Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another day of the polls tightening but only YouGov has TMay n

145679

Comments

  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    SeanT said:

    nunu said:

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    David Davis should have been Tory PM leader rather than Cameron in 2008.... and everything else would have been avoided

    *sigh*

    I'm not sure why he's so derided on here and other places. He seems on top of his brief.
    He would not have gained 97 seats. Sorry but we live in a shallow media age.
    I think he would. Why not? Great backstory, smart guy, good on TV.

    Anyway thank F he is Brexit minister. He seems capable.

    I'd be more than happy with him as Prime Minister and Amber Rudd at Home, BoJo as Deputy, Hammond as Chancellor, and Gove as Foreign Sec.

    TMay can be Elevenses Biscuit Monitor
    Good idea, atleast we know she wont eat them all because of her diabetes.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    In terms of the GB (not UK) vote, the Conservatives probably won't do worse than 44% - very little of the 38% who backed Cameron over Miliband are going to desert May for Corbyn, May should mop up about half of the Ukip vote, and any leakage of hardcore Europhiles to the Lib Dems now looks likely to be so modest that, in terms of crude national vote share, it should be entirely compensated for by the gain in Tory share in Scotland. So that leaves 56% of the vote.

    Realistically, SNP + Plaid + Speaker + independents + minor parties (Cornish Nationalists, Socialist Labour, etc, etc) won't add up to anything less than 5%; in fact it'l probably be a little more than that, but let's not split hairs. 56-5 = 51% of the vote remaining.

    Now, in order for Labour to make 40% we would have to assume the following:

    1. The Lib Dem + Ukip + Green = 11% only, e.g. LD 7%, Ukip 3%, Green 1%
    2. That any net loss of vote share from the Lib Dems, and from Ukip over and above a defection rate of 50% as previously mentioned, would have to move entirely to Labour
    3. That there is no net movement from Lab to Con at all

    And if the Tories creep up to 45, 46, 47%, things become even more difficult for Labour.

    In point of fact, as previously discussed, Labour seems to be dependent for its more generous polling figures on record turnout amongst very young and other previous non-voters. The pollsters who are less generous to Labour are still giving the Tories enough of a lead for anything between a comfortable working majority and a landslide.

    I may not be giving Labour enough credit, and it may turn out that I'm wrong and they do well enough to erase the Conservative majority, but right now I still can't see that as being at all likely.

    A very solid analysis.

    I'm not sure that 44% is certain - but it is the current polling position, and hence should be quite likely to be achieved next week if nothing significant changes.

    I hope @Casino_Royale reads this before bed and sleeps better.
    If I had to guess right now I'd say Con 43%, Lab 33%, LD 12%, UKIP 4%, Greens 3%.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197
    edited June 2017

    In terms of the GB (not UK) vote, the Conservatives probably won't do worse than 44% - very little of the 38% who backed Cameron over Miliband are going to desert May for Corbyn, May should mop up about half of the Ukip vote, and any leakage of hardcore Europhiles to the Lib Dems now looks likely to be so modest that, in terms of crude national vote share, it should be entirely compensated for by the gain in Tory share in Scotland. So that leaves 56% of the vote.

    Realistically, SNP + Plaid + Speaker + independents + minor parties (Cornish Nationalists, Socialist Labour, etc, etc) won't add up to anything less than 5%; in fact it'l probably be a little more than that, but let's not split hairs. 56-5 = 51% of the vote remaining.

    Now, in order for Labour to make 40% we would have to assume the following:

    1. The Lib Dem + Ukip + Green = 11% only, e.g. LD 7%, Ukip 3%, Green 1%
    2. That any net loss of vote share from the Lib Dems, and from Ukip over and above a defection rate of 50% as previously mentioned, would have to move entirely to Labour
    3. That there is no net movement from Lab to Con at all

    And if the Tories creep up to 45, 46, 47%, things become even more difficult for Labour.

    In point of fact, as previously discussed, Labour seems to be dependent for its more generous polling figures on record turnout amongst very young and other previous non-voters. The pollsters who are less generous to Labour are still giving the Tories enough of a lead for anything between a comfortable working majority and a landslide.

    I may not be giving Labour enough credit, and it may turn out that I'm wrong and they do well enough to erase the Conservative majority, but right now I still can't see that as being at all likely.

    A very solid analysis.

    I'm not sure that 44% is certain - but it is the current polling position, and hence should be quite likely to be achieved next week if nothing significant changes.

    I hope @Casino_Royale reads this before bed and sleeps better.
    What proportion of the final turnout will have already voted whilst the polls have the Tories at 44%? Even if they turn south, the maths gets harder and harder for Labour if say 10-15% of the votes are already in.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,663
    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.
  • hoveitehoveite Posts: 43
    nunu said:

    AndyJS said:



    I don't understand why anyone who makes an effort to register to vote doesn't then vote at the subsequent election(s). But when only 65% take part, it must be the case that many of them don't. Puzzling.

    Being on the electoral roll improves your credit score. That's enough of a motive for many people to register regardless of whether you intend to vote.

    And (round here at least) if you are too lazy to return the registration form the council send someone to knock on your door. Won't most people be polite and tell them their name when asked?
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,417


    Labour's policy is essentially to restrict immigration for people who don't have job offers, but allow it when they do - the classic example is bringing East Europeans to Eas tAnglia for the crops.

    I have no doubt that whoever wins the next election, we will be back to having a system of temporary workers visa scheme for crop-picking, so while this is a classic example it is not especially informative.

    I don't understand the Labour policy here. I have seen mootings (was it in the New Statesman? Can't remember sorry) that there was a cunning plan to see if the EU would accept "free movement of labour" rather than "free movement of people" as a condition for remaining in the single market, hence only allowing EU citizens to come if they had a job offer already. If this was a serious proposal then I think it is flawed for two reasons:

    (a) Can't see it washing with the EU - clearly not on a par with what "free movement" as it is understood elsewhere, so cherry-picking - and it's clear Brussels is in no mood for that.

    (b) Can't see it washing with the British public either. Clearly immigration had an impact on the Brexit vote (close as it was, I suppose you could see any single issue may have tipped the balance, but no doubt immigration was a biggie for many voters). Saying "ah it is okay, because from now on they will only come if they already have a job" seems an egregious exercise in point-missing. The more common complaint was people "coming over here and taking our jobs/changing our communities" rather than "coming over here and sitting on their backsides at our expense". Think this is also a reason why Cameron's attempted renegotiation on benefits etc received a somewhat less than rapturous response - it's addressing the wrong issue.

    Any chance someone who follows these things more closely could congeal the actual policy for me?

    (Apologies to Nick P if this comes across as aggressively questioning; I can't seem to find a smiley for "curious but with a hint of scepticism"!)
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,417
    edited June 2017
    Specifically,
    (1) who is to be allowed in on the basis of a firm job offer (EU citizens only? Non-discriminatory and global? Country-by-country, perhaps negotiated on a bilateral basis?),
    (2) what job they are required to have (any job? sector-by-sector visa schemes or a general principle of "job offer = visa"? minimum skill or salary requirements?),
    (3) for how long they would be allowed to stay (crop-picking visas were limited to a few months of harvest-time, but I don't think this is what NickP is talking about in his comment; conversely, Rob Smithson often points out to us that visas for IT workers that expire at contract's end are utterly useless for the kind of dynamic workforce who float at short notice between various Tech City start-ups),
    (4) whether this is expected to be some kind of European quid pro quo (in the hope of a reciprocal labour deal? even in the hope of it being accepted as "enough" free movement for single market membership? if so any indication from Brussels that it might be acceptable?)
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,131
    scotslass said:

    I know that this is a London audience but if I were a Tory I would be getting a bit queasy about this election. They are not liked at all.

    Davies is the acceptable face of Toryism but he is less popular than Angus Robertson of the SNP!!!!

    The appalling UKIP woman got booed when she proposed grabbing money off Scotland!!1

    Perhaps a London/Scotland alliance could still save this country!

    It's both a London audience *and* the audience for an evening TV political discussion programme.

    Normal people don't spend hours of their lives travelling to a TV studio just to appear in one of these sorts of shows. Especially not Tory voters. Most of them have probably already had their last cup of tea or cocoa of the evening and retired to bed.

    A bent audience for a niche programme, watched by small numbers of the already politically engaged - nearly all of whom will, therefore, come to it with fixed views about the issues and about the way they intend to vote. Won't make a difference to anything.

    And if you want an authentic idea of the average state of English public opinion with respect either to Scotland or to the Union with it, then you wouldn't ask a self-selected audience of upper middle class leftist bores in North London - any more than you would gauge enthusiasm for independence in Scotland exclusively by interviewing a panel of well-to-do pensioners in Hawick.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    Clegg or Davis ?
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    RobD said:

    scotslass said:

    I know that this is a London audience but if I were a Tory I would be getting a bit queasy about this election. They are not liked at all.

    Davies is the acceptable face of Toryism but he is less popular than Angus Robertson of the SNP!!!!

    The appalling UKIP woman got booed when she proposed grabbing money off Scotland!!1

    Perhaps a London/Scotland alliance could still save this country!

    When did Davis become the acceptable face of Toryism?
    Didn't think there was such a thing. They are all baby eating monsters!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    edited June 2017

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    :naughty: or :innocent:?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,663
    edited June 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    Clegg or Davis ?
    Clegg.

    He should definitely be LD leader instead of Farron.
  • bobajobPBbobajobPB Posts: 1,042
    AndyJS

    This Labour people clap more thing just seems like another daft PB meme. Most likely it was because QT was in London, a Labour city (I didn't watch it).
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Great QT.

    Is that in absolute terms, or just relative to the usual dross?

    If the former, maybe it's the journalists and "celebrities" they have on most shows that make it unwatchable, and they should stick to just having politicians in future?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,663
    RobD said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    :naughty: or :innocent:?
    :innocent: (LD - if they are considered 'innocent' these days after the coalition).
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Saltire said:

    Also how is registering to vote a legal requirement, I know of several people who can't vote because they don't register to.

    Completing the form for the household was a legal requirement under the old system, before individual voter registration was brought in by the Coalition. I don't know what the situation is now because we are still receiving the household form each autumn. Seems daft to run both systems in parallel.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318

    RobD said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    :naughty: or :innocent:?
    :innocent: (LD - if they are considered 'innocent' these days after the coalition).
    You'll be free of the indelible stain of Toryism for the next five year, at least. :p
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,663

    Great QT.

    Is that in absolute terms, or just relative to the usual dross?

    If the former, maybe it's the journalists and "celebrities" they have on most shows that make it unwatchable, and they should stick to just having politicians in future?
    In absolute terms. There was a genuinely interesting debate going on - much better than the leaders' debates we now have at GEs.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    edited June 2017

    Pulpstar said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    Clegg or Davis ?
    Clegg.

    He should definitely be LD instead of Farron.
    I'll do some more work for him at the weekend to try and keep him in against this potential bloody Labour youth/middle class surge.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698

    Great QT.

    Is that in absolute terms, or just relative to the usual dross?

    If the former, maybe it's the journalists and "celebrities" they have on most shows that make it unwatchable, and they should stick to just having politicians in future?
    It's been awhile since I watched, but it is not a bad idea - I'll grant journos and celebs can liven it up a bit, they can be less rigidly on message, but at the end of the day they can play to the gallery even more, go for cheap shots and cliche even more as they throw in a bit of political bashing. Make everyone a part of the electoral game, or at least parliamentary mathematics game if a Lord, and there's more of a level set of rules of engagement and, perhaps, focus.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Saltire said:

    Also how is registering to vote a legal requirement, I know of several people who can't vote because they don't register to.

    Completing the form for the household was a legal requirement under the old system, before individual voter registration was brought in by the Coalition. I don't know what the situation is now because we are still receiving the household form each autumn. Seems daft to run both systems in parallel.
    People listed on the form still need to confirm individually, at least the first time. Not sure about future years if there are no changes.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Never mind - Labour have an open doors policy that will soon give us all more time to recover first.
    YOU BRING POLITICS INTO DISREPUTE

    No wonder Liar Liar is number1
    Something of an over-reaction, sir. Why should any remark of mine (however cynical) bring politics into disrepute, however ill-advised? I am not standing as a candidate and don't belong to any political party.

    Am I misrepresenting the Labour party's manifesto on immigration? My apologies if so - I have heard Mr Corbyn say that he wants to see immigration increase, but that was before the GE was called.
    Labour's policy is essentially to restrict immigration for people who don't have job offers, but allow it when they do - the classic example is bringing East Europeans to Eas tAnglia for the crops. Corbyn personally likes a diverse Britain but the party accepts that public concern has reached a point where we can't just ignore it.

    I haven't seen your original comment but I agree that you shouldn't be held responsible for the state of politics!
    Many thanks. I aim at unfailing courtesy, and although my remark was somewhat tongue-in-cheek I really didn't intend to tread on anyone's sensitivities.
    So no cut in immigration then ?

    The people that surround corbyn are all mass immigration lovers,to go against it in they heads would be racist.just like corbyn thinking here. -

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3702133/jeremy-corbyn-branded-a-popular-clamp-down-on-illegal-immigrants-as-a-racist-attack/


    Watch the asylum numbers hit record levels.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    RobD said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    :naughty: or :innocent:?
    :innocent: (LD - if they are considered 'innocent' these days after the coalition).
    After all that you're going to spoil your ballot! A pity.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280


    Labour's policy is essentially to restrict immigration for people who don't have job offers, but allow it when they do - the classic example is bringing East Europeans to Eas tAnglia for the crops.

    I have no doubt that whoever wins the next election, we will be back to having a system of temporary workers visa scheme for crop-picking, so while this is a classic example it is not especially informative.

    I don't understand the Labour policy here. I have seen mootings (was it in the New Statesman? Can't remember sorry) that there was a cunning plan to see if the EU would accept "free movement of labour" rather than "free movement of people" as a condition for remaining in the single market, hence only allowing EU citizens to come if they had a job offer already. If this was a serious proposal then I think it is flawed for two reasons:

    (a) Can't see it washing with the EU - clearly not on a par with what "free movement" as it is understood elsewhere, so cherry-picking - and it's clear Brussels is in no mood for that.

    (b) Can't see it washing with the British public either. Clearly immigration had an impact on the Brexit vote (close as it was, I suppose you could see any single issue may have tipped the balance, but no doubt immigration was a biggie for many voters). Saying "ah it is okay, because from now on they will only come if they already have a job" seems an egregious exercise in point-missing. The more common complaint was people "coming over here and taking our jobs/changing our communities" rather than "coming over here and sitting on their backsides at our expense". Think this is also a reason why Cameron's attempted renegotiation on benefits etc received a somewhat less than rapturous response - it's addressing the wrong issue.

    Any chance someone who follows these things more closely could congeal the actual policy for me?

    (Apologies to Nick P if this comes across as aggressively questioning; I can't seem to find a smiley for "curious but with a hint of scepticism"!)
    Switzerland essentially has free movement of labour, rather than of people, so I don't think the EU would necessarily be the problem. More of an issue would be the sense of betrayal felt by some.

    It seems to me that the biggest issue is that politicians have failed to explain that Brexit is a process of ever increasing sovereignty, rather than a big bang date less than two years away.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,663
    @SeanT I'll be voting LD. Though my vote is hardly representative of my demographic.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    :naughty: or :innocent:?
    :innocent: (LD - if they are considered 'innocent' these days after the coalition).
    You'll be free of the indelible stain of Toryism for the next five year, at least. :p
    It gets everyone in the end, never fear.

    RobD said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    :naughty: or :innocent:?
    :innocent: (LD - if they are considered 'innocent' these days after the coalition).
    Labour Uncut, very anti-Corbyn, occasionally have a contributor whose pieces generally consist of insisting the LDs have not yet shown enough contrition for working with the Tories and so are as bad as them still.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,481
    edited June 2017

    SeanT said:

    David Davis should have been Tory PM leader rather than Cameron in 2008.... and everything else would have been avoided

    *sigh*


    He's turning out to be much better than I expected in his current role, though. We'll have to see how he actually fares in the negotiations (assuming he still has the role!)
    I did say he'd do a decent job in this role when TM appointed him....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    edited June 2017
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    :naughty: or :innocent:?
    :innocent: (LD - if they are considered 'innocent' these days after the coalition).
    You'll be free of the indelible stain of Toryism for the next five year, at least. :p
    It gets everyone in the end, never fear.
    You'll find it much harder voting anything other than Tory in future elections, @kle4.... :smiley:
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,468

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Never mind - Labour have an open doors policy that will soon give us all more time to recover first.
    YOU BRING POLITICS INTO DISREPUTE

    No wonder Liar Liar is number1
    Something of an over-reaction, sir. Why should any remark of mine (however cynical) bring politics into disrepute, however ill-advised? I am not standing as a candidate and don't belong to any political party.

    Am I misrepresenting the Labour party's manifesto on immigration? My apologies if so - I have heard Mr Corbyn say that he wants to see immigration increase, but that was before the GE was called.
    Labour's policy is essentially to restrict immigration for people who don't have job offers, but allow it when they do - the classic example is bringing East Europeans to Eas tAnglia for the crops. Corbyn personally likes a diverse Britain but the party accepts that public concern has reached a point where we can't just ignore it.

    I haven't seen your original comment but I agree that you shouldn't be held responsible for the state of politics!
    I was referring to the fact that this poster was repeating what had been said by TM this morning. C4 described the Tory politicians lie about Lab wanting open borders as BRINGING POLITICS INTO DISREPUTE.
    Oh, I see. My apologies - I didn't realise that remark had been made.
  • hoveitehoveite Posts: 43
    SeanT said:

    nunu said:

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    David Davis should have been Tory PM leader rather than Cameron in 2008.... and everything else would have been avoided

    *sigh*

    I'm not sure why he's so derided on here and other places. He seems on top of his brief.
    He would not have gained 97 seats. Sorry but we live in a shallow media age.
    I think he would. Why not? Great backstory, smart guy, good on TV.

    When David Davis worked for Tate & Lyle knowing the details of international trade treaties relating to sugar was part of his job. How many other senior politicians have that kind of experience?
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 491

    Saltire said:

    Also how is registering to vote a legal requirement, I know of several people who can't vote because they don't register to.

    Completing the form for the household was a legal requirement under the old system, before individual voter registration was brought in by the Coalition. I don't know what the situation is now because we are still receiving the household form each autumn. Seems daft to run both systems in parallel.
    People listed on the form still need to confirm individually, at least the first time. Not sure about future years if there are no changes.
    But there is no penalty if you don't fill it in. Except you can't vote (Or get credit easily)
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,663
    This Week is also great tonight.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,417
    edited June 2017
    rcs1000 said:


    Switzerland essentially has free movement of labour, rather than of people, so I don't think the EU would necessarily be the problem. More of an issue would be the sense of betrayal felt by some.

    It seems to me that the biggest issue is that politicians have failed to explain that Brexit is a process of ever increasing sovereignty, rather than a big bang date less than two years away.

    A sensible response, thanks. As I understand it, Switzerland can't impose quotas on the numbers of EU migrants nor make hiring a Swiss candidate in any way preferred (rather than EU citizens being the back-up if you can't hire from the national talent pool). I don't know how things like right to bring your family work, but presumably similar to elsewhere. Are there any key differences other than the requirement to get a job before moving? What happens to folk who come and then their job finishes, are allowed to stay while they find a new one?

    I don't know how easy it would be to sell to the British public. It's not quite an "open door" policy but unlimited numbers of unskilled migrants and their families, competing on-par with British workers, I think a fair few would at least regard it as a door left substantially ajar...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    Clegg is right, bleeding the top for more tax is totally unrealistic. Much better to stick a penny on general tax and get more cash into the NHS etc that way.

    God Almighty - Angus Robertson is terribly sanctimonious
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    nunu said:
    Shit. That's the funding for the Mars Mission up in smoke.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698
    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    :naughty: or :innocent:?
    :innocent: (LD - if they are considered 'innocent' these days after the coalition).
    You'll be free of the indelible stain of Toryism for the next five year, at least. :p
    It gets everyone in the end, never fear.
    You'll find it much harder voting anything other than Tory in future elections, @kle4.... :smiley:
    Really? Maybe I should reconsider...

    Night all.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    :naughty: or :innocent:?
    :innocent: (LD - if they are considered 'innocent' these days after the coalition).
    You'll be free of the indelible stain of Toryism for the next five year, at least. :p
    It gets everyone in the end, never fear.
    You'll find it much harder voting anything other than Tory in future elections, @kle4.... :smiley:
    Really? Maybe I should reconsider...

    Night all.
    Oh bugger, thought you had already voted. Forget what I said.. :innocent:
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 38,627
    Labour’s election campaign is being boosted by fake social media accounts that pump out positive messages about Jeremy Corbyn thousands of times per day, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

    One in eight messages about British politics posted on Twitter are generated by automated accounts known as web robots or “bots”.

    Individual accounts each post up to 1,000 messages per day attacking Theresa May or promoting Labour. They are set up to look like personal user accounts to trick other users into thinking real people are backing Labour. Automated accounts also back other parties, but to a far smaller degree.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/exclusive-labour-election-campaign-boosted-fake-twitter-accounts/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    :naughty: or :innocent:?
    :innocent: (LD - if they are considered 'innocent' these days after the coalition).
    You'll be free of the indelible stain of Toryism for the next five year, at least. :p
    It gets everyone in the end, never fear.
    You'll find it much harder voting anything other than Tory in future elections, @kle4.... :smiley:
    Really? Maybe I should reconsider...

    Night all.
    What is your constituency ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    edited June 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Great QT.

    It's actually made me decide how I'll definitely vote at the GE.

    :naughty: or :innocent:?
    :innocent: (LD - if they are considered 'innocent' these days after the coalition).
    You'll be free of the indelible stain of Toryism for the next five year, at least. :p
    It gets everyone in the end, never fear.
    You'll find it much harder voting anything other than Tory in future elections, @kle4.... :smiley:
    Really? Maybe I should reconsider...

    Night all.
    What is your constituency ?
    Wiltshire North, I think.

    (not that I'm stalking @kle4... )
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited June 2017
    hoveite said:

    SeanT said:

    nunu said:

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    David Davis should have been Tory PM leader rather than Cameron in 2008.... and everything else would have been avoided

    *sigh*

    I'm not sure why he's so derided on here and other places. He seems on top of his brief.
    He would not have gained 97 seats. Sorry but we live in a shallow media age.
    I think he would. Why not? Great backstory, smart guy, good on TV.

    When David Davis worked for Tate & Lyle knowing the details of international trade treaties relating to sugar was part of his job. How many other senior politicians have that kind of experience?
    I imagine Theresa May has an in depth understanding of the complex international agreements underpinning crossborder money-flows from her 12 year career at the Association for Payment Clearing Services.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 740
    Went to my local Sainsbury's last night. I'm in Crosby, but this is technically Bootle constituency. The other side of the road is Sefton Central. Both Labour strongholds (Bootle even more so). Saw in Sainsbury's a free local rag that covers Southport, Formby (Sefton Central) and Crosby (Bootle) proclaiming that 'Labour can't win here - only the Lib Dems can stop the Tories'.

    Nearly died laughing. I know it also covers Southport, but come on. The Lib Dems will be lucky to merely lose their deposit in both Sefton Central and Bootle.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    @nunu.. twelve thousand one hundred and fifty five conversations doesn't really have the same ring to it, does it? :D
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,701
    Pulpstar said:



    God Almighty - Angus Robertson is terribly sanctimonious

    This 100%. I find him unendurable.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    Moray is interesting, secret unionist pact?
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Labour have contacted 1,881 fewer people in Edinburgh South this time then the equvilant week last time, and look at East Ren that is a toru GAIN I'd say! They just don't have the members, they have been reduced to rubble.
  • nunu said:
    LIvingston figure very telling - the candidate there is Corbynista protege Rhea Wolfson. SLab machine not really pulling out all stops to back her.
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 491
    nunu said:
    It is not the number of Moray voters contacted that is amazing, it is the drop in the total number from over 70k to 12k. Not much sign of activity across the country.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    @nunu - any chance you could dig up any internal tory polls? :p
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    RobD said:

    @nunu - any chance you could dig up any internal tory polls? :p

    I'm on it!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    nunu said:

    RobD said:

    @nunu - any chance you could dig up any internal tory polls? :p

    I'm on it!
    Good good!
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    nunu said:
    What about the other 26 constituencies?
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    nunu said:

    RobD said:

    @nunu - any chance you could dig up any internal tory polls? :p

    I'm on it!
    In all seriousness looking at where the tories are campaiging i.e south west, nothern/midland marginals but not London or Wales we are looking at a party that is aiming for around 40 GAINS.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    nunu said:

    nunu said:

    RobD said:

    @nunu - any chance you could dig up any internal tory polls? :p

    I'm on it!
    In all seriousness looking at where the tories are campaiging i.e south west, nothern/midland marginals but not London or Wales we are looking at a party that is aiming for around 40 GAINS.
    :o:D
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 491
    RobD said:

    Moray is interesting, secret unionist pact?

    Not a secret but a very openly Tory target with the others having no chance.
    But it has been SNP for the last 30 years and I suspect that Angus Robertson will hold on if only just.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    O/T

    A lot of interesting stuff about the BA fiasco on this thread on the PPRUNE forum:

    http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/595169-ba-delays-lhr-computer-issue.html
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 491

    nunu said:
    What about the other 26 constituencies?
    They are doing nothing. I did not even get one from them when all the other freepost leaflets arrived yesterday.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    Saltire said:

    nunu said:
    What about the other 26 constituencies?
    They are doing nothing. I did not even get one from them when all the other freepost leaflets arrived yesterday.
    The number of contacts in East Lothian is seriously low. Do SLAB not realise I have a pony on there at 10-1 with them ?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,052

    nunu said:
    What about the other 26 constituencies?
    Exactly, but maybe there is another page!? But I suspect that this data is dynamite because it tells us far more about where SLab are pooling their resources and targeting their efforts, and where they have given up.
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 309
    Apologies if this has already been discussed but I am struggling to understand the reasoning behind the methodology changes that have been made by at least some of the pollsters.

    At the 2015 general election the polls all underestimated the Tory's vote share and overestimated Labour. They were closer in 2010 but still underestimated the Tory lead. In 2005, 2001 and 1997 they overstated the Labour lead. OGH used to have a golden rule that any group of polls the one that is best for the Tories is the most accurate (or something like that). So there has long been a systemic problem with bias towards Labour.

    I would expect the pollsters to be looking for ways to correct this bias. However, the methodology changes at least some pollsters are making for this election seem likely to make it worse.

    We have YouGov specifically seeking out non-voters to join their panel. I am not surprised that they currently have the lowest Tory lead of any pollster.

    We have Panelbase changing their weighting to use respondents' stated likelihood to vote rather than whether or not they actually voted at the last election. Again, this is a change that favours Labour. We know that, historically, whether or not someone voted at the last election is the best indicator of their likelihood to vote in the next one. It is possible it will be different this time but it is a huge punt to assume that and build it in to your polling model. And we know that this change is a major contributor to Panelbase almost halving their estimate of the Tory lead in their latest poll.

    These are just a couple of examples. Are they isolated or have other pollsters made similar adjustments?

    Is there solid reasoning behind this? Why are they making changes that, on the face of it, would have meant their predictions last time would have been even further from the truth?

    Two years ago several of the final polls showed a tie. Some showed Labour in the lead by 1%-2% and some had the Tories in the lead by 1%. The Tories actually won by 6.6%. SurveyMonkey got close to the winning margin but even they understated the Tories significantly, mainly due to overstating the Greens.

    If the polls this time are as far out as they were last time the Tory lead is actually somewhere in the 10% to 19% range. If the methodology changes have made them less accurate the Tory lead could be even higher.

    I haven't looked at the tables but I keep hearing that the additional support for Labour is coming mainly from groups who generally don't vote. If that is what has pushed Labour into the high 30s it would seem there is good reason to believe a lot of it is froth that won't actually materialise next week.

    I'm not putting any money on this. Far too risky! And, even if I was going to, I would want to understand why the pollsters have made these adjustments when they seem to me to be counterintuitive.

    Am I missing something? Is there a rational explanation for these changes?
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    edited June 2017
    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    David Davis should have been Tory PM leader rather than Cameron in 2008.... and everything else would have been avoided

    *sigh*

    I'm not sure why he's so derided on here and other places.
    Because the toffs see him as a prole. They associate that kind of accent with dirt and not being proper. Did his dad buy him a Rolex? Does he know what "rusticate" means? Does he "try hard"? That kind of stuff.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 5,502

    @SeanT I'll be voting LD. Though my vote is hardly representative of my demographic.

    Or of any demographic.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    Cyan said:

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    David Davis should have been Tory PM leader rather than Cameron in 2008.... and everything else would have been avoided

    *sigh*

    I'm not sure why he's so derided on here and other places.
    Because the toffs see him as a prole. They associate that kind of accent with dirt and not being proper.
    Yeah, I'm not sure that's the reason.
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    The trend in the polls MORI and YouGov might suggest that it is time to plunge on the SNP in Moray and a few other seats where the odds are around levels you devils.
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262

    I haven't looked at the tables but I keep hearing that the additional support for Labour is coming mainly from groups who generally don't vote. If that is what has pushed Labour into the high 30s it would seem there is good reason to believe a lot of it is froth that won't actually materialise next week.

    What is the good reason?

    There was a lot of disagreement on what proportion of youngsters voted in the EU referendum. Perhaps it has been settled now? Certainly the optimists among PB Tories seem to be banking on youngsters being too lazy to vote.

  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    Just watched Neil and Farron - I don't think it was particularly fair but oh dearie me.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,174

    Apologies if this has already been discussed but I am struggling to understand the reasoning behind the methodology changes that have been made by at least some of the pollsters.

    (snip for length)

    Am I missing something? Is there a rational explanation for these changes?

    After 2015 there was as you say a broad consensus that the polls had got it wrong, specifically by overestimating Labour voters' certainty to vote an failing to persuade some Conservative voters to disclose their voting intentions. All the main pollsters made various adjustments to their methodology to address that. For example, if you say that you voted Tory last time but are now undecided, ICM will allocate the Tories half a vote on the basis that you probably will go for them in the end; more controversially, if you refuse to say anything about your past or present vote, they will still assume you're most likely to be a Tory, because polling after the election with people now prepared to say how they voted revealed that many had voted Tory.

    The question is whether the pollsters are fighting the last war and things have changed. There is some evidence that Labour voters, in particular young people, have reacted to the 2015 election and the Brexit result by becoming more determined to vote. ICM and Ipsos-Mori think, like you, that this is not a particularly strong factor and continue to weight by whether you voted last time. Other institutes, such as YouGov, go more by how certain you are to vote this time. That appears to account for nearly all the differences between the pollsters, and the Tory lead seems to be 3-6 if things have changed or 8-15 if they haven't. There is general agrement, however, that the lead has fallen during the campaign, and of course we don't know that this trend won't continue, with effects as yet unseen on turnout - we have anecdotally seen here that some regular Tory voters aren't sure if they'll vote this time, and conversely Labour enthusiasm seems to be rising.

    My own guess is that the truth is somewhere in between and the true lead is currently say 7. But that's a guess, and quite literally your guess is as good as mine.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    If the Tories were defending large numbers of marginals in London against Labour they would probably be panicking right now. The reason they're not is because of this list:

    Labour in second place:

    Croydon Central 0.3%
    Hendon 7.5%
    Harrow East 9.7%
    Enfield Southgate 10.4%
    Finchley & Golders Green 11.2%
    Chipping Barnet 14.4%
    Battersea 15.6%
    Chingford & Woodford Green 19.1%
    Bexleyheath & Crayford 21.0%
    Kensington 21.1%
    Putney 23.8%
    Uxbridge 23.9%
    Wimbledon 26.1%
    Cities of London & Westminster 26.7%
    Croydon South 29.7%
    Bromley 30.8%
    Old Bexley & Sidcup 33.8%
    Beckenham 37.8%
    Ruislip 39.5%
    Chelsea & Fulham 39.8%

    UKIP in second place:

    Hornchurch & Upminster 23.7%
    Romford 28.2%
    Orpington 40.7%

    LDs in second place:

    Twickenham 3.3%
    Kingston & Surbiton 4.8%
    Sutton & Cheam 7.9%
    Richmond Park 38.9%
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2017
    New poll in Scotland finds the gap between the SNP and Tories has dropped from 35% at GE2015 to 13% now:

    BMG / The Herald:

    SNP 43%
    Con 30%
    Lab 18%
    LD 5%
    GRN 2%

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15323651.Top_SNP_figures_in_danger_of_defeat_to_Tory_gains/

    Changes since GE2015:

    SNP -7%
    Con +15%
    Lab -6%
    LD -2%
    Greens +1%

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,174
    edited June 2017
    (deleted, misunderstood the point)
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    AndyJS said:

    New poll in Scotland finds the gap between the SNP and Tories has dropped from 35% at GE2015 to 13% now:

    BMG / The Herald:

    SNP 43%
    Con 30%
    Lab 18%
    LD 5%
    GRN 2%

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15323651.Top_SNP_figures_in_danger_of_defeat_to_Tory_gains/

    Changes since GE2015:

    SNP -7%
    Con +15%
    Lab -6%
    LD -2%
    Greens +1%

    SLab flop!

    When Ed is making fun of you, things are bad.

  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    AndyJS said:

    New poll in Scotland finds the gap between the SNP and Tories has dropped from 35% at GE2015 to 13% now:

    BMG / The Herald:

    SNP 43%
    Con 30%
    Lab 18%
    LD 5%
    GRN 2%

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15323651.Top_SNP_figures_in_danger_of_defeat_to_Tory_gains/

    Changes since GE2015:

    SNP -7%
    Con +15%
    Lab -6%
    LD -2%
    Greens +1%

    Think we will see Tories above 30% and SNP at 40% because of rich vs.poor differential turnout.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Turns out the Scottish poll isn't as new as I thought it was, although it's just been published. But still interesting I think.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,473
    Saltire said:

    nunu said:
    It is not the number of Moray voters contacted that is amazing, it is the drop in the total number from over 70k to 12k. Not much sign of activity across the country.
    They've lost their footsoldiers, they have nobody to do the activity.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 833
    About to watch the Neil/Farron interview a friend told me it is a total car crash?

    Off topic, just finished another Witcher book and boy they are really good. Finally started reading them after playing the game. No spoilers but Vilgefortz is very badass.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,174
    edited June 2017

    ?

    (Apologies to Nick P if this comes across as aggressively questioning; I can't seem to find a smiley for "curious but with a hint of scepticism"!)

    That's fine, no offence taken! I am of course no sort of official spokesman, or even a candidate. I think if you demanded a precise answer from a spokesperson they'd say that it's obviously subject to negotiation but that's what they'd aim for.

    You're right that it would leave part of the anti-immigration vote cheesed off. However, there is a substantial segment of that vote who say - and I've no reason to doubt them - that they accept that we need lots of foreign workers for the NHS, crop-picking, and many other things, and what they object to is just those foreign layabouts who they read about in the Mail who turn up to claim benefits, beg on street corners, etc.

    Attempts to assuage this segment by saying (truthfully) that this is a very small number and the Mail et al are stirring generally don't work - people say "huh, you would say that, but I'm sure there's loads of them". So the policy of tying immigration to jobs effectively says "If you feel that that's the main problem, we can fix it for you." Since we believe it's actually a small number, we can square it with our own generally liberal attitude to the issue, and potentially it won't be impossible to negotiate, since actually other EU countries aren't wild about having unemployed immigrants - certainly a deal refusing benefits to people who arrive without a job is achievable.

    But as a party we don't believe in a ferocious clampdown on immigration numbers, so we're not offering one - it might or might not be popular, but it's not us. The Tories offer serial lip-service (the 100K "target") without actually trying to achieve it either. If people want ferocity, then only UKIP is on offer.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 5,502
    scotslass said:

    Just watched Neil and Farron - I don't think it was particularly fair but oh dearie me.

    I tried to watch it, but really how many viewers would sit through such a painful experience? I didn't even understand why Farron felt compelled to talk across Neil continuously.

    Was he speaking in tongues or something?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 5,502


    The question is whether the pollsters are fighting the last war and things have changed.

    Or, to put it less generously, whether the polls are anything better than guesswork now?
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 605
    Farron has not had a great campaign, if they get less than 9% vote I suspect he will consider standing down, then again not exactly many replacements to choose from - return of Clegg?
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    AndyJS/nunu

    You pair are experienced contributers but yoiur really should be showing L plates.

    The BMG polls are never "new" and this one has whiskers on it! It is the same timescale as the YOuGov Times poll of more than 2 weeks ago (42-29). Since then we have had both the MORI poll and YouGov survey showing the SNP vote edging up and the Tories moving downwards in response to a slight Labour recovery. Also polls now filter for turnout.

    Let us hope that this further misleading rubbish from the Herald moves out Robertson's price in Moray so that I can plunge on.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 5,502
    Chris said:

    scotslass said:

    Just watched Neil and Farron - I don't think it was particularly fair but oh dearie me.

    I tried to watch it, but really how many viewers would sit through such a painful experience? I didn't even understand why Farron felt compelled to talk across Neil continuously.

    Was he speaking in tongues or something?
    Funny, in a sad sort of way, to see the coverage of this on Lib Dem Voice:
    http://www.libdemvoice.org/tims-andrew-neil-interview-discussion-thread-54489.html

    Caron Lindsay, the editor/censor of LDV, as usual toes the party line slavishly, as do some of the commenters.

    Others realise that all wasn't well. For example, Paul Walter, generally another loyalist, says:
    "I think Tim will, in the fullness of time, realise that it is not a good idea to talk that much over the interviewer. Andrew Neill is not the devil incarnate. Yes, Tim appeared brave, but it was “brave” in the Humphrey Appleby “Very brave, minister” sense."
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,417


    You're right that it would leave part of the anti-immigration vote cheesed off. However, there is a substantial segment of that vote who say - and I've no reason to doubt them - that they accept that we need lots of foreign workers for the NHS, crop-picking, and many other things, and what they object to is just those foreign layabouts who they read about in the Mail who turn up to claim benefits, beg on street corners, etc.

    snip

    Thanks Nick.

    The thing I'm trying to get my head around is the bottom line here. Is it basically "Unrestricted numbers of both high and low skilled immigration from the EU, contingent on them - or their breadwinner - having a job and with exact details subject to the Brexit negotiation"? And the maintenance of a system largely as at present for migration from outside the EU?

    When Britain leaves the EU the case that EU citizens should be so especially privileged starts looking a bit ropier. Obviously a certain cohort of voters would prefer EU migrants to be subject to the same, stricter, rules as everyone else, but the more devout Corbynistas of my acquaintance seem to have a "citizen of the world" perspective informed by a kind of transnational progressivism, and see border controls as essentially racist. They would prefer "if you have a job offer (of any kind), you can come" to apply to anyone, anywhere, not just to EU citizens. From an electoral point of view this minority hardly need pandering to - I suppose the alternative is that they might vote Green, but a Corbyn-led Labour government is likely to prove too enticing for them whatever the details of immigration policy.

    But I wonder if their feeling is somewhat closer to the people at the top of the Labour party at the moment. I mean, if you are going to allow millions of people to benefit from mass low-skill migration (and as much as the UK public may not stomach this, economists of all stripes seem to think it's good for everyone, but particularly the migrants themselves have a lot to gain) why should the benefits be directed primarily at mostly-white, mostly-European workers from Eastern Europe and the Med?

    I am sure even the Corbyn's leftier advisers would be aware that a global open-door policy would be electorally disadvantageous ("unskilled" and "uncapped" are words which I suspect resonate as much or more than "layabouts on benefits") but I wonder how sympathetic they are to it, and whether when there is talk of "under Labour, anyone with a job offer can come to Britain" that "anyone" really is limited to EU citizens or whether there is an intention or hope to expand it.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 38,627
    Daily Mail Stephen Tall:

    The most maddening part of the debate was the reaction to the news that Amber Rudd’s father died earlier this week. Cue a lot of people, including many who should know a lot better, accusing Theresa May of callous cruelty for forcing Ms Rudd to carry on regardless. The assumption that Ms Rudd has no agency of her own, that she couldn’t have made her own decision to appear, is the kind of sexist nonsense that would be rightly decried if levelled against anyone on the left. But Mrs May and Ms Rudd are Tories, so it’s fair game, it seems, to cast them respectively as a heartless witch and hapless victim.

    http://stephentall.org/2017/06/01/election-notebook-15-debate-debased-amber-warning-polls-apart-the-libconomist/
  • ChrisChris Posts: 5,502

    Daily Mail Stephen Tall:

    The most maddening part of the debate was the reaction to the news that Amber Rudd’s father died earlier this week. Cue a lot of people, including many who should know a lot better, accusing Theresa May of callous cruelty for forcing Ms Rudd to carry on regardless. The assumption that Ms Rudd has no agency of her own, that she couldn’t have made her own decision to appear, is the kind of sexist nonsense that would be rightly decried if levelled against anyone on the left. But Mrs May and Ms Rudd are Tories, so it’s fair game, it seems, to cast them respectively as a heartless witch and hapless victim.

    http://stephentall.org/2017/06/01/election-notebook-15-debate-debased-amber-warning-polls-apart-the-libconomist/

    It's funny, because although it struck me as nonsense, the word "sexist" never entered my head. Surely nonsense doesn't become sexist nonsense purely because it's directed at two women?
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    scotslass said:

    AndyJS/nunu

    You pair are experienced contributers but yoiur really should be showing L plates.

    The BMG polls are never "new" and this one has whiskers on it! It is the same timescale as the YOuGov Times poll of more than 2 weeks ago (42-29). Since then we have had both the MORI poll and YouGov survey showing the SNP vote edging up and the Tories moving downwards in response to a slight Labour recovery. Also polls now filter for turnout.

    Let us hope that this further misleading rubbish from the Herald moves out Robertson's price in Moray so that I can plunge on.

    Yes, good point. But labour have all but given up according to the number of voters they have contacted. The unionist vote has to go somewhere.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    We are all forgetting the tories have recently raised ten times more then Labour, even if there is 0 swing to the tories (unlikely in my imo), targetting alone will see them GAIN seats off Labour.

    They gained 24 seats last time with a tiny 0.8% increase in vote and a swing TO labour in England, this time they they should GAIN even more with even say only a 2 or 3% swing towards them.

    This is what happened in the West Midlands, labour spent £100,000 Andy Street spent £1,000,000, ten times more. He got the votes out.

    And I don't think they will be put off by the CPS investigation they will simply adapt.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,052
    edited June 2017
    Apologies if this has already been debated. But I have been struck by some comparisons from both the 2010 and 2015 GEs which we are now seeing repeated during this GE campaign. Like the 2010 GE campaign, we now have a sudden unexpected Corbynista spike in the polls, anyone remember the famous Cleggism polling spike in the first Leaders debate which then saw the Libdems leapfrog Labour in the polls? And remember all the excitement that caused here on PB.com?! Again, like the current Corbynista spike in the polls, its been driven by younger voters. Libdem tuition fees pledge anyone, and then the Libdems lost seats.

    Moving onto the 2015 GE and the then daily YouGov polling which again managed to make itself the news, and therefore to some extent it set the media agenda in a febrile atmosphere where the SNP were then seen as having the Labour party in their pocket in the event of a Hung Parliament? Who remembers us all eagerly awaiting Tom Newton Dunn's tweets of YouGov's daily polling output?

    So no surprise that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are now in a desperate bid to portray a vote for SLab as a wasted vote up here to protect Scotland against a big Conservative majority. But now on the other hand they are trying to portray Sturgeon as the kingpin in a deal to create a Coalition of Chaos with the Labour party at Westminster on the off chance there is a Hung Parliament on the back of current polling. If you thought the Westminster parties campaigns were all over the place, you ain't seen nothing compared to the SNP campaign up here right now!

    PS. A straw in the wind, but on This Week we had Tommy Sheppard step in for John Nicolson's regular slot. Now either Nicolson was too busy defending his seat to attend while Sheppard is so confident in his seat he could attend. On the other hand, maybe they have both given up? Sheppard made much of that last Scottish IpsosMori poll where SLab and the Scottish Conservatives were neck and neck, and then proceeded to predict the Scottish Conservatives would come second in Scotland!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    O/T:

    "Smartphone Addiction The Slot Machine in Your Pocket

    Smartphone apps are addictive -- by design. They take advantage of human weaknesses to ensure your constant attention. But there is another way.

    An Essay by Tristan Harris"

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/smartphone-addiction-is-part-of-the-design-a-1104237.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 38,627
    Chris said:

    Daily Mail Stephen Tall:

    The most maddening part of the debate was the reaction to the news that Amber Rudd’s father died earlier this week. Cue a lot of people, including many who should know a lot better, accusing Theresa May of callous cruelty for forcing Ms Rudd to carry on regardless. The assumption that Ms Rudd has no agency of her own, that she couldn’t have made her own decision to appear, is the kind of sexist nonsense that would be rightly decried if levelled against anyone on the left. But Mrs May and Ms Rudd are Tories, so it’s fair game, it seems, to cast them respectively as a heartless witch and hapless victim.

    http://stephentall.org/2017/06/01/election-notebook-15-debate-debased-amber-warning-polls-apart-the-libconomist/

    It's funny, because although it struck me as nonsense, the word "sexist" never entered my head. Surely nonsense doesn't become sexist nonsense purely because it's directed at two women?
    I suspect Mr Tall means its sexist because it was directed at women - and wouldn't have created the stir if it had been a man/men.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    @nunu - we are all hoping the hidden campaign is less crap than the national one! Otherwise it might be a big waste of money :p
  • ChrisChris Posts: 5,502

    Chris said:

    Daily Mail Stephen Tall:

    The most maddening part of the debate was the reaction to the news that Amber Rudd’s father died earlier this week. Cue a lot of people, including many who should know a lot better, accusing Theresa May of callous cruelty for forcing Ms Rudd to carry on regardless. The assumption that Ms Rudd has no agency of her own, that she couldn’t have made her own decision to appear, is the kind of sexist nonsense that would be rightly decried if levelled against anyone on the left. But Mrs May and Ms Rudd are Tories, so it’s fair game, it seems, to cast them respectively as a heartless witch and hapless victim.

    http://stephentall.org/2017/06/01/election-notebook-15-debate-debased-amber-warning-polls-apart-the-libconomist/

    It's funny, because although it struck me as nonsense, the word "sexist" never entered my head. Surely nonsense doesn't become sexist nonsense purely because it's directed at two women?
    I suspect Mr Tall means its sexist because it was directed at women - and wouldn't have created the stir if it had been a man/men.
    I suspect you're right about Mr Tall. But if something isn't intrinsically sexist, it doesn't become sexist just because it's directed at women.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Daily Mail Stephen Tall:

    The most maddening part of the debate was the reaction to the news that Amber Rudd’s father died earlier this week. Cue a lot of people, including many who should know a lot better, accusing Theresa May of callous cruelty for forcing Ms Rudd to carry on regardless. The assumption that Ms Rudd has no agency of her own, that she couldn’t have made her own decision to appear, is the kind of sexist nonsense that would be rightly decried if levelled against anyone on the left. But Mrs May and Ms Rudd are Tories, so it’s fair game, it seems, to cast them respectively as a heartless witch and hapless victim.

    http://stephentall.org/2017/06/01/election-notebook-15-debate-debased-amber-warning-polls-apart-the-libconomist/

    It's funny, because although it struck me as nonsense, the word "sexist" never entered my head. Surely nonsense doesn't become sexist nonsense purely because it's directed at two women?
    I suspect Mr Tall means its sexist because it was directed at women - and wouldn't have created the stir if it had been a man/men.
    I suspect you're right about Mr Tall. But if something isn't intrinsically sexist, it doesn't become sexist just because it's directed at women.
    I suppose Mr Tall is Sexist, but then maybe Little Miss Giggle is too.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    RobD said:

    @nunu - we are all hoping the hidden campaign is less crap than the national one! Otherwise it might be a big waste of money :p

    Let us not over react to the morning poll from the YouGov tracker, which will by now show a Labour lead I predict. It is I suspect nonsense.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    nunu said:

    RobD said:

    @nunu - we are all hoping the hidden campaign is less crap than the national one! Otherwise it might be a big waste of money :p

    Let us not over react to the morning poll from the YouGov tracker, which will by now show a Labour lead I predict. It is I suspect nonsense.
    I'll be very surprised if it shows a Labour lead.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    fitalass said:

    Apologies if this has already been debated. But I have been struck by some comparisons from both the 2010 and 2015 GEs which we are now seeing repeated during this GE campaign. Like the 2010 GE campaign, we now have a sudden unexpected Corbynista spike in the polls, anyone remember the famous Cleggism polling spike in the first Leaders debate which then saw the Libdems leapfrog Labour in the polls? And remember all the excitement that caused here on PB.com?! Again, like the current Corbynista spike in the polls, its been driven by younger voters. Libdem tuition fees pledge anyone, and then the Libdems lost seats.

    Moving onto the 2015 GE and the then daily YouGov polling which again managed to make itself the news, and therefore to some extent it set the media agenda in a febrile atmosphere where the SNP were then seen as having the Labour party in their pocket in the event of a Hung Parliament? Who remembers us all eagerly awaiting Tom Newton Dunn's tweets of YouGov's daily polling output?

    So no surprise that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are now in a desperate bid to portray a vote for SLab as a wasted vote up here to protect Scotland against a big Conservative majority. But now on the other hand they are trying to portray Sturgeon as the kingpin in a deal to create a Coalition of Chaos with the Labour party at Westminster on the off chance there is a Hung Parliament on the back of current polling. If you thought the Westminster parties campaigns were all over the place, you ain't seen nothing compared to the SNP campaign up here right now!

    PS. A straw in the wind, but on This Week we had Tommy Sheppard step in for John Nicolson's regular slot. Now either Nicolson was too busy defending his seat to attend while Sheppard is so confident in his seat he could attend. On the other hand, maybe they have both given up? Sheppard made much of that last Scottish IpsosMori poll where SLab and the Scottish Conservatives were neck and neck, and then proceeded to predict the Scottish Conservatives would come second in Scotland!

    Yes, SNP are trying to as ever face both ways at the same time. Labour are tied with SCons and at same time Scon's are threatening to win seats? Which is it?
This discussion has been closed.