Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How do you solve a problem like Jeremy?

24

Comments

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I really hope so. It's a racket for the Big Charidees. I find it so depressing that I now automatically doubt anything most charities say or claim as facts. And those TV adverts - urgh.

    I used to happily give a chunk of change to many - now I'm very careful and cynical. That once I intended to give a significant donation to the RSPCA in my will makes me wince.
    Sandpit said:

    Miss Plato, remember the Fagin song in Oliver!:
    "Charity's fine
    subscribe to mine"

    It seems that the MoS has a whole silly season of stories on this particular 'charity'.
    Reform of the Third Sector to follow reform of the Unions in the autumn?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    I’ve just caught the end of Broadcasting House. The May morning after Jeremy Corbyn wins the 2020 election.

    Must listen again on iPlayer!
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    OchEye said:

    Unfortunately, too many people are talking like the Conservative party is a winner verses Corbyn.

    For too long, many people have considered the Labour party was just Red Tory lite, and really not worth voting for.

    With Corbyn, there is now a potential leader who is seen to be honest, sincere and actually cares.

    I agree that there are a lot of Labour MP's who will disagree with him, but should they leave Labour and join the LibDems or form a new party, then they will confirm the electorates view of them as carpet baggers. (Most Labour supporters detest the LibDems, if a Labour MP crosses to them they will ousted at the next election. Crossing to the Tories, believe it or not is slightly more acceptable)

    Corbyn's potential victory actually puts a question mark against the Tory front bench which they will find very difficult to answer. And, when you think about it, he is old enough, knows enough and doesn't give a damn about them.

    The reality is the Conservatives are going to beat the Labour Party at the next election regardless of the leader. Their dominance in the media is now almost complete. Have you noticed that that BBC now toes the Tory line? They will be better funded by the big business interests they represent. And they now have 5 years to shape the landscape the way they want it.

    It's a depressing prospect for any patriotic person, but the UK government is now pretty much a burger franchise. I think the best we can hope for is a Labour leader that actually argues against the establishment rather than trying to join it.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 897

    Miss Plato, I did know a girl's voice was dubbed over :)

    Mr. Sandpit, if a charity is dependent for its existence on public money, it's effectively in the public sector.

    "Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim." - Attlee
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Fpt
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    I'm afraid sickness means an early start today as I was tired of lying in bed feeling sorry for myself, not being able to breathe normally and of course disturbing Mrs Stodge.

    So it's OZ racing and pb for a while - on the issue of Jeremy Corbyn, I suspect he will follow a leadership style quite unlike most we've seen of late. The new Shadow Cabinet (and the elections to that will either confirm the Corbyn takeover of the Party or not) is, to my eyes, likely to be much more concensual and much less Presidential.

    Despite being nominally primus inter pares, Cameron dominates the Government - Hammond has no useful purpose at all it seems - but I suspect Corbyn won't be like that. It will be much more collegiate and the formation of policy likewise.

    Corbyn may lead and direct but I think Shadow Cabinet members will have more "say" than their Conservative equivalents.

    For me, Corbyn's problems aren't what he's said and with whom he has associated which aren't important nor an economic policy which will be trimmed and tailored but he comes over as a thinker (irrespective of whether you like his thoughts or not) and I fear won't be suited to the modern political agenda with the 24-hour news cycle.

    Your view of Cameron dominating is interesting, as I had thought the general thinking was he was very laid back, leaving people in post and letting them get on with things and test out their ideas, with only Osborne a truly dominating figure.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Ewwww.
    Pauly said:

    Miss Plato, I did know a girl's voice was dubbed over :)

    Mr. Sandpit, if a charity is dependent for its existence on public money, it's effectively in the public sector.

    "Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim." - Attlee
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    As a fairly typical member willing to give JC a try, I'd see an immediate resignation or defection simply as a sign of disloyalty to the membership - "I don't like your choice so I'm going to throw my toys out". If Labour suffered as a result, I'd simply blame the defector.

    If some MPs want to show that JC is unpopular, they need to give it some time to demonstrate itself without giving an excuse to blame it on them. However, most MPs want to win - they won't be actively hoping for a disaster, though they may fear that it could happen.

    Nick, a problem with that is the rhetoric in this campaign, which isn't all one way. Look at what 'loyal' members of the party are saying about people like Kendall, who has committed the cardinal sin of not being left wing enough.

    If the membership want loyalty, perhaps they should show some loyalty to those with slightly different views to theirs in the party. If Corbyn wins, I can see such rhetoric getting much worse unless he acts to dampen it down. And he is the only one who could do that.

    In such an environment, most of the blame should perhaps go to the vocal nasty people in the membership, not the defector.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    For anyone who wants to see what Labour did between 1979-1995, @Andy_JS posted this the other day

    Labour - The Wilderness Years

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XrO72C1WQ0
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    JC can deny that he wants mandatory re-selection because he can wait for the Party membership (now overwhelmingly Trotskyite) to vote for it instead. All he has to do is to follow, which will be easy for him, since he has neither leadership skills nor experience.

    If the Tories know what's good for them, they'll offer Kendall, Woodcock and others of their kidney safe seats should they cross the floor.

    They are not going to cross the floir. They are not Tories.

    More interestingly - what happens to the LDs if eight or more Labour MPs join them? The party could be taken over and moulded quite quickly. Even the name could be changed!

    "They are not Tories". Who says? And with what justification? Why do you brlieve they could resist such an offer?

    The LDs have no safe seats to give them.
    Intriguing - if Kendall were offered a Ministerial position in the next reshuffle in a social ministry, with an opportunity "to actually mitigate some of the worst excesses of right-wing Tories, to speak out and help prevent the next Bedroom Tax fiasco, rather than remain in the rows of Labour colleagues, all sat with faces like a smacked arse..." - could that tempt her do we think?

    After all, she has been told for weeks that "the Blair witch" is a Tory - what chance of career advancement there now?
    Not a chance right now, but lined up behind a new leader if Corbyn crashes and burns?

    There won't be crossing the floor. It's notable how even as Tory is being used as a generic term for 'bad' in the contest even more than usual, thos accused of such treason are not giving that any sort of credence, they are showing tribal support for labour and will show it even if the new leadership is hostile to them
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited August 2015
    OchEye said:

    Unfortunately, too many people are talking like the Conservative party is a winner verses Corbyn.

    For too long, many people have considered the Labour party was just Red Tory lite, and really not worth voting for.

    With Corbyn, there is now a potential leader who is seen to be honest, sincere and actually cares.

    I agree that there are a lot of Labour MP's who will disagree with him, but should they leave Labour and join the LibDems or form a new party, then they will confirm the electorates view of them as carpet baggers. (Most Labour supporters detest the LibDems, if a Labour MP crosses to them they will ousted at the next election. Crossing to the Tories, believe it or not is slightly more acceptable)

    Corbyn's potential victory actually puts a question mark against the Tory front bench which they will find very difficult to answer. And, when you think about it, he is old enough, knows enough and doesn't give a damn about them.

    What proof is there people didn't vote labour because they were red Tories? Besides in Scotland.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Miss Plato, remember the Fagin song in Oliver!:
    "Charity's fine
    subscribe to mine"

    I've never been able to watch Oliver in quite the same light after Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred"!
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited August 2015
    Plato said:

    I really hope so. It's a racket for the Big Charidees. I find it so depressing that I now automatically doubt anything most charities say or claim as facts. And those TV adverts - urgh.

    I used to happily give a chunk of change to many - now I'm very careful and cynical. That once I intended to give a significant donation to the RSPCA in my will makes me wince.

    Sandpit said:

    Miss Plato, remember the Fagin song in Oliver!:
    "Charity's fine
    subscribe to mine"

    It seems that the MoS has a whole silly season of stories on this particular 'charity'.
    Reform of the Third Sector to follow reform of the Unions in the autumn?
    Join up the dots - much as they might not like to acknowledge it, a lot of these type of scandals are a direct consequence of Government Policy! They are actively testing the theories that if you remove direct public sector provision, the third sector will identify where there is genuine need and fill the gap.

    The government is happy to help them along the way with grants, but they don't mind because they attach all sorts of strings insisting what the money should be spent on ("frontline services"), therefore cheaper than when it was in the public sector, and the charities have to provide for their own financial security through back office expenditure and building up of reserves (for all the Kidz company was ridiculed for not building up any reserves, imagine the theoretical flip side newspaper 'expose' where it was discovered that the Government was giving money to 'rich' organisations with huge amounts of cash! - we already get enough of that with the Govt attacking Councils for not spending their reserves keeping the Council tax down).

    So it is the 'third sector' today, in a few years time somebody will start questioning why schools are getting so much money disappearing into the bottomless and unaccountable Academy pit.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited August 2015
    Plato said:

    I really hope so. It's a racket for the Big Charidees. I find it so depressing that I now automatically doubt anything most charities say or claim as facts. And those TV adverts - urgh.

    I used to happily give a chunk of change to many - now I'm very careful and cynical. That once I intended to give a significant donation to the RSPCA in my will makes me wince.

    Sandpit said:

    Miss Plato, remember the Fagin song in Oliver!:
    "Charity's fine
    subscribe to mine"

    It seems that the MoS has a whole silly season of stories on this particular 'charity'.
    Reform of the Third Sector to follow reform of the Unions in the autumn?
    Charities play an important role, but it's clear that serious reform is needed. Obvious problems are high admin costs, employment of executives and professional fundraisers, charities taking public money while lobbying the government etc.

    The solution in my mind is not to increase bureaucracy though, rather to limit their size. If KC had been given 50 grand to open a youth club we wouldn't be talking about them. They had enough private donors they could and should have tapped up before public funds were used.

    It used to be that charities were small organisations committed to doing good work. Staffed mainly by volunteers and retired execs and reliant on small donations for their good work. At uni I was on the RAG committee, shaking a tin for a variety of good causes almost every weekend. The start of the rot as I see it was when the students and their tins were replaced on the high street by the professional 'chug gets' and their clipboards collecting phone numbers and bank account details.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited August 2015

    I’ve just caught the end of Broadcasting House. The May morning after Jeremy Corbyn wins the 2020 election.

    Must listen again on iPlayer!

    Apologies OKC, I missed your post re Clegg yesterday.

    Generally the yellow peril are pretty forgiving and most realize there really was little choice but to accept the suicide mission entrusted to them by the electorate after the 2010 GE.

    History will treat Clegg and the LibDems in government more kindly than the voters, not that will be much solace to them and defeated MP's presently.

  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    kle4 said:

    Fpt

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    I'm afraid sickness means an early start today as I was tired of lying in bed feeling sorry for myself, not being able to breathe normally and of course disturbing Mrs Stodge.

    So it's OZ racing and pb for a while - on the issue of Jeremy Corbyn, I suspect he will follow a leadership style quite unlike most we've seen of late. The new Shadow Cabinet (and the elections to that will either confirm the Corbyn takeover of the Party or not) is, to my eyes, likely to be much more concensual and much less Presidential.

    Despite being nominally primus inter pares, Cameron dominates the Government - Hammond has no useful purpose at all it seems - but I suspect Corbyn won't be like that. It will be much more collegiate and the formation of policy likewise.

    Corbyn may lead and direct but I think Shadow Cabinet members will have more "say" than their Conservative equivalents.

    For me, Corbyn's problems aren't what he's said and with whom he has associated which aren't important nor an economic policy which will be trimmed and tailored but he comes over as a thinker (irrespective of whether you like his thoughts or not) and I fear won't be suited to the modern political agenda with the 24-hour news cycle.

    Your view of Cameron dominating is interesting, as I had thought the general thinking was he was very laid back, leaving people in post and letting them get on with things and test out their ideas, with only Osborne a truly dominating figure.
    Whats interesting about both your posts is I think you are both wrong. Corbyn s not 'collegiate' - he knows his college has been signed up by him and the unions and of course the unions will pull the strings.
    As for Cameron - he is PM and is inevitably the man in charge and the man in the spotlight- he appoints ministers and as all PMs realise that means ministers have to do their jobs. As it happens in this govt Osborne is the deputy PM and as such (like Clegg before him) has influence in that he sits on committees chairs them. Plus he is Chancellor for goodness sake. This is how governments work.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Nick Robinson's take on first 100 days
    The unity of which he was so proud has been replaced by political blood-letting. The party’s Right accuses the Left of being an outdated, election-losing extremist cult, while the Left accuses the Right of being austerity-loving neo-Tories. Even though Left-wing leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn has the backing of fewer than one in ten Labour MPs, it is not just the polls, but a growing number of insiders who think he will win. If he does, Labour may not formally split, but a generation of leading figures will simply drift away. And if he loses, whoever wins will face cries of betrayal from a new mass movement of Left-wing activists.

    All this is a consequence of what happened on that night in May. It is not, though, a result simply from the triumph of the Tories. The stunning success of Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP is the other part of the explanation.

    Labour’s dives are rooted in their failure to agree on why they lost. Some believe that the party was not trusted with the nation’s money or to curb immigration. Others rave for the reassuring certainties of an anti-austerity and anti- war message.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3199644/100-days-changed-doyen-political-rune-readers-compelling-dissection-seismic-shift.html#ixzz3iy4pbmwd

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    ydoethur said:

    Mr. Root, when was that poll taken?

    Was the last ICM COn 40, Lab 31?

    not sure MD but its on the Comres website I may have misread it and its old but it looked pretty current to me, in amongst a lot of stuff about Corbyn.. I'll check..


    VOILA 15/8/15 is newspaper date so fieldwork must be pretty current

    http://comres.co.uk/polls/sunday-mirror-independent-on-sunday-august-poll/
    Sunday Mirror/Independent on Sunday, dated 16th August

    http://comres.co.uk/polls/sunday-mirror-independent-on-sunday-august-poll/

    Also every measure of polling is worse for Labour under Corbyn, except one: people think the railways will get better - by 1%
    Interesting to note the new methodology - an even further write-down of likelihood to vote among younger voters. An interesting and sensible conclusion - snag is, we won't be able to judge its effectiveness until the next election, whenever that is.

    It's a fairly worrying trend though that those who vote are those who will be dying off soon. What might the implications be for our democratic system if turnout dips below 50% in a general election in 10-15 years?
    We'll worry about that if it ever gets to that point. Even with the older people voting the talk was of ever decreasing overall turnout, and yet it's gone up 3 elections in a row - if only just last time and still too low for my tastes. Still a potential issue for the future, but things were predicted to be getting ever worse already, and it wasn't the case.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    PS on the subject ot the Lab election - I see that Blairites are being urged to support Watson. Surely this is the kiss of death for him with the Corbymaniacs. However please do not let it be Flint as an alternative. Please!
  • JWisemann said:

    The Tory hubris on here is wonderful to behold. Very much looking forward to the moment when they realise a pathetic, barely workable majority, for the first time in decades, achieved on the back of stitching up their only friends in parliament, is as good as it gets, and its all downhill from here.

    If you want to see some fantastic hubris - I refer you back to the PB threads of 6th May and those of the 7th May up until circa 10pm.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    OchEye said:

    Unfortunately, too many people are talking like the Conservative party is a winner verses Corbyn.

    For too long, many people have considered the Labour party was just Red Tory lite, and really not worth voting for.

    With Corbyn, there is now a potential leader who is seen to be honest, sincere and actually cares.

    I agree that there are a lot of Labour MP's who will disagree with him, but should they leave Labour and join the LibDems or form a new party, then they will confirm the electorates view of them as carpet baggers. (Most Labour supporters detest the LibDems, if a Labour MP crosses to them they will ousted at the next election. Crossing to the Tories, believe it or not is slightly more acceptable)

    Corbyn's potential victory actually puts a question mark against the Tory front bench which they will find very difficult to answer. And, when you think about it, he is old enough, knows enough and doesn't give a damn about them.

    The reality is the Conservatives are going to beat the Labour Party at the next election regardless of the leader. Their dominance in the media is now almost complete. Have you noticed that that BBC now toes the Tory line? They will be better funded by the big business interests they represent. And they now have 5 years to shape the landscape the way they want it.

    It's a depressing prospect for any patriotic person, but the UK government is now pretty much a burger franchise. I think the best we can hope for is a Labour leader that actually argues against the establishment rather than trying to join it.
    I hadn't noticed the BBC toe the Tory line, Tories complaining about it being biased against them all the time must have hidden that from me.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    alex. said:

    Plato said:

    I really hope so. It's a racket for the Big Charidees. I find it so depressing that I now automatically doubt anything most charities say or claim as facts. And those TV adverts - urgh.

    I used to happily give a chunk of change to many - now I'm very careful and cynical. That once I intended to give a significant donation to the RSPCA in my will makes me wince.

    Sandpit said:

    Miss Plato, remember the Fagin song in Oliver!:
    "Charity's fine
    subscribe to mine"

    It seems that the MoS has a whole silly season of stories on this particular 'charity'.
    Reform of the Third Sector to follow reform of the Unions in the autumn?
    Join up the dots - much as they might not like to acknowledge it, a lot of these type of scandals are a direct consequence of Government Policy! They are actively testing the theories that if you remove direct public sector provision, the third sector will identify where there is genuine need and fill the gap.

    The government is happy to help them along the way with grants, but they don't mind because they attach all sorts of strings insisting what the money should be spent on ("frontline services"), therefore cheaper than when it was in the public sector, and the charities have to provide for their own financial security through back office expenditure and building up of reserves (for all the Kidz company was ridiculed for not building up any reserves, imagine the theoretical flip side newspaper 'expose' where it was discovered that the Government was giving money to 'rich' organisations with huge amounts of cash! - we already get enough of that with the Govt attacking Councils for not spending their reserves keeping the Council tax down).

    So it is the 'third sector' today, in a few years time somebody will start questioning why schools are getting so much money disappearing into the bottomless and unaccountable Academy pit.
    You have a good point there. When Cameron himself talked about the Big Society in 2010 he was clearly hoping that the third sector would help save the government money. For all their opposition food banks are a great example of this in action. I think the emphasis needs to be shifted to smaller and more local charities for government grants, and to recognise when an organisation gets too big to be effectively managed without a large increase in costs.

    Any reforms need careful thinking through though, one hing for certain is that a lot of the well paid charity industry will be very loud in objecting - and in the most shameless way possible.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Miss Plato, I did know a girl's voice was dubbed over :)

    Mr. Sandpit, if a charity is dependent for its existence on public money, it's effectively in the public sector.

    Makes sense. And public money needs to be much more carefully scrutinised.

    Sandpit said:

    Comment leader in the Telegraph this morning from the PM himself. That 100 days since the election has gone very quickly indeed.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11804367/david-cameron-tory-ideas-can-secure-britain.html

    And yet, it seems years since Ed Miliband was a force in the land....

    I'm really looking forward to the first PMQ's. Lots of scope for Cameron to make mischief!

    "May I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his election success. It must be the first time that the roles of both the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have been decided upon by members of the Conservative Party..... And, I suspect, the last....
    Good one!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    And Jeremy Vine saying on BBC GE2015 election night as the exit poll was announced "Well that's the BBC gone"
    kle4 said:

    OchEye said:

    Unfortunately, too many people are talking like the Conservative party is a winner verses Corbyn.

    For too long, many people have considered the Labour party was just Red Tory lite, and really not worth voting for.

    With Corbyn, there is now a potential leader who is seen to be honest, sincere and actually cares.

    I agree that there are a lot of Labour MP's who will disagree with him, but should they leave Labour and join the LibDems or form a new party, then they will confirm the electorates view of them as carpet baggers. (Most Labour supporters detest the LibDems, if a Labour MP crosses to them they will ousted at the next election. Crossing to the Tories, believe it or not is slightly more acceptable)

    Corbyn's potential victory actually puts a question mark against the Tory front bench which they will find very difficult to answer. And, when you think about it, he is old enough, knows enough and doesn't give a damn about them.

    The reality is the Conservatives are going to beat the Labour Party at the next election regardless of the leader. Their dominance in the media is now almost complete. Have you noticed that that BBC now toes the Tory line? They will be better funded by the big business interests they represent. And they now have 5 years to shape the landscape the way they want it.

    It's a depressing prospect for any patriotic person, but the UK government is now pretty much a burger franchise. I think the best we can hope for is a Labour leader that actually argues against the establishment rather than trying to join it.
    I hadn't noticed the BBC toe the Tory line, Tories complaining about it being biased against them all the time must have hidden that from me.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    Plato said:

    For anyone who wants to see what Labour did between 1979-1995, @Andy_JS posted this the other day

    Labour - The Wilderness Years

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XrO72C1WQ0

    Remind me what the Tory majority was over most of that period compared with now?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    GIN1138 said:

    JWisemann said:

    The Tory hubris on here is wonderful to behold. Very much looking forward to the moment when they realise a pathetic, barely workable majority, for the first time in decades, achieved on the back of stitching up their only friends in parliament, is as good as it gets, and its all downhill from here.

    LOL! Weren't you predicting disaster for Con's right up until Big Ben chimed at 10pm on 7th May?

    Many people were. Hubris is still a big risk for the Tories, perhaps their biggest risk at the moment. They should proceed as they were planning with any leader and only if Corbyn proves as troublesome for labour as they hope should they try something really bold to ake advantage.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082

    JWisemann said:

    The Tory hubris on here is wonderful to behold. Very much looking forward to the moment when they realise a pathetic, barely workable majority, for the first time in decades, achieved on the back of stitching up their only friends in parliament, is as good as it gets, and its all downhill from here.

    If you want to see some fantastic hubris - I refer you back to the PB threads of 6th May and those of the 7th May up until circa 10pm.
    I'm more than happy to admit to the presence of labour hubris before the election.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    OchEye said:

    Unfortunately, too many people are talking like the Conservative party is a winner verses Corbyn.

    For too long, many people have considered the Labour party was just Red Tory lite, and really not worth voting for.

    With Corbyn, there is now a potential leader who is seen to be honest, sincere and actually cares.

    I'm not convinced this is a recipe for electoral success but it backs up DavidL's point: This is what a lot of Labour members believe. They think that if they have a proper, authentic, unapologetically left-wing leader, people will vote for them. If it turns out that they're right then great, and if it doesn't, the only way to disabuse them of it is to empirically test it.

    What the centre and right of the party need to avoid doing is looking like they're the cause of the strategy failing, in the event that it does. And that means they need to go easy on the plotting and the dicking around.
    All this ignores that Corbyn is an anti West, anti American, anti NATO, anti Nuclear, pro Unilateralist, enemy appeasing, anti capitalist, unthinking bigot.
    He is also a hypocrite - his wife exploits Mexican labour to sell vastly overpriced coffee (from a private business run from his home) and his son conveniently gets a nice job as a 'parliamentary researcher' to his campaign manager. So much for his supposed squeaky clean expenses record.
    Any bets on what his campaign manager John McDonnell will get in the Shadow Cabinet?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited August 2015

    All this ignores that Corbyn is an anti West, anti American, anti NATO, anti Nuclear, pro Unilateralist, enemy appeasing, anti capitalist, unthinking bigot.

    Sorry, are you saying you like him or are you saying you don't?
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Gordon Brown live on BBC News Channel at 2pm - he must still have some friends in the right places - and a few skeletons:

    https://twitter.com/Always_a_Yes/status/632841519209299968
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited August 2015
    It's amazing that the myth of falling turnout is still being recycled on PB. The turning point was the millennium, and we are back up to 70%.

    Garglegoons of the Owen Jones stripe were using it (*) as mood music before the Election for their doom-mongering, but here's the graph to 2010

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Graph_1_UK_election_voter_turnout_1945-2010.jpg
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    kle4 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    JWisemann said:

    The Tory hubris on here is wonderful to behold. Very much looking forward to the moment when they realise a pathetic, barely workable majority, for the first time in decades, achieved on the back of stitching up their only friends in parliament, is as good as it gets, and its all downhill from here.

    LOL! Weren't you predicting disaster for Con's right up until Big Ben chimed at 10pm on 7th May?

    Many people were. Hubris is still a big risk for the Tories, perhaps their biggest risk at the moment. They should proceed as they were planning with any leader and only if Corbyn proves as troublesome for labour as they hope should they try something really bold to ake advantage.
    There is no Tory hubris. I for one view Corbyn with shock and horror. I regard him as really quite nasty. And quite old.
    Labour is in a mess - that is a plan fact.
    There is a long way to go before the next general election but that bridge can be crossed if possible when it arrives - the tories need to be successful in pursuing a 40% policy.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Although Back To Basics was entirely hi-jacked to mean something else, it did for John Major.

    Playing the *principled ethical paragon* is always going to backfire - the Mail's expose of Cafe Mam was the easiest pop to take. That they went to the bother of getting stringers down to Mexico to investigate it surprised me.

    OchEye said:

    Unfortunately, too many people are talking like the Conservative party is a winner verses Corbyn.

    For too long, many people have considered the Labour party was just Red Tory lite, and really not worth voting for.

    With Corbyn, there is now a potential leader who is seen to be honest, sincere and actually cares.

    I'm not convinced this is a recipe for electoral success but it backs up DavidL's point: This is what a lot of Labour members believe. They think that if they have a proper, authentic, unapologetically left-wing leader, people will vote for them. If it turns out that they're right then great, and if it doesn't, the only way to disabuse them of it is to empirically test it.

    What the centre and right of the party need to avoid doing is looking like they're the cause of the strategy failing, in the event that it does. And that means they need to go easy on the plotting and the dicking around.
    All this ignores that Corbyn is an anti West, anti American, anti NATO, anti Nuclear, pro Unilateralist, enemy appeasing, anti capitalist, unthinking bigot.
    He is also a hypocrite - his wife exploits Mexican labour to sell vastly overpriced coffee (from a private business run from his home) and his son conveniently gets a nice job as a 'parliamentary researcher' to his campaign manager. So much for his supposed squeaky clean expenses record.
    Any bets on what his campaign manager John McDonnell will get in the Shadow Cabinet?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    kle4 said:


    I hadn't noticed the BBC toe the Tory line, Tories complaining about it being biased against them all the time must have hidden that from me.

    And that is why the more cynical Tories do complain: to disguise the Tory bias and shift it further to the right.

    Others might believe it, though often here this is because they consider their own position to be centrist. They hold LibDems to be left-wing, as if their participation in the recent right-wing coalition government had never happened.

    BBC website headlines did not identify Lord Janner as a Labour peer. You had to read the first line of the story to discover his allegiance. On this very here pb, this was held to be proof of reds under the BBC's bed. Curiously, pb saw fewer complaints about the Heath headlines.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Bwahahahahahhaha

    kle4 said:


    I hadn't noticed the BBC toe the Tory line, Tories complaining about it being biased against them all the time must have hidden that from me.

    And that is why the more cynical Tories do complain: to disguise the Tory bias and shift it further to the right.

    Others might believe it, though often here this is because they consider their own position to be centrist. They hold LibDems to be left-wing, as if their participation in the recent right-wing coalition government had never happened.

    BBC website headlines did not identify Lord Janner as a Labour peer. You had to read the first line of the story to discover his allegiance. On this very here pb, this was held to be proof of reds under the BBC's bed. Curiously, pb saw fewer complaints about the Heath headlines.

  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Sandpit said:

    alex. said:

    Plato said:

    I really hope so. It's a racket for the Big Charidees. I find it so depressing that I now automatically doubt anything most charities say or claim as facts. And those TV adverts - urgh.

    I used to happily give a chunk of change to many - now I'm very careful and cynical. That once I intended to give a significant donation to the RSPCA in my will makes me wince.

    Sandpit said:

    Miss Plato, remember the Fagin song in Oliver!:
    "Charity's fine
    subscribe to mine"

    It seems that the MoS has a whole silly season of stories on this particular 'charity'.
    Reform of the Third Sector to follow reform of the Unions in the autumn?
    ....
    The government is happy to help them along the way with grants, but they don't mind because they attach all sorts of strings insisting what the money should be spent on ("frontline services"), therefore cheaper than when it was in the public sector, and the charities have to provide for their own financial security through back office expenditure and building up of reserves (for all the Kidz company was ridiculed for not building up any reserves, imagine the theoretical flip side newspaper 'expose' where it was discovered that the Government was giving money to 'rich' organisations with huge amounts of cash! - we already get enough of that with the Govt attacking Councils for not spending their reserves keeping the Council tax down).

    So it is the 'third sector' today, in a few years time somebody will start questioning why schools are getting so much money disappearing into the bottomless and unaccountable Academy pit.
    You have a good point there. When Cameron himself talked about the Big Society in 2010 he was clearly hoping that the third sector would help save the government money. For all their opposition food banks are a great example of this in action. I think the emphasis needs to be shifted to smaller and more local charities for government grants, and to recognise when an organisation gets too big to be effectively managed without a large increase in costs.

    Any reforms need careful thinking through though, one hing for certain is that a lot of the well paid charity industry will be very loud in objecting - and in the most shameless way possible.
    I think the government were and are hoping that charities would be more understanding and direct and efficient in what they do.
    To me this seems plausible. Kids Company may or may not be an exception, I don't know. But charities must have good trustees - the operative bit being the 'trust' part.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Kezia hits the ground running:

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/kezia-dugdale-in-hunt-for-fresh-holyrood-talent-1-3859496

    I think Kezia's first challenge is to manage expectations around Holyrood 2016, based on current polling SLAB would lose all of their 13 constituency seats and be left with 25 list seats.

    The problem facing Kezia is that there are already going to be around 100 candidates after these 25 list seats. Kezia and her deputy are guaranteed 1st place on their regional lists, other than that it's going to get messy !!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    MattW said:

    It's amazing that the myth of falling turnout is still being recycled on PB. The turning point was the millennium, and we are back up to 70%.

    Garglegoons of the Owen Jones stripe were using it (*) as mood music before the Election for their doom-mongering, but here's the graph to 2010

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Graph_1_UK_election_voter_turnout_1945-2010.jpg

    We are not back to 70% and we have not recovered from the massive fall caused by disillusionment with Blair post 97 at a time when the Tories were also not electable. Just as with the deficit fixing the problems caused by the last Labour government is a long term task.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    More on the Tories plans during the Autumn.

    Votes or launch of Bills on:

    - fiscal responsibility requiring HMGs to run a surplus
    - trade union funding and strike thresholds
    - immigration
    - welfare cuts

    The intention is to push Labour leftwards even if Corbyn doesn't win, using the Corbynites to lobby moderate PLPers/leadership. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1594314.ece
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Victory is assured!

    @JohnRentoul: "Ed Miliband is also thinking of breaking his silence to urge his party to step back from precipice" @bbcnickrobinson http://t.co/mDke8NoGAy
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited August 2015

    Sandpit said:

    alex. said:

    Plato said:

    I really hope so. It's a racket for the Big Charidees. I find it so depressing that I now automatically doubt anything most charities say or claim as facts. And those TV adverts - urgh.

    I used to happily give a chunk of change to many - now I'm very careful and cynical. That once I intended to give a significant donation to the RSPCA in my will makes me wince.

    Sandpit said:

    Miss Plato, remember the Fagin song in Oliver!:
    "Charity's fine
    subscribe to mine"

    It seems that the MoS has a whole silly season of stories on this particular 'charity'.
    Reform of the Third Sector to follow reform of the Unions in the autumn?
    ....

    So it is the 'third sector' today, in a few years time somebody will start questioning why schools are getting so much money disappearing into the bottomless and unaccountable Academy pit.
    You have a good point there. When Cameron himself talked about the Big Society in 2010 he was clearly hoping that the third sector would help save the government money. For all their opposition food banks are a great example of this in action. I think the emphasis needs to be shifted to smaller and more local charities for government grants, and to recognise when an organisation gets too big to be effectively managed without a large increase in costs.

    Any reforms need careful thinking through though, one thing for certain is that a lot of the well paid charity industry will be very loud in objecting - and in the most shameless way possible.
    I think the government were and are hoping that charities would be more understanding and direct and efficient in what they do.
    To me this seems plausible. Kids Company may or may not be an exception, I don't know. But charities must have good trustees - the operative bit being the 'trust' part.
    Agreed. My thinking on reform would be to limit substantially the amount of public money given to any single charity, to more closely define charitable activity and fundraising methods, and to be able to hold trustees and paid directors to account for keeping admin costs to a minimum.

    Not to refer to any particular charity, but if charities are using money to send their own staff's children to public schools or employing them on high salaries with unrealistically low expecations of work, then the directors and trustees should be looking at fraud charges.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,742
    A lugubrious view from the PB Swarm's favourite SLab politician, Tom Harris, in the STimes. He seems to have come all over 'resistance is futile'.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/632818433445507072
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    Excellent article TSE, though it maybe better for Woodcock to hold back a year or two to force a by election. The Brent by election did for IDS two years after he was elected leader
  • Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708

    A lugubrious view from the PB Swarm's favourite SLab politician, Tom Harris, in the STimes. He seems to have come all over 'resistance is futile'.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/632818433445507072

    Yet most Scots polled still narrowly back the Union
  • A lugubrious view from the PB Swarm's favourite SLab politician, Tom Harris, in the STimes. He seems to have come all over 'resistance is futile'.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/632818433445507072

    Haven't the Scots already been offered independence recently?

    Or does he mean without a referendum?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Sandpit said:



    Not to refer to any particular charity, but if charities are using money to send their own staff's children to public schools or employing them on high salaries with unrealistically low expecations of work, then the directors and trustees should be looking at fraud charges.

    Aren't public schools charities that subsidise places for children of staff? You are Jeremy Corbyn AICMFP.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    HYUFD said:

    Yet most Scots polled still narrowly back the Union

    Exactly. And the next line of the quote...

    “Labour can never do that so I am very pessimistic about getting us back to the position we were in, in the short term. If we are lucky we are facing a decade in the wilderness.”
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    calum said:

    Kezia hits the ground running:

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/kezia-dugdale-in-hunt-for-fresh-holyrood-talent-1-3859496

    I think Kezia's first challenge is to manage expectations around Holyrood 2016, based on current polling SLAB would lose all of their 13 constituency seats and be left with 25 list seats.

    The problem facing Kezia is that there are already going to be around 100 candidates after these 25 list seats. Kezia and her deputy are guaranteed 1st place on their regional lists, other than that it's going to get messy !!

    Although for SLAB rather than UK Labour Corbyn would provide the biggest boost
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Plato said:

    More on the Tories plans during the Autumn.

    Votes or launch of Bills on:

    - fiscal responsibility requiring HMGs to run a surplus
    - trade union funding and strike thresholds
    - immigration
    - welfare cuts

    The intention is to push Labour leftwards even if Corbyn doesn't win, using the Corbynites to lobby moderate PLPers/leadership. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1594314.ece

    What will be the penalty for Chancellors who do not run a surplus? Will they have to change their name to George Osborne?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,702
    Scott_P said:

    Victory is assured!

    @JohnRentoul: "Ed Miliband is also thinking of breaking his silence to urge his party to step back from precipice" @bbcnickrobinson http://t.co/mDke8NoGAy

    Would be surprised if EIC speaks out against JIC
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    HYUFD said:

    A lugubrious view from the PB Swarm's favourite SLab politician, Tom Harris, in the STimes. He seems to have come all over 'resistance is futile'.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/632818433445507072

    Yet most Scots polled still narrowly back the Union
    Yes and as it seems a little unlikely that we are going to return to the happy 50's with an absolute majority of Tories in Scotland and since the Scottish Lib Dems are dead that suggests to me that there are a lot of Unionist votes that Labour are not getting.

    This is SLAB's real problem: there is a majority in favour of the Union and the SNP are at 60%. Very large numbers of their potential supporters think the SNP offer better governance. When you consider what an appalling mess the SNP have made of education, health and the police that is withering.

    Kezia Dugdale has a hell of a job on her hands and has shown very little to date to suggest she could make a success of it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yet most Scots polled still narrowly back the Union

    Exactly. And the next line of the quote...

    “Labour can never do that so I am very pessimistic about getting us back to the position we were in, in the short term. If we are lucky we are facing a decade in the wilderness.”
    Indeed and they would lose unionists Holyrood offers a better prospect than Westminster with the List and their being the main opposition to the SNP. At Westminster it is FPTP and the SNP have positioned themselves as Scotland's representatives though Corbyn may help a little
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    @Plato

    Anyone who achieves any prominence on the left is always smeared by the Daily Mail. It is virtually part of the constitution and we all knew it was going to happen. The question you should ask yourself is why. I assume you are not naive enough to think that they don't have an agenda.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    Even Mori had men over 25 voting Tory
  • Plato said:

    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    I'm looking through the link (I saw the info from PB originally) and I can't see info on how big the sample was.

    On my studies, I'm doing a combined degree of History and Politics.

  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited August 2015
    HYUFD said:

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    Even Mori had men over 25 voting Tory
    That isn't something I've ever disgusted - I said in the previous thread that after 25, Labour's advantage with young voters tends to dissipate. However, by and large they do vote Labour. What happens is that a gender-gap emerges - women under 45 stick with Labour, while males under 45 (and over) move away from Labour. In any case, this is out of 40% of young people, as few turn out to vote.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited August 2015

    Sandpit said:



    Not to refer to any particular charity, but if charities are using money to send their own staff's children to public schools or employing them on high salaries with unrealistically low expecations of work, then the directors and trustees should be looking at fraud charges.

    Aren't public schools charities that subsidise places for children of staff? You are Jeremy Corbyn AICMFP.
    A good point about schools themselves, although I'm definitely not Jeremy Corbyn!

    Whether a school should subsidise places for their own staff is clearly an edge case, one assumes that this would be treated as a benefit in kind for income tax purposes. One also assumes that this is for day pupils rather than boarders, as their parent is working at the school they obviously live nearby, the marginal cost to the school of the place is relatively low.

    To me, acceptable would be if for example a charity wants to send someone to Africa for a couple of years to implement a project, and can help with arranging a scholarship to a boarding school in the UK while they are away. Doing the same while the staff member is in London, not so much.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708

    Plato said:

    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    I'm looking through the link (I saw the info from PB originally) and I can't see info on how big the sample was.

    On my studies, I'm doing a combined degree of History and Politics.

    The figures you gave are 18 to 24s while 25 to 34s were only 36 to 33% Labour in that Mori poll
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    No. The Daily Mail is a paper bought by those who wish to read it. I don't and the only copy I bought was to see what they'd written about me. The Guardian isn't exactly the friend of the Tories and the Mirror hates them.

    The BBC is paid for by everyone with a TV. If it's so pro-Tory, why do Tories complain so much? And have frozen the TVLF and now want to end the TVLF entirely?

    I gather from your posts that you feel there's some significant bias in the media against your position. Perhaps your position isn't very popular?

    @Plato

    Anyone who achieves any prominence on the left is always smeared by the Daily Mail. It is virtually part of the constitution and we all knew it was going to happen. The question you should ask yourself is why. I assume you are not naive enough to think that they don't have an agenda.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    A lugubrious view from the PB Swarm's favourite SLab politician, Tom Harris, in the STimes. He seems to have come all over 'resistance is futile'.

    https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/632818433445507072

    Yet most Scots polled still narrowly back the Union
    Yes and as it seems a little unlikely that we are going to return to the happy 50's with an absolute majority of Tories in Scotland and since the Scottish Lib Dems are dead that suggests to me that there are a lot of Unionist votes that Labour are not getting.

    This is SLAB's real problem: there is a majority in favour of the Union and the SNP are at 60%. Very large numbers of their potential supporters think the SNP offer better governance. When you consider what an appalling mess the SNP have made of education, health and the police that is withering.

    Kezia Dugdale has a hell of a job on her hands and has shown very little to date to suggest she could make a success of it.
    Corbyn could help a little in Scotland at least
  • HYUFD said:

    Plato said:

    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    I'm looking through the link (I saw the info from PB originally) and I can't see info on how big the sample was.

    On my studies, I'm doing a combined degree of History and Politics.

    The figures you gave are 18 to 24s while 25 to 34s were only 36 to 33% Labour in that Mori poll
    I know that - I consider 18 - 24 year olds young people!

    25-29 may well be young, but no way can anyone over the age of 30 be included in a sample of young people! Thus, it's easier to use 18-24 year olds, unless it's possible to break down samples into 18-29.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    edited August 2015
    JackW said:

    I’ve just caught the end of Broadcasting House. The May morning after Jeremy Corbyn wins the 2020 election.

    Must listen again on iPlayer!

    Apologies OKC, I missed your post re Clegg yesterday.

    Generally the yellow peril are pretty forgiving and most realize there really was little choice but to accept the suicide mission entrusted to them by the electorate after the 2010 GE.

    History will treat Clegg and the LibDems in government more kindly than the voters, not that will be much solace to them and defeated MP's presently.

    Thanks Jack. Would touch my forelock if I believed in doing such a thing!

    I think that you are right, and get the impression that the tide of forgiveness is already starting to turn.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    Plato said:

    More on the Tories plans during the Autumn.

    Votes or launch of Bills on:

    - fiscal responsibility requiring HMGs to run a surplus
    - trade union funding and strike thresholds
    - immigration
    - welfare cuts

    The intention is to push Labour leftwards even if Corbyn doesn't win, using the Corbynites to lobby moderate PLPers/leadership. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1594314.ece

    What will be the penalty for Chancellors who do not run a surplus? Will they have to change their name to George Osborne?
    How quickly could you eliminate a 160bn surplus with 7% of the economy wiped out?

    and
    http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002115.html#more
    Look out this week for 'Super Thursday'
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Good luck with your studies - I hope that PB's fact based culture is helping to sharpen your essays/debating skills.

    HYUFD said:

    Plato said:

    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    I'm looking through the link (I saw the info from PB originally) and I can't see info on how big the sample was.

    On my studies, I'm doing a combined degree of History and Politics.

    The figures you gave are 18 to 24s while 25 to 34s were only 36 to 33% Labour in that Mori poll
    I know that - I consider 18 - 24 year olds young people!

    25-29 may well be young, but no way can anyone over the age of 30 be included in a sample of young people! Thus, it's easier to use 18-24 year olds, unless it's possible to break down samples into 18-29.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    A lugubrious view from the PB Swarm's favourite SLab politician, Tom Harris, in the STimes. He seems to have come all over 'resistance is futile'.

    twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/632818433445507072

    Haven't the Scots already been offered independence recently?
    Or does he mean without a referendum?
    Presumably he means actually campaigning for independence. Would the 'London Labour Party' do the same?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    In the midst of the jezzagasm, there remain MPs who practice what they preach. Frank Field (A good Catholic boy) is involved in the cross party report, Feeding Britain, which emphasises that the need for food banks has risen slowly and isn’t due to any particular government. The writers of the report have helped set up ‘Food Bank Plus’ which offers emergency help and advice. At a local level Frank is part of ‘Feeding Birkenhead’ which looks like a good practical step. Even one of those nasty Power companies is involved.

    But a major part of the scheme is ‘Social Supermarkets’ who rescue good food that would be otherwise be wasted. For instance, chocolates about to be thrown away because the closing date had passed for a competition on the wrappers. The best estimates suggest that that 400,000 tonnes of food goes to waste each year.

    People sign up for these social supermarkets and can then buy food for less than a third of the price. There are other advantages too. The Big Society in action?

    Let’s compare that with Comrade Corbyn for a moment. I’m not familiar with his help for food banks in Islington but he seems to be a supporter of many ‘good’ causes – mostly leftwing action groups which offer help for the hungry all the way up to actually doing anything.

    And among his heroes is Fidel Castro. No surprise there seeing as his friend ‘Che’ Guevara was every student’s mate in the sixties when Jezza led the chorus. This is the Fidel who wrote an interesting letter to Krushchev at the height of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

    I remember that well as I was just about to enter my teens, but not sure I’d ever see them.
    I researched it for my e-book (An Ever Rolling Stream) which begins with activity in the Oval Office at that time.

    We trembled on the brink of total oblivion but Fidel’s letter urged Krushchev to launch an immediate nuclear strike against the USA. “However harsh and terrible such a decision would be, there is no other way out ... Fraternal greetings, Fidel Castro (Jezza’s mate)” OK, I added in the last two words.

    Few of Jezza’s young fans and their families would be alive today if Jezza’s mate had had his way. We should forgive and forget but that takes a bit of forgiving. It would be interesting to see Jezza’s take on that now. I expect he’d get very angry at being asked.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    MattW said:

    It's amazing that the myth of falling turnout is still being recycled on PB. The turning point was the millennium, and we are back up to 70%.

    Garglegoons of the Owen Jones stripe were using it (*) as mood music before the Election for their doom-mongering, but here's the graph to 2010

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Graph_1_UK_election_voter_turnout_1945-2010.jpg

    Maybe you should learn to read your own graphs you absolute cretin.
  • Plato said:

    Good luck with your studies - I hope that PB's fact based culture is helping to sharpen your essays/debating skills.

    HYUFD said:

    Plato said:

    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    I'm looking through the link (I saw the info from PB originally) and I can't see info on how big the sample was.

    On my studies, I'm doing a combined degree of History and Politics.

    The figures you gave are 18 to 24s while 25 to 34s were only 36 to 33% Labour in that Mori poll
    I know that - I consider 18 - 24 year olds young people!

    25-29 may well be young, but no way can anyone over the age of 30 be included in a sample of young people! Thus, it's easier to use 18-24 year olds, unless it's possible to break down samples into 18-29.
    Thanks Plato. I have to say, out of all the political forums I've visited PB is by far the best. Although there are LOTs for Tories/Ukippers who I don't always agree with, debate is always sensible, mature, and rarely (if ever) are people rude. It's also conducted in a light-hearted manner at times which I like as well. This is in contrast to the kind of debate on Newspaper comment sections (CIF I'm thinking of you) where anyone who dares disagree with the consensus is attacked. Also, I have to say I'm not that keen on debating with my own age group beyond close friends. You get the kind of pious people on forums such as the student room, who are exactly like CIFers - with the righties there an equivalent of Corbyn lefties on CIF.

    BTW, did you see Matchmaker Millionaire in the last week or so? I couldn't believe that one of the guys took his date to a restaurant to eat duck embryo because he was 'testing her palate'. WTH?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708

    HYUFD said:

    Plato said:

    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    I'm looking through the link (I saw the info from PB originally) and I can't see info on how big the sample was.

    On my studies, I'm doing a combined degree of History and Politics.

    The figures you gave are 18 to 24s while 25 to 34s were only 36 to 33% Labour in that Mori poll
    I know that - I consider 18 - 24 year olds young people!

    25-29 may well be young, but no way can anyone over the age of 30 be included in a sample of young people! Thus, it's easier to use 18-24 year olds, unless it's possible to break down samples into 18-29.

    HYUFD said:

    Plato said:

    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    I'm looking through the link (I saw the info from PB originally) and I can't see info on how big the sample was.

    On my studies, I'm doing a combined degree of History and Politics.

    The figures you gave are 18 to 24s while 25 to 34s were only 36 to 33% Labour in that Mori poll
    I know that - I consider 18 - 24 year olds young people!

    25-29 may well be young, but no way can anyone over the age of 30 be included in a sample of young people! Thus, it's easier to use 18-24 year olds, unless it's possible to break down samples into 18-29.
    Yougov measured 18 to 29s so the Mori 18 to 24 figures you gave were not an equal comparison
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Plato said:

    More on the Tories plans during the Autumn.

    Votes or launch of Bills on:

    - fiscal responsibility requiring HMGs to run a surplus
    - trade union funding and strike thresholds
    - immigration
    - welfare cuts
    The intention is to push Labour leftwards even if Corbyn doesn't win, using the Corbynites to lobby moderate PLPers/leadership. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1594314.ece

    These are just the manifesto policies being implemented.
    It will not take much of a push to move labour leftwards. It is a Leaning Tower of Pisa of a political party. Its not the tories undermining the foundations,the weights levers and counterbalances that have prevented it toppling over for generations have been cut away by its own owners.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Is Mr Corbyn still mates with George Galloway? I know he stood in for him on PressTV. Just been reading some of George's quotes about Assange's sexual assault allegations - I'd forgotten how WTF they were.

    “Bad sexual etiquette”
    “Not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion”

    Ewwww.

    Apparently I was mistaken about Swedish law - the sex assault charge expires this week, the rape one lasts until 2020. So, he's in the Ecuadorean embassy for a while longer.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 897

    JackW said:

    I’ve just caught the end of Broadcasting House. The May morning after Jeremy Corbyn wins the 2020 election.

    Must listen again on iPlayer!

    Apologies OKC, I missed your post re Clegg yesterday.

    Generally the yellow peril are pretty forgiving and most realize there really was little choice but to accept the suicide mission entrusted to them by the electorate after the 2010 GE.

    History will treat Clegg and the LibDems in government more kindly than the voters, not that will be much solace to them and defeated MP's presently.

    Thanks Jack. Would touch my forelock if I believed in doing such a thing!

    I think that you are right, and get the impression that the tide of forgiveness is already starting to turn.
    I hope not, the euro-federalist puppets deserve to suffer for a more years at least. :D
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708

    HYUFD said:

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    Even Mori had men over 25 voting Tory
    That isn't something I've ever disgusted - I said in the previous thread that after 25, Labour's advantage with young voters tends to dissipate. However, by and large they do vote Labour. What happens is that a gender-gap emerges - women under 45 stick with Labour, while males under 45 (and over) move away from Labour. In any case, this is out of 40% of young people, as few turn out to vote.
    Indeed men under 50 voted Tory, women under 50 Labour

    Though while over 60s were Tory women of that age were even more Tory than men
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    @Plato I think the Tories had grounds for complaint against the BBC. Its political coverage was distinctly pro-Labour during the Blair and particularly the Brown years. It has swung a good deal to the right since then, and the article by Nick Robinson you posted earlier is a typical example. (Though to be fair, you picked the most pro-government bit.)

    The defining feature of this forum is that we are all interested in polls, so I think it is fair to say we all reasonably well informed about how our particular views compare to those of the majority. So yes, I am aware that my views are not as popular as I would like them to be. That doesn't make them wrong

    I repeat, the Mail is owned by big business vested interests and is biased towards the establishment. It also has a long history of running stories that are not accurate. In the case of the MMR vaccine scare story, this actually became a public health issue. If they can't even get a science story like that right, I don't think they should be trusted on their political coverage.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited August 2015
    HYUFD said:

    Yougov measured 18 to 29s so the Mori 18 to 24 figures you gave were not an equal comparison

    I assumed 18-24 year olds for some reason re YG. Still, it's only one poll (and in this case MORI is historically more reliable than YouGov) and really we need MORI 18-29 breakdowns for a comparison, which sadly we don't have.

    In any case as said before (in a previous discussion on this as well) most young people don't even vote (18-24 I'm talking about here). I tried looking in the YG for any turnout samples, but they don't seem to give them.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Oh yes - I did. That was so gross and condescending. If you run across the one with the plastic surgeon who wants to operate on his date - it's epically bad.

    Plato said:

    Good luck with your studies - I hope that PB's fact based culture is helping to sharpen your essays/debating skills.

    HYUFD said:

    Plato said:

    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    I'm looking through the link (I saw the info from PB originally) and I can't see info on how big the sample was.

    On my studies, I'm doing a combined degree of History and Politics.

    The figures you gave are 18 to 24s while 25 to 34s were only 36 to 33% Labour in that Mori poll
    I know that - I consider 18 - 24 year olds young people!

    25-29 may well be young, but no way can anyone over the age of 30 be included in a sample of young people! Thus, it's easier to use 18-24 year olds, unless it's possible to break down samples into 18-29.
    Thanks Plato. I have to say, out of all the political forums I've visited PB is by far the best. Although there are LOTs for Tories/Ukippers who I don't always agree with, debate is always sensible, mature, and rarely (if ever) are people rude. It's also conducted in a light-hearted manner at times which I like as well. This is in contrast to the kind of debate on Newspaper comment sections (CIF I'm thinking of you) where anyone who dares disagree with the consensus is attacked. Also, I have to say I'm not that keen on debating with my own age group beyond close friends. You get the kind of pious people on forums such as the student room, who are exactly like CIFers - with the righties there an equivalent of Corbyn lefties on CIF.

    BTW, did you see Matchmaker Millionaire in the last week or so? I couldn't believe that one of the guys took his date to a restaurant to eat duck embryo because he was 'testing her palate'. WTH?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    That's a great analogy.

    Plato said:

    More on the Tories plans during the Autumn.

    Votes or launch of Bills on:

    - fiscal responsibility requiring HMGs to run a surplus
    - trade union funding and strike thresholds
    - immigration
    - welfare cuts
    The intention is to push Labour leftwards even if Corbyn doesn't win, using the Corbynites to lobby moderate PLPers/leadership. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1594314.ece

    These are just the manifesto policies being implemented.
    It will not take much of a push to move labour leftwards. It is a Leaning Tower of Pisa of a political party. Its not the tories undermining the foundations,the weights levers and counterbalances that have prevented it toppling over for generations have been cut away by its own owners.

  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited August 2015
    @JWisemann

    'The Tory hubris on here is wonderful to behold. Very much looking forward to the moment when they realise a pathetic, barely workable majority, for the first time in decades, achieved on the back of stitching up their only friends in parliament, is as good as it gets, and its all downhill from here.'


    Nope it gets better, the election of Corbyn results in the Tories picking up the support of 10 NI MP's due to his stance on a united Ireland.

  • Plato said:

    Thanks Plato. I have to say, out of all the political forums I've visited PB is by far the best. Although there are LOTs for Tories/Ukippers who I don't always agree with, debate is always sensible, mature, and rarely (if ever) are people rude. It's also conducted in a light-hearted manner at times which I like as well. This is in contrast to the kind of debate on Newspaper comment sections (CIF I'm thinking of you) where anyone who dares disagree with the consensus is attacked. Also, I have to say I'm not that keen on debating with my own age group beyond close friends. You get the kind of pious people on forums such as the student room, who are exactly like CIFers - with the righties there an equivalent of Corbyn lefties on CIF.

    BTW, did you see Matchmaker Millionaire in the last week or so? I couldn't believe that one of the guys took his date to a restaurant to eat duck embryo because he was 'testing her palate'. WTH?



    A Plastic Surgeon that wants to operate on his date - I can't believe that's a real person! I also saw an episode where a bloke took photos of his date (weird) in a professional photo-shoot, and that Stacey Kessler woman who showed a bloke a movie about herself on a date! The lack of self-awareness among some of these people is astounding.

    Then there was the ep where this guy said that women's role was to be mothers and housewives, and took his date into some ice-cubicle thing and froze her ass off!
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    Plato said:

    Good luck with your studies - I hope that PB's fact based culture is helping to sharpen your essays/debating skills.

    HYUFD said:

    Plato said:

    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    I'm looking through the link (I saw the info from PB originally) and I can't see info on how big the sample was.

    On my studies, I'm doing a combined degree of History and Politics.

    The figures you gave are 18 to 24s while 25 to 34s were only 36 to 33% Labour in that Mori poll
    I know that - I consider 18 - 24 year olds young people!

    25-29 may well be young, but no way can anyone over the age of 30 be included in a sample of young people! Thus, it's easier to use 18-24 year olds, unless it's possible to break down samples into 18-29.
    ....

    BTW, did you see Matchmaker Millionaire in the last week or so? I couldn't believe that one of the guys took his date to a restaurant to eat duck embryo because he was 'testing her palate'. WTH?
    If the people were normal they would not qualify for the show. This is Rule 1 of 'reality TV'. I think Rule 2 is 'do what the producers tell you'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708

    HYUFD said:

    Yougov measured 18 to 29s so the Mori 18 to 24 figures you gave were not an equal comparison

    I assumed 18-24 year olds for some reason re YG. Still, it's only one poll (and in this case MORI is historically more reliable than YouGov) and really we need MORI 18-29 breakdowns for a comparison, which sadly we don't have.

    In any case as said before (in a previous discussion on this as well) most young people don't even vote (18-24 I'm talking about here). I tried looking in the YG for any turnout samples, but they don't seem to give them.
    The figures are almost identical given Labour had a smaller lead with 25 to 34s with Mori than it did with 18 to 29s with yougov and as you say under 24s vote less often anyway
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    @Telegraph: Gordon Brown expected to say that Jeremy Corbyn would take Labour back to 1980s ”

    There are going to be enough quotes condemning Corbyn to keep Cameron busy for a while while they dig out things he's said in 30 yrs of being a backbencher.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Given I really don't like the Mail per se, I feel you're forgetting the Mirror claiming British soldiers pissed on Iraqi POWs.

    Or that it was the Mail that stood up and campaigned/got Stephen Lawrence's killers.

    The MMR scandal embarrassed a lot of publications - most notably Private Eye.

    @Plato I think the Tories had grounds for complaint against the BBC. Its political coverage was distinctly pro-Labour during the Blair and particularly the Brown years. It has swung a good deal to the right since then, and the article by Nick Robinson you posted earlier is a typical example. (Though to be fair, you picked the most pro-government bit.)

    The defining feature of this forum is that we are all interested in polls, so I think it is fair to say we all reasonably well informed about how our particular views compare to those of the majority. So yes, I am aware that my views are not as popular as I would like them to be. That doesn't make them wrong

    I repeat, the Mail is owned by big business vested interests and is biased towards the establishment. It also has a long history of running stories that are not accurate. In the case of the MMR vaccine scare story, this actually became a public health issue. If they can't even get a science story like that right, I don't think they should be trusted on their political coverage.

  • Plato said:

    Good luck with your studies - I hope that PB's fact based culture is helping to sharpen your essays/debating skills.

    HYUFD said:

    Plato said:

    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    I'm looking through the link (I saw the info from PB originally) and I can't see info on how big the sample was.

    On my studies, I'm doing a combined degree of History and Politics.

    The figures you gave are 18 to 24s while 25 to 34s were only 36 to 33% Labour in that Mori poll
    I know that - I consider 18 - 24 year olds young people!

    25-29 may well be young, but no way can anyone over the age of 30 be included in a sample of young people! Thus, it's easier to use 18-24 year olds, unless it's possible to break down samples into 18-29.
    ....

    BTW, did you see Matchmaker Millionaire in the last week or so? I couldn't believe that one of the guys took his date to a restaurant to eat duck embryo because he was 'testing her palate'. WTH?
    If the people were normal they would not qualify for the show. This is Rule 1 of 'reality TV'. I think Rule 2 is 'do what the producers tell you'.
    That's a good point. Still, it's a bit shocking to see people like this actively exist in life. It's the biggest proof ever, that money really isn't everything.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yougov measured 18 to 29s so the Mori 18 to 24 figures you gave were not an equal comparison

    I assumed 18-24 year olds for some reason re YG. Still, it's only one poll (and in this case MORI is historically more reliable than YouGov) and really we need MORI 18-29 breakdowns for a comparison, which sadly we don't have.

    In any case as said before (in a previous discussion on this as well) most young people don't even vote (18-24 I'm talking about here). I tried looking in the YG for any turnout samples, but they don't seem to give them.
    The figures are almost identical given Labour had a smaller lead with 25 to 34s with Mori than it did with 18 to 29s with yougov and as you say under 24s vote less often anyway
    I don't see how they are identical, as it's not a given that when combined with 18-24 year olds, the lead will be small. On top of that, a significant part of the 25-34 sample includes those over 30, who aren't young people.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited August 2015

    @Plato I think the Tories had grounds for complaint against the BBC. Its political coverage was distinctly pro-Labour during the Blair and particularly the Brown years. It has swung a good deal to the right since then, and the article by Nick Robinson you posted earlier is a typical example. (Though to be fair, you picked the most pro-government bit.)

    The defining feature of this forum is that we are all interested in polls, so I think it is fair to say we all reasonably well informed about how our particular views compare to those of the majority. So yes, I am aware that my views are not as popular as I would like them to be. That doesn't make them wrong

    I repeat, the Mail is owned by big business vested interests and is biased towards the establishment. It also has a long history of running stories that are not accurate. In the case of the MMR vaccine scare story, this actually became a public health issue. If they can't even get a science story like that right, I don't think they should be trusted on their political coverage.

    I really wish people would not put the BBc in the same argument as the Daily mail simply to muddy the waters. These are entirely different ways of funding.

    No one Is forced to pay for the Daily mail under the threat of a court summons and jail if you don't. You can quite safely walk by a newsstand or even tear the rag in half at a Labour conference if you chose to do so with absolutely no penalty. ( yes I know it was the sun but the point remains the same)

    If they think they are so fecking brilliant then they should just grow a pair and go pay per view.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The YouGov poll had 100k respondents. That's why I asked about MORI.

    The margin of error on 100k is very small.

    HYUFD said:

    Yougov measured 18 to 29s so the Mori 18 to 24 figures you gave were not an equal comparison

    I assumed 18-24 year olds for some reason re YG. Still, it's only one poll (and in this case MORI is historically more reliable than YouGov) and really we need MORI 18-29 breakdowns for a comparison, which sadly we don't have.

    In any case as said before (in a previous discussion on this as well) most young people don't even vote (18-24 I'm talking about here). I tried looking in the YG for any turnout samples, but they don't seem to give them.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    Plato said:

    Given I really don't like the Mail per se, I feel you're forgetting the Mirror claiming British soldiers pissed on Iraqi POWs.

    Or that it was the Mail that stood up and campaigned/got Stephen Lawrence's killers.

    The MMR scandal embarrassed a lot of publications - most notably Private Eye.

    @Plato I think the Tories had grounds for complaint against the BBC. Its political coverage was distinctly pro-Labour during the Blair and particularly the Brown years. It has swung a good deal to the right since then, and the article by Nick Robinson you posted earlier is a typical example. (Though to be fair, you picked the most pro-government bit.)

    The defining feature of this forum is that we are all interested in polls, so I think it is fair to say we all reasonably well informed about how our particular views compare to those of the majority. So yes, I am aware that my views are not as popular as I would like them to be. That doesn't make them wrong

    I repeat, the Mail is owned by big business vested interests and is biased towards the establishment. It also has a long history of running stories that are not accurate. In the case of the MMR vaccine scare story, this actually became a public health issue. If they can't even get a science story like that right, I don't think they should be trusted on their political coverage.

    I actually think that scare did more good than harm. It serves as a wonderful case study to encourage media scepticism and critical thinking - even intelligent cynicism if you're willing to go that far.
    That's also why I have a problem with state-owned media and media that claims to be "neutral" or politically independent. It lulls you into a false sense of security that you should never have with the media stories / claims.
  • Plato said:

    The YouGov poll had 100k respondents. That's why I asked about MORI.

    The margin of error on 100k is very small.

    HYUFD said:

    Yougov measured 18 to 29s so the Mori 18 to 24 figures you gave were not an equal comparison

    I assumed 18-24 year olds for some reason re YG. Still, it's only one poll (and in this case MORI is historically more reliable than YouGov) and really we need MORI 18-29 breakdowns for a comparison, which sadly we don't have.

    In any case as said before (in a previous discussion on this as well) most young people don't even vote (18-24 I'm talking about here). I tried looking in the YG for any turnout samples, but they don't seem to give them.
    Yes but it's YouGov. If I'm going to trust which pollster to give a representative sample, I'll trust MORI more so than YouGov. For example re 18-29, I didn't see anything in that link which showed their likelihood to vote, and how this compares to how young voters in general turnout.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I've often found that quite affable sounding bods get really shirty when you ask them to explain their position or offer evidence to support their assertions.

    I strongly suspect that Comrade Corbyn has spent almost all his adult life being surrounded by fellow travelers, and in his later years nodding youngsters who want to touch his hem.

    Being challenged really isn't his wheelhouse. So we get this How Very Dare You! reaction to perfectly legitimate questioning.
    SeanT said:

    Interesting vid of Corbyn here. For a start he can't bring himself to condemn the Tube Strikes - a popular view with millions of Londoners, NOT.

    More important is his unpleasant querulous manner even when asked a pretty simple question by an interviewer. So it wasn't just Krishnan GM on C4 who irked him, this IS Jeremy Corbyn on The Telly. This is what he's like when questioned on screen.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/video/?videoid=4403335826001

    Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Heh.

  • Corbyn is just weird to me, especially his foreign policy views. While I don't want to see Labour decimated in 2020, I equally don't want him as PM. I don't trust him on foreign policy and defence, and for that matter - taxation. Which gives me a dilemma as to who I vote for in 2020, if he's still there.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Moses_ said:

    @Plato I think the Tories had grounds for complaint against the BBC. Its political coverage was distinctly pro-Labour during the Blair and particularly the Brown years. It has swung a good deal to the right since then, and the article by Nick Robinson you posted earlier is a typical example. (Though to be fair, you picked the most pro-government bit.)

    The defining feature of this forum is that we are all interested in polls, so I think it is fair to say we all reasonably well informed about how our particular views compare to those of the majority. So yes, I am aware that my views are not as popular as I would like them to be. That doesn't make them wrong

    I repeat, the Mail is owned by big business vested interests and is biased towards the establishment. It also has a long history of running stories that are not accurate. In the case of the MMR vaccine scare story, this actually became a public health issue. If they can't even get a science story like that right, I don't think they should be trusted on their political coverage.

    I really wish people would not put the BBc in the same argument as the Daily mail simply to muddy the waters. These are entirely different ways of funding.

    No one Is forced to pay for the Daily mail under the threat of a court summons and jail if you don't. You can quite safely walk by a newsstand or even tear the rag in half at a Labour conference if you chose to do so with absolutely no penalty. ( yes I know it was the sun but the point remains the same)

    If they think are so fecking brilliant then they should just grow a pair and go pay per view.
    On a slight tangent, I read this morning that Gove wants to stop non-payment of the licence fee being a criminal offence. This in some quarters is being hailed as a good thing, however people should be careful what they wish for.

    If final enforcement is taken away from the magistrates court it will revert to being a civil matter. That is to say the BBC, through their subcontractors, will just send round the debt collectors. Unless the rules are very carefully complied with (fat chance) it will become harder for people who do not have to pay the licence fee to avoid being penalised.

    If the magistrates are removed from the equation Gove will have to implement some ombudsman or other independent authority to make judgement in cases in dispute otherwise the poor, the elderly and the people who are not very good at dealing with authority are going to get unfairly hammered.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    Oh the creepy photo-shoot. I thought his intentions were good, but the execution?!?!

    And the vodka ice bar, trying to get your date blotto and freezing her nips off doesn't appeal to me either.

    I'd give Most Annoy Award to the smug nerdy gay bloke who's dad owned Cookie Diet, he was just So Single For A Reason. Another great one was the medical doctor cum lawyer who spent his entire time bragging. As you say, self awareness is not their strong point.



    A Plastic Surgeon that wants to operate on his date - I can't believe that's a real person! I also saw an episode where a bloke took photos of his date (weird) in a professional photo-shoot, and that Stacey Kessler woman who showed a bloke a movie about herself on a date! The lack of self-awareness among some of these people is astounding.

    Then there was the ep where this guy said that women's role was to be mothers and housewives, and took his date into some ice-cubicle thing and froze her ass off!

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yougov measured 18 to 29s so the Mori 18 to 24 figures you gave were not an equal comparison

    I assumed 18-24 year olds for some reason re YG. Still, it's only one poll (and in this case MORI is historically more reliable than YouGov) and really we need MORI 18-29 breakdowns for a comparison, which sadly we don't have.

    In any case as said before (in a previous discussion on this as well) most young people don't even vote (18-24 I'm talking about here). I tried looking in the YG for any turnout samples, but they don't seem to give them.
    The figures are almost identical given Labour had a smaller lead with 25 to 34s with Mori than it did with 18 to 29s with yougov and as you say under 24s vote less often anyway
    I don't see how they are identical, as it's not a given that when combined with 18-24 year olds, the lead will be small. On top of that, a significant part of the 25-34 sample includes those over 30, who aren't young people.
    Of course they are indeed Tories were on 33% with Mori in 25 to 34s but only 32% with yougov with 18 to 29s and as you say 18 to 24s rarely vote anyway
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yougov measured 18 to 29s so the Mori 18 to 24 figures you gave were not an equal comparison

    I assumed 18-24 year olds for some reason re YG. Still, it's only one poll (and in this case MORI is historically more reliable than YouGov) and really we need MORI 18-29 breakdowns for a comparison, which sadly we don't have.

    In any case as said before (in a previous discussion on this as well) most young people don't even vote (18-24 I'm talking about here). I tried looking in the YG for any turnout samples, but they don't seem to give them.
    The figures are almost identical given Labour had a smaller lead with 25 to 34s with Mori than it did with 18 to 29s with yougov and as you say under 24s vote less often anyway
    I don't see how they are identical, as it's not a given that when combined with 18-24 year olds, the lead will be small. On top of that, a significant part of the 25-34 sample includes those over 30, who aren't young people.
    Of course they are indeed Tories were on 33% with Mori in 25 to 34s but only 32% with yougov with 18 to 29s and as you say 18 to 24s rarely vote anyway
    'Of course they are' = over 30 isn't young - I don't know anyone in my age group who has lots of over 30 friends, and who has lots in common with over 30s. They are two fundamentally different age groups. So you can't compare a sample which includes over 30s, when talking about young voters - because over 30 isn't young. At that point many women/men have already had children, gotten married and are looking to settle down (30 is now the average age for giving birth I think, and around that age women also tend to marry). That's a completely different stage of life for my age group, and those in their mid twenties even.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The millionaires seem to fall into two categories - the terminally undateable with immense egos who don't think they have a problem/narcissists, and the nice ones who believe that it's worth saving $20k and ending up on the show in exchange.

    It's quite fascinating as these people do not need the money.

    Plato said:

    Good luck with your studies - I hope that PB's fact based culture is helping to sharpen your essays/debating skills.

    HYUFD said:

    Plato said:

    How large was the MORI sample?

    BTW, what are you studying at college?

    Plato said:

    There was some discussion on FPT about younger voters not being Tories @The_Apocalypse may find this analysis of 100k voters helpful.

    36% of 18-29 voted Labour - 32% voted Tory. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

    IPOS MORI say different - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pic-1.png

    43% (Labour)

    27% (Conservative)
    I'm looking through the link (I saw the info from PB originally) and I can't see info on how big the sample was.

    On my studies, I'm doing a combined degree of History and Politics.

    The figures you gave are 18 to 24s while 25 to 34s were only 36 to 33% Labour in that Mori poll
    I know that - I consider 18 - 24 year olds young people!

    25-29 may well be young, but no way can anyone over the age of 30 be included in a sample of young people! Thus, it's easier to use 18-24 year olds, unless it's possible to break down samples into 18-29.
    ....

    BTW, did you see Matchmaker Millionaire in the last week or so? I couldn't believe that one of the guys took his date to a restaurant to eat duck embryo because he was 'testing her palate'. WTH?
    If the people were normal they would not qualify for the show. This is Rule 1 of 'reality TV'. I think Rule 2 is 'do what the producers tell you'.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    TSE
    ' 2015 was Labour’s worst electoral performance, in terms of seats, since the 1980s,'

    In terms of England, though, that is not true - Labour did worse in both 1992 and 2010.
Sign In or Register to comment.