of constant excitement. Hockey is just as violent as NFL.

    The reason nfl is some popular is provides constant excitement, virtually no blow out games and combined with ability to have ad breaks inserted seamlessly.
  • BudGBudG Posts: 690

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,204
    RoyalBlue said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
    Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
    Do you think the NFL has a long-term future as America’s leading sport? I struggle to see it considering declining viewing audiences, growing numbers of parents who won’t let their sons play because of the brain damage issue, and demographic chance aiding the rise of football.
    I'm not sure really. I've heard said in the past that youngsters will do anything (including drugs) to get an NFL contract. But then people are fickle and will happily sue their employer even if they knew the risks when they got into the game.

    The one thing I really like about the NFL is that the season isn't that long. Less is more and American sports benefit from not having multiple organisations trying to get their pound of flesh.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,195

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    Kinnock had to gain too many seats in one election to win in 1992. Any insider will tell you that, politicians have to claim they will win outright when it is patently obvious to those on the inside they are being economical with the truth.

    Even so, he considerably outperformed the UNS. If Kinnock had taken seats proportionate to his rise in votes, Major would have had a majority of 77, and it's not hard to imagine the history of his premiership might have been somewhat different. For a start, Maastricht would have been much easier to pass.
    True, I think tactical voting was partly responsible for the majority of 21.

    The press turned against the Tories in the end .
    But which matters more now, the print media or the social media?
    It depends on the demographics you want to communicate a message toward and gain votes from that specific group of people.

    The older voters who historically have a higher propensity to vote are more likely to take information on board via print media. Obviously you will always find an exception to the rule but even today the printed media is highly influential with older voters. If the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph and Express all withdraw their mainly supportive coverage like they did in the 1990s then the Tories will be in serious trouble. It is the drip-drip effect of news over years that can damage political parties.

    Social media is an interesting development but I do wonder about the longevity of it in its current form. The ability to tailor a message to the users might be useful in a referendum campaign but I am sceptical of its use in General Elections as people tend to have more focused views and are less susceptible to change their vote due to communications from social media.
    Print media drop their circulations every year, theirs is a dwindling market and influence. Social media is consumer, rather than editor driven.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    edited January 6
    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
    Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
    Do you think the NFL has a long-term future as America’s leading sport? I struggle to see it considering declining viewing audiences, growing numbers of parents who won’t let their sons play because of the brain damage issue, and demographic chance aiding the rise of football.
    I'm not sure really. I've heard said in the past that youngsters will do anything (including drugs) to get an NFL contract. But then people are fickle and will happily sue their employer even if they knew the risks when they got into the game.

    The one thing I really like about the NFL is that the season isn't that long. Less is more and American sports benefit from not having multiple organisations trying to get their pound of flesh.
    For me it is that pretty much all games end up being closely contested, while having a decent rate of scoring (unlike nba where it is too common and baseball too uncommon) . Very few games are done and dusted by the time they reach the 2 minute warning or end up as a single touchdown game.

    You also have the constant potential for some amazing run that breaks through a load of tackles or crazy impossible seeming catch. NBA and MLB are much more about repetition.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 1,288

    RoyalBlue said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
    Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
    Do you think the NFL has a long-term future as America’s leading sport? I struggle to see it considering declining viewing audiences, growing numbers of parents who won’t let their sons play because of the brain damage issue, and demographic chance aiding the rise of football.
    What sport will overtake it? Baseball is down the pan more than NFL & and YouTube generation are even more unlikely to be excited by a long game where nothing exciting happens for ages. NBA just doesn’t have the same level of constant excitement. Hockey is just as violent as NFL.

    The reason nfl is some popular is provides constant excitement, virtually no blow out games and combined with ability to have ad breaks inserted seamlessly.
    I’ve always liked NFL but this year I’ve been watching NFL redzone on Sky Sports and it is great - all key action across split screens
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    edited January 6

    RoyalBlue said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
    Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
    Do you think the NFL has a long-term future as America’s leading sport? I struggle to see it considering declining viewing audiences, growing numbers of parents who won’t let their sons play because of the brain damage issue, and demographic chance aiding the rise of football.
    What sport will overtake it? Baseball is down the pan more than NFL & and YouTube generation are even more unlikely to be excited by a long game where nothing exciting happens for ages. NBA just doesn’t have the same level of constant excitement. Hockey is just as violent as NFL.

    The reason nfl is some popular is provides constant excitement, virtually no blow out games and combined with ability to have ad breaks inserted seamlessly.
    I’ve always liked NFL but this year I’ve been watching NFL redzone on Sky Sports and it is great - all key action across split screens
    Redzone is the shit. Other sports need to copy it. I know sky have soccer Saturday but it just isn’t the same not being able to see the action.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,834

    RoyalBlue said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
    Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
    Do you think the NFL has a long-term future as America’s leading sport? I struggle to see it considering declining viewing audiences, growing numbers of parents who won’t let their sons play because of the brain damage issue, and demographic chance aiding the rise of football.
    What sport will overtake it? Baseball is down the pan more than NFL & and YouTube generation are even more unlikely to be excited by a long game where nothing exciting happens for ages. NBA just doesn’t have the same level of constant excitement. Hockey is just as violent as NFL.

    The reason nfl is some popular is provides constant excitement, virtually no blow out games and combined with ability to have ad breaks inserted seamlessly.
    I’ve always liked NFL but this year I’ve been watching NFL redzone on Sky Sports and it is great - all key action across split screens
    Redzone has been a great find this year.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    Kinnock had to gain too many seats in one election to win in 1992. Any insider will tell you that, politicians have to claim they will win outright when it is patently obvious to those on the inside they are being economical with the truth.

    Even so, he considerably outperformed the UNS. If Kinnock had taken seats proportionate to his rise in votes, Major would have had a majority of 77, and it's not hard to imagine the history of his premiership might have been somewhat different. For a start, Maastricht would have been much easier to pass.
    True, I think tactical voting was partly responsible for the majority of 21.

    The press turned against the Tories in the end .
    But which matters more now, the print media or the social media?
    It depends on the demographics you want to communicate a message toward and gain votes from that specific group of people.

    The older voters who historically have a higher propensity to vote are more likely to take information on board via print media. Obviously you will always find an exception to the rule but even today the printed media is highly influential with older voters. If the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph and Express all withdraw their mainly supportive coverage like they did in the 1990s then the Tories will be in serious trouble. It is the drip-drip effect of news over years that can damage political parties.

    Social media is an interesting development but I do wonder about the longevity of it in its current form. The ability to tailor a message to the users might be useful in a referendum campaign but I am sceptical of its use in General Elections as people tend to have more focused views and are less susceptible to change their vote due to communications from social media.
    Print media drop their circulations every year, theirs is a dwindling market and influence. Social media is consumer, rather than editor driven.
    True but I think circulation underestimates newspaper influence given the volume of visitors to newspaper websites. I am particularly interested in the Daily Mails web presence as it has a very strong following.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,195

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    Kinnock had to gain too many seats in one election to win in 1992. Any insider will tell you that, politicians have to claim they will win outright when it is patently obvious to those on the inside they are being economical with the truth.

    Even so, he considerably outperformed the UNS. If Kinnock had taken seats proportionate to his rise in votes, Major would have had a majority of 77, and it's not hard to imagine the history of his premiership might have been somewhat different. For a start, Maastricht would have been much easier to pass.
    True, I think tactical voting was partly responsible for the majority of 21.

    The press turned against the Tories in the end .
    But which matters more now, the print media or the social media?
    It depends on the demographics you want to communicate a message toward and gain votes from that specific group of people.

    The older voters who historically have a higher propensity to vote are more likely to take information on board via print media. Obviously you will always find an exception to the rule but even today the printed media is highly influential with older voters. If the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph and Express all withdraw their mainly supportive coverage like they did in the 1990s then the Tories will be in serious trouble. It is the drip-drip effect of news over years that can damage political parties.

    Social media is an interesting development
    Print media drop their circulations every year, theirs is a dwindling market and influence. Social media is consumer, rather than editor driven.
    True but I think circulation underestimates newspaper influence given the volume of visitors to newspaper websites. I am particularly interested in the Daily Mails web presence as it has a very strong following.
    I agree, the print media is not yet dead, but it certainly has a lot less influence than 20 years ago in the heyday of Blair and Mandleson.
This discussion has been closed.