oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 1, 2022 22:02:11 GMT
I'll be mildly interested to see how Opinium's methodology of swing back changes their predictions on Scots VI (probably within the UK Unionist section of the electorate), given the shifts that Truss has produced.
For background (accepting that wee samples of c.175 can produce huge variations) the last 3 Opinium Scots crossbreaks have been -
8 Aug - SNP 40% : SCon 28% : SLab 24% : SLD 6% : SGP 1%
17 Aug - SNP 38% : SCon 23% : SLab 28% : SLD 5% : SGP 4%
2 Sep - SNP 40% : SCon 26% : SLab 19% : SLD 6% : SGP 6%
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Oct 1, 2022 22:02:35 GMT
Patiently waiting for the new Opinium to be posted so I can start the new polling thread....Reuters have published bits but the full VI doesn't seem to be up anywhere yet.... @mark Opinium have tweeted: |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 1, 2022 22:11:05 GMT
Patiently waiting for the new Opinium to be posted so I can start the new polling thread....Reuters have published bits but the full VI doesn't seem to be up anywhere yet.... @mark Opinium have tweeted: Thanks  |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 1, 2022 22:11:30 GMT
Does anyone have info as to how the polling figures were obtained, ie. was it using their recent methodology or the original methodology when they first started reporting which was reasonably in line with other pollsters. If it was the recent method then what are the "true" figures, 33% lead??? Yes, it's using their new methodology. Indeed - although as jimjam has observed over time it will tend to align with other pollsters. Nevertheless, as a projection of the 2024 result per Electoral Calculus it implies 123 Conservative MPs and a Labour majority of over 200. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Oct 1, 2022 22:11:44 GMT
I have no objection to a governing party electing a new leader and hence a new PM - but I do object to new policies that weren’t in the manifesto or worst still completely reverse the manifesto commitments Absolutely. Had the Tories stood on a platform of austerity 2.0, no way would they have won. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2022 22:12:45 GMT
Labour needs to plan what has to be done to frustrate Truss and Kwarteng ready for action in 3 or 4 days` time, if the Tory conference does not definitely control her evil intentions. There is no fat that can be trimmed from public spending, instead it must increase, so 1) benefits cannot be cut, 2) rewards for public-sector staff have to keep pace with inflation, 3) our MOD spending simply has to rise to cope with Putin, Middle East fanaticism, 4) climate warming, 5) continued loss of biodiversity. So any tax cuts for the top 10% of earners have to be abandoned. The dash for growth has to be modified to improving UK productivity, property insulation, levelling-up to peripheral UK (NOT SE England) If Truss does not totally change course, then action is needed later next week - big peaceful protests outside all cabinet ministers` offices, sit-downs in the HoC once it resumes, co-ordinated strikes. All this to gain the attention of the world`s media, and cause another run on the pound - the short-term damage will be much less than if maniac Truss is allowed to ruin the UK state. Right. You’ll do as Prime Minister. When can you start? |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 1, 2022 22:14:48 GMT
*** New polling thread alert ***
|
|
alurqa
Member
Freiburg im Breisgau's flag
Posts: 781
|
Post by alurqa on Oct 1, 2022 22:20:05 GMT
The trouble was Nixon took the dollar off the 'gold standard', and so everything now floats. The ERM and ultimately monetary union is an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.
Why does having a single currency work for the USA; simply because the proportion of the total tax collected at the Federal level is sufficient to redistribute to the poorer states (although being the USA there is a lot of pork-barrel politics involved). The EU's problem was (and still is) that its income was too small a part of the total economy to do this (and a large part of it was going to the Eastern states to bring them back up to Western standards after more than half a century of Communism). The Euro would work if the EU was really the federal super-state that the Tory brexiteers feared, but it is much weaker than that. Monetary union should have followed political union, rather than preceding it with the intention of forcing political union after a crisis. Yes, but I think it was in part opportunism to tag it along with the Maastrict treaty, who's major task was to reinvigorate economic growth across the block. The most important step it took was to push back on all those national non-tariff reasons why a foreign business could not work in your country. Oh yes, everyone was in favour of the EU, but each had specific reasons why their special industry needed particular protection. The treaty stopped all that, and allowed, for instance, foreign firms to bid for UK privatisations (eg EDF).
Before the Euro we had the ECU ('the German mark with a French name'). And the intent of the snake was to align the diverse economies to make them more efficient with each other. (Italy was always the problem and had wider margins than the other currencies.) Monetary union was the next logical step. Granted the EU's budget is tiny relative to the collective GDP of Europe, but it's political importance was used to push a positive message. The EEC/EU has often grown in a crisis; it's also often stumbled along, but if the crisis is existential it will (eventually) pull its finger out.
You may say, I wouldn't start from here. But which country would now back out of the Euro and revert to their old national currency? If most were to do that they would be met with an instant devaluation (rather like us!!) and the public's assets would instantly lose value when seen in Euro terms. So perhaps we could have stuck with the old EMU, but devaluations still wouldn't have been allowed, and bailouts would still have been needed (the point of the IMF).
Anything else, and in particular going back to distinct, independent countries, would be a disaster. Every man for themselves. We really, as a globe, need to find a way to reduce the debt. Independent countries without doing this would mean another 2008 but without the bailouts. Millions would lose their homes. Banks would go bust. There would be huge social unrest, we'd have another 1930s and then slowly try to fix it, but with the big difference of China, which complicates everything.
No way forward is easy, but the EU have decided their path, and we have chosen not to be a part of it. Meanwhile the whizz kids in our government have found a quick way to trash the pound. If it keeps falling joining the Euro may soon be a very attractive option!
|
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Oct 1, 2022 22:20:22 GMT
I hope all that made some sense, but happy to respond to queries. The bottom line is that the Labour leads over the Conservatives are rapidly heading into the territory where on historical precedent the opposition forms the government after the next GE. Some impressive analysis. thank you. Interesting that you have determined: a) it is the average lead of the opposition, for the months that they are ahead, that determines who wins; b) we are currently on the cusp between "Opposition wins" and "Government wins" |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Oct 1, 2022 22:27:26 GMT
1. Labour party members elected Corbyn as their leader but he was rejected by the electorate as a Prime minister. 2. I would support the proposition that if a party elects a new leader during a term in government then a General Election should be called. This would concentrate the minds of party members, they would be more reluctant to change leaders mid term and they would be less likely to select a leader with no electoral appeal 3. There are few incentives for people to actually join a political party. Most do so because they believe that in some small way they can influence the policy direction of that party. The LP is a much bigger membership organisation and much more dependent on an army of foot soldiers to run elections, they can’t afford to pay people to do it for them. As a membership organisation to side line members from electing their leader would violate principles of democracy, anyone can join the party and vote for their leader who then faces the wider electorate. It is when leaders are changed part way through an election cycle that the process becomes undemocratic. It's not as simple as asserting a need for membership democracy. By democracy you tend to mean what you would like to happen, See numbers above. 1. Corbyn was also rejected by his MPs in the failed coup following his poor performance in the EU ref. He was then re-elected. After 2017 he was a liability & there was no no way of getting rid of him: tho the 2019 position was v bad for any leader. Looking back it was remarkable that he and Labour did so well in 2017. With a united party either behind Corbyn or someone else they would have done better? Voting for a leader not supported by the MPs is bound to cause problems. Corbyn was elected by a membership democracy, not by the MPs. There was trouble ahead. 2. There have been numerous changes of PMs in office. It's far more common than most people realise. What would happen if the PM was merely old or ill as has happened many times: Bonar Law, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan. Voters in theory vote for MPs who sail under a manifesto. The leader of the largest group becomes PM if he or she can command a majority. There is no real constitutional argument for calling a GE when the PM changes if the new PM can command a majority. It may or may not be more democratic to have a GE when PMs change. It is not axiomatic. 3. I joined the Labour part to boost the numbers for propaganda and morale purposes; to give money; to vote for the leader and to try and prevent people like Corbyn being elected. I do not seek to change policy or have any influence on it whatsoever: & I do not believe most members join for policy reasons. They are sleepers. I think you are confusing the motivation of the mass of of inactive members with a large minoirty of activists. I may be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by ptarmigan on Oct 1, 2022 22:42:11 GMT
I don’t agree with those arguing that party members should have no say in electing their party leader. I do agree that both LP members and CP members have made mistakes but this doesn’t stand up as an argument against party members being involved in the selection process. Labour party members elected Corbyn as their leader but he was rejected by the electorate as a Prime minister. Conservative members elected a new leader and she became PM without a public ballot. The two things are not the same. I would support the proposition that if a party elects a new leader during a term in government then a General Election should be called. This would concentrate the minds of party members, they would be more reluctant to change leaders mid term and they would be less likely to select a leader with no electoral appeal (assuming electoral appeal means competence as well as other characteristics) There are few incentives for people to actually join a political party. Most do so because they believe that in some small way they can influence the policy direction of that party. Tory party members have very little influence on their party policy ......their conferences are tightly staged managed and their input to policy decision are limited by the fact that they are local associations. They do have a role in fund raising but even this is minimal as the Tory party are much more reliant on large corporate donors than Labour is. The LP is a much bigger membership organisation and much more dependent on an army of foot soldiers to run elections, they can’t afford to pay people to do it for them. As a membership organisation to side line members from electing their leader would violate principles of democracy, anyone can join the party and vote for their leader who then faces the wider electorate. It is when leaders are changed part way through an election cycle that the process becomes undemocratic. Yes, I'm inclined to agree. I do think there ought to be some public scrutiny and accountability for those wishing to lead the main political parties and whilst party members aren't representative of the electorate as a whole, they are the lifeblood of our political parties so I think you ignore them at your peril. I don't think the members making the ultimate decision is without its problems - @sotonsaint made a very good point about the huge difficulties that arise if the parliamentary party and the members are at odds. Corbyn definitely suffered from this and yet, in many ways, he was the deserved winner of that Labour leadership contest, so uninspired were the other pitches. I think the problem with the parliamentary parties making the decisions is that Westminster is quite an insular place and it's easy for MPs to become complacent and disconnected from the sort of people who put them there in the first place. I wonder if this is one of the many areas where our democracy simply doesn't function very well because opportunities for democratic engagement are so limited. There are so many ways you could potentially improve this - from more proportional voting systems (perhaps involving party lists) to primary elections, but at the moment we're so ill-served by the system that I think it would be counter-productive to exclude party members from the decision-making processes. I think you've hit the nail on the head here in terms of the biggest problem - in terms of democratic legitimacy it's not really a problem if the Tories elect IDS or Labour elect Corbyn. They're the opposition and the voters will make their decision at the ballot box. The problem comes when you're the governing party. Yes, we don't have a Presidential system and we vote for a party rather than an individual at a General Election, but I still think it's an *problem* if the leader changes - perhaps not so much if they're following the same policy platform as their predecessor, but it's a massive issue if they choose to depart from that wholesale like Truss has from the Johnson agenda. There's simply no mandate for what she's doing and we can see how unpopular it is from polling and yet have no mechanism to prevent it. Big, big problem. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 2, 2022 4:59:24 GMT
@crossbatt11 - "These recent polls are indeed sensational but it's worth recording, and maybe even raising a glass of bubbly too when the anniversary occurs next month, that the fabled crossover in the polls occurred as far back as November 2021, almost a full year ago. Labour took the lead in the poll of polls back then and have been ahead ever since. The lead was increased steadily too."
Absolutely. Governments can take some hefty hits, if they still have some credibility and voter tolerance. Truss has badly mistimed this, taking a very unpopular gamble against a weak polling backdrop.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Oct 2, 2022 7:39:51 GMT
I wonder if at some point soon the Sun (newspaper, not yellow dwarf star) will decide that Starmer isn't really all that bad after all and once Labour win the subsequent election will claim it was them 'wot done it'. That's usually what Murdoch does. He doesn't like to be on the losing side. I expect he'll be having private talks with Starmer and Reeves soon. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Oct 3, 2022 9:03:55 GMT
According to Sky, the Palace have said No10 did not tell Charles not to attend COP 27. I expect No10 told the palace to say No10 had not told them what to do.
And on the subject of the palace, it is no longer acceptable medical paractice to simply write 'old age' on someones death certificate. Plainly someone was told what not to write on that of the Queen. Remarkable really, why cover something up?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisaberavon on Oct 4, 2022 19:14:39 GMT
BTW, on this day Blair gave his first Conference speech to the Party as leader... the clip on twitter shows a young Blair (too young I now realise to be PM, IMO)
The clip may be seen as too partisan and weirdly parallel to today's politics
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2022 6:47:35 GMT
BTW, on this day Blair gave his first Conference speech to the Party as leader... the clip on twitter shows a young Blair (too young I now realise to be PM, IMO) The clip may be seen as too partisan and weirdly parallel to today's politics Hello to you, from the presently windy industrial city merely 30 miles away from the land of Tobias Ellwood (Independent) Our MP here, Alan Whitehead, has represented the Test side of the city since Blair's landslide of '97, but is standing down at the next one. His moustache will be much missed. Rumour has it Cllr Satvir Kaur, leader of the council since this May and highly thought of in these parts, is likely to get the nod to replace him. There's a new thread, Chris. |
|
|
|
Post by vaflya on May 29, 2023 14:15:30 GMT
MLSDev offers dedicated software development services that are tailored to the needs of businesses mlsdev.com/services/dedicated-development-team. Our experienced developers specialize in creating dynamic web and mobile applications, custom software solutions, and integrated systems that can streamline processes and maximize efficiency. We are proficient in modern technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, natural language processing, computer vision, and predictive analytics. Our goal-oriented teams work closely with our clients to help them reach their goals, while providing cost-effective solutions. |
|
