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 May 13, 2023 16:20:20 GMT
lululemonmustdobetter I am not sure if you recall but in 1997 along with the Blair landslide the lib dems won 43 seats based on a 16% vote share, which because of the inequities of fptp was about the most proportional to vote share they have ever achieved. Now Starmer isn't a Blair and frankly Davey isn't an Ashdown but a collapse in the Tory vote without the same massive Labour appeal for moderate Tories could be good for all of us. You do your current party a slight disservice there. The Lib Dems won 46 seats in 1997 (up from 20 in 1992, albeit on different boundaries). |
|
|
|
Post by James E on May 13, 2023 16:23:34 GMT
Re 'Proportionate Swing' There is a good illustration in how this works from the latest YouGov tables (below). While it's never wise to rely on a single poll, let alone single cross-breaks, I will just say that these are fairly typical for YouGov (and most pollsters), although the swing in London is actually somewhat lower in most. docs.cdn.yougov.com/9yxa6z6y1e/TheTimes_VI_230504_W.pdfHeadline VI Lab 43% (+10) Con 26% (-19) Swing Con>Lab 14.5% London sample: Lab 53% (+5) Con 19% (-13) Swing Con>Lab 9%North of England sample: Con 23% (-16) Lab 53% (+10) Swing Con>Lab 13%Rest of South England sample: Con 32% (-22) Lab 38% (+16) Swing Con>Lab 19%So Labour are gaining more, and the Tories losing a lot more in the South outside London. But if you look at the Conservative losses on a proportionate basis, this pattern all makes sense. In London they are on 19% compared to 32% in 2019. That's 59% of their 2019 vote In the North, they now have 23% compared to the 38% they won in 2019. And that's 59%, too. And in the South, where they are down the most, they now have 32% compared to the 54.5% . And once again, that's 59% of their 2019 voters Obviously, this does not fully explain the differential Lab gains, but these are clearly greater where the Tories are losing the most; the Lab>Green movements seems to be stronger in London, although of course that too is probably a proportionate effect. This is actually just simple Maths - multiplying fractions, as children are expected to be able to do before they leave Primary School. Which makes it all the more surprising that the media (e.g Sky News last week) continue to present forecasts based on Uniform swing. |
|
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 May 13, 2023 16:23:37 GMT
These seem to be local counter-attacks only by Ukraine and yet when you consider that official US sources suggest that the Russians may have suffered 20,000 dead and 80,000 wounded in trying and failing to capture Bakhmut, it really is an extraordinary failure on the Russian side. If that was 100,000 conscripts, easily replaced, then on balance why would Russia care? (OK, yes I know some were but some were crack troops, but the point stands, Russia has always used cannon fodder to halt approaching armies) There would be a lot of Wagner Group cannon fodder in those numbers. However, to lose 100,000 men to achieve something may make sense if you are brutal enough, but to lose 100,000 men to fail is not good strategy in any nation's reckoning. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 13, 2023 16:29:13 GMT
My issue was more with the second bit, that the ward detail shows the electoral geography has shifted, when my contention from looking at this seat over the last decade or so would be that ward-level LE results don't seem to tell us much at all about who the GE electorate will be. I think that just looking at the result for one ward is even more problematic than taking the average result. because at every individual ward there will be issues about councillors retiring, supporting popular or unpopular measures locally, who overall is in control locally and doing well or badly. It probably only really makes sense to look at the average result for a whole set of local elections and see which way the trend has gone. Although pollsters do like the idea of 'bellweather' seats which are sufficiently stable that their results have a long history of mirroring major election results. No idea which these might be, if they exist. |
|
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 May 13, 2023 16:32:13 GMT
James E - the fact of bigger swings in safer Tory seats in 1997 caught the broadcasters out in one respect. The first Labour gain of the night was actually in Crosby and the swing was over 18%, but no one had expected it to be in play and all the attention (and cameras) was on Birmingham Edgbaston, which was won sure enough but on a more typical swing of 10%. As the sensational results then poured in, Crosby never got its moment in the limelight.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 13, 2023 16:32:33 GMT
‘Clause IV on steroids’: Keir Starmer says his Labour must go further than Blair You mean further right? To truly become the conservative party as Thatcher envisioned it? |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 13, 2023 16:38:52 GMT
James E - the fact of bigger swings in safer Tory seats in 1997 caught the broadcasters out in one respect. The first Labour gain of the night was actually in Crosby and the swing was over 18%, but no one had expected it to be in play and all the attention (and cameras) was on Birmingham Edgbaston, which was won sure enough but on a more typical swing of 10%. As the sensational results then poured in, Crosby never got its moment in the limelight. I was broadcasting on election night 1997 and recall Edgbaston as the first Labour gain. Portsmouth North was Labour's second gain. Crosby was not far behind - a seat which had seen a lost Labour deposit at the late 1981 by election. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 13, 2023 16:53:06 GMT
He is saying that Sunak is less open - and by extension, more sneaky/less honest - than serial liar, Johnson. I mean, wow. Not often that I'm lost for words. You shouldnt be. Which is really more dangerous, a liar who never admits it, or one who simply laughs it off and admits he lied? Part of Johnson's atraction has always been a willingness to admit he lied and say 'so what, everyone does'. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 13, 2023 17:05:41 GMT
There would be a lot of Wagner Group cannon fodder in those numbers. However, to lose 100,000 men to achieve something may make sense if you are brutal enough, but to lose 100,000 men to fail is not good strategy in any nation's reckoning. The one thing Putin cannot do is walk away from occupied ukraine and hand it back. He either has to win something or be seen to have taken every possible step to prevent defeat. He needs the west to fight him out of Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Post by James E on May 13, 2023 17:10:11 GMT
James E - the fact of bigger swings in safer Tory seats in 1997 caught the broadcasters out in one respect. The first Labour gain of the night was actually in Crosby and the swing was over 18%, but no one had expected it to be in play and all the attention (and cameras) was on Birmingham Edgbaston, which was won sure enough but on a more typical swing of 10%. As the sensational results then poured in, Crosby never got its moment in the limelight. The normal swing in a Lab gain was around 13% in 1997 compared to the UNS of 10%. In fact, the Edgbaston swing of only 10% was really a weak performance in the context of the election as a whole. I don't think any lab gain in 1997 had a swing of less than 8.5%. It's worth noting too that varying swings between Con and Lab have become even more common in recent elections. The highest we had in GE2019 was (I think) Bassetlaw, which was 18.4% Lab>Con compared to UNS of 4.5% while Putney defied the 'national' swing the most by going 6.4% Con>Lab. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 13, 2023 17:12:34 GMT
James E - the fact of bigger swings in safer Tory seats in 1997 caught the broadcasters out in one respect. The first Labour gain of the night was actually in Crosby and the swing was over 18%, but no one had expected it to be in play and all the attention (and cameras) was on Birmingham Edgbaston, which was won sure enough but on a more typical swing of 10%. As the sensational results then poured in, Crosby never got its moment in the limelight. I wonder if there may be suppressed support in some place. Say somewhere typically gets 70% con 30% lab. Not much point bothering to vote if you are lab (or maybe con either). But then comes tell of a national huge swing, the local lab people get enthused and decide to turn out this time. While the disheartened tories stay home. Sure, thats happening everywhere, but the effect is likely to be strongest in places where the result was normally considered a foregone conclusion and so the voters are most apathetic normally. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 13, 2023 17:17:12 GMT
On Eurovision, from the trailers and news coverage, it seems to be a completely different animal to those I remember growing up.
Back in the day, there was an element of glitz and glamour, but, the main focus was on a much more, for want of a better word, earnest 'I hope you like my song more than the others'.
It had more of a talent contest feel about it, whereas today it's much more about the spectacle and has more of a night at the theatre feel than a talent contest to it.
The music, back in the day, was basically pop that was a little bit naff. Thats fine, it never pretended to be otherwise...although nowadays, musically, more diverse, the 'naff' factor greatly reduced, the songs are produced (overproduced?) to the nth degree.
The Eurovisions I remember were, I guess, equivalent to a mid-70's Donovan coming onto the stage with his guitar, whereas today's event is akin to a Pink Floyd concert, the show, the lights, the screens, being as much part of it as the songs.
I'm not saying that it's better or worse for it, just that you cant really compare the then to the now.
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on May 13, 2023 17:26:56 GMT
On Eurovision, from the trailers and news coverage, it seems to be a completely different animal to those I remember growing up. Back in the day, there was an element of glitz and glamour, but, the main focus was on a much more, for want of a better word, earnest 'I hope you like my song more than the others'. It had more of a talent contest feel about it, whereas today it's much more about the spectacle and has more of a night at the theatre feel than a talent contest to it. The music, back in the day, was basically pop that was a little bit naff. Thats fine, it never pretended to be otherwise...although nowadays, musically, more diverse, the 'naff' factor greatly reduced, the songs are produced (overproduced?) to the nth degree. The Eurovisions I remember were, I guess, equivalent to a mid-70's Donovan coming onto the stage with his guitar, whereas today's event is akin to a Pink Floyd concert, the show, the lights, the screens, being as much part of it as the songs. I'm not saying that it's better or worse for it, just that you cant really compare the then to the now. I don't think its changed that much  :- Is it just me or do you think Croatia's Let 3 have copied the opening riff of Motorheads 'Ace of Spades'? youtu.be/JPiY1v3EfNcyoutu.be/3mbvWn1EY6g |
|
|
|
Post by pete on May 13, 2023 17:33:35 GMT
Moby, Isn't Sir Michael Take is a parody account?
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 13, 2023 17:33:43 GMT
UK losing it's edge in the area of clinical trials - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/26/britain-covid-research-clinical-trials-nhs-doctorsBrexit is in there as one of the reasons, which is funny, as Brexit was meant to make our life science industries nimble and world beating, but NHS pressures, funding cuts, and various other reasons stemming from bad government decisions are all in there too. We were once a world leader in this sector, and it is a vital sector for the future, but never underestimate the Conservative's ability to f@ck everything up. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on May 13, 2023 17:34:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on May 13, 2023 17:38:05 GMT
Moby, Isn't Sir Michael Take is a parody account? Yep a very good one. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on May 13, 2023 17:38:29 GMT
|
|
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 May 13, 2023 17:50:09 GMT
James E - the fact of bigger swings in safer Tory seats in 1997 caught the broadcasters out in one respect. The first Labour gain of the night was actually in Crosby and the swing was over 18%, but no one had expected it to be in play and all the attention (and cameras) was on Birmingham Edgbaston, which was won sure enough but on a more typical swing of 10%. As the sensational results then poured in, Crosby never got its moment in the limelight. I was broadcasting on election night 1997 and recall Edgbaston as the first Labour gain. Portsmouth North was Labour's second gain. Crosby was not far behind - a seat which had seen a lost Labour deposit at the late 1981 by election. Which makes the point - Crosby was declared 15 minutes before Edgbaston. ITV did notice and put the gain on screen before the Edgbaston declaration, but had no cameras present. The BBC missed it completely, reporting it only later. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 13, 2023 17:54:40 GMT
I was broadcasting on election night 1997 and recall Edgbaston as the first Labour gain. Portsmouth North was Labour's second gain. Crosby was not far behind - a seat which had seen a lost Labour deposit at the late 1981 by election. Which makes the point - Crosby was declared 15 minutes before Edgbaston. ITV did notice and put the gain on screen before the Edgbaston declaration, but had no cameras present. The BBC missed it completely, reporting it only later. I suspect ITV was reporting results before declarations had actually been made. Shortly after the Portsmouth North gain BBC did report that Labour was claiming to have won Crosby - and Rochdale -but the results had not actually been announced. |
|
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 May 13, 2023 18:17:39 GMT
Which makes the point - Crosby was declared 15 minutes before Edgbaston. ITV did notice and put the gain on screen before the Edgbaston declaration, but had no cameras present. The BBC missed it completely, reporting it only later. I suspect ITV was reporting results before declarations had actually been made. Shortly after the Portsmouth North gain BBC did report that Labour was claiming to have won Crosby - and Rochdale -but the results had not actually been announced. My source for the sequence of events is "Were you still up for Portillo?", Brian Cathcart, (then deputy editor of the Independent on Sunday), Penguin Books, 1997. You are correct that ITV generally report results more quickly that the BBC (even now) because the beeb wait for the returning officer to read the declaration out and ITV report when they know the result, but in this case Cathcart devotes two paragraphs to the Crosby timing issue (p43-44) and seems convinced Crosby declared first. I suppose it could only be resolved by finding out the timing of the Crosby declaration (the Edgbaston one was caught on camera of course). |
|
|
|
Post by James E on May 13, 2023 18:30:28 GMT
I suspect ITV was reporting results before declarations had actually been made. Shortly after the Portsmouth North gain BBC did report that Labour was claiming to have won Crosby - and Rochdale -but the results had not actually been announced. My source for the sequence of events is "Were you still up for Portillo?", Brian Cathcart, (then deputy editor of the Independent Sunday), Penguin Books, 1997. You are correct that ITV generally report results more quickly that the BBC (even now) because the beeb wait for the returning officer to read the declaration out and ITV report when they know the result, but in this case Cathcart devotes two paragraphs to the Crosby timing issue (p43-44) and seems convinced Crosby declared first. I suppose it could only be resolved by finding out the timing of the Crosby declaration (the Edgbaston one was caught on camera of course). This supports your (and Cathcart's) version of events: the ITV coverage from around midnight on 2nd May 1997. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLMJ86mVCLcCrosby is shown as a Labour gain, at 14 mins, in the 10% swing column (as that is what was needed for a Lab gain). However, they do not report the actual figures, nor the 18% swing achieved. At 18 mins ITV go to Edgbaston for the live declaration. |
|
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 May 13, 2023 18:42:10 GMT
My source for the sequence of events is "Were you still up for Portillo?", Brian Cathcart, (then deputy editor of the Independent Sunday), Penguin Books, 1997. You are correct that ITV generally report results more quickly that the BBC (even now) because the beeb wait for the returning officer to read the declaration out and ITV report when they know the result, but in this case Cathcart devotes two paragraphs to the Crosby timing issue (p43-44) and seems convinced Crosby declared first. I suppose it could only be resolved by finding out the timing of the Crosby declaration (the Edgbaston one was caught on camera of course). This supports your (and Cathcart's) version of events: the ITV coverage from around midnight on 2nd May 1997. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLMJ86mVCLcCrosby is shown as a Labour gain, at 14 mins, in the 10% swing column (as that is what was needed for a Lab gain). However, they do not report the actual figures, nor the 18% swing achieved. At 18 mins ITV go to Edgbaston for the live declaration. Cathcart mentions that at the end of his second paragraph on this issue: "To their credit, ITV had spotted the upset and reported it as a Labour gain before the Edgbaston result, but they did not know the size of the swing, nor were they able to show the declaration live, so it was Gisela Stuart and not Clare Curtis-Thomas who was given a place in electoral folklore." Those were the days when Gisela Stuart was a Labour heroine for that win - pity what happened afterward. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 13, 2023 18:43:11 GMT
James E
"ITV go to Edgbaston for the live declaration."
I thought a declaration at Edgbaston happened when one side thinks it needn't run any more, and it's time to let the other chaps have a turn with the bats?
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,377
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 13, 2023 18:49:04 GMT
Tories are revolting www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/13/tory-anarchy-breaks-out-as-revolt-looms-on-brexit-laws'Rishi Sunak was losing control of an increasingly anarchic Tory party on Saturday as former cabinet ministers openly criticised the direction of policy under his leadership and dozens of backbench MPs plotted a new rebellion over Brexit. Amid recriminations over the heavy Conservative losses in recent council elections, and with pro-Brexit MPs incensed that Sunak’s government is dropping plans to shred more than 4,000 EU laws within months, discipline was at risk of completely disintegrating on the right of the party' |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,377
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 13, 2023 19:16:59 GMT
Bloody socialists
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,377
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 13, 2023 19:33:01 GMT
Opinium bucking the trend, although they did show an increase in the labour lead of 4% last week
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 13, 2023 19:42:47 GMT
Who knew that the DUP and TUV were socialists?
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 13, 2023 19:51:24 GMT
My source for the sequence of events is "Were you still up for Portillo?", Brian Cathcart, (then deputy editor of the Independent Sunday), Penguin Books, 1997. You are correct that ITV generally report results more quickly that the BBC (even now) because the beeb wait for the returning officer to read the declaration out and ITV report when they know the result, but in this case Cathcart devotes two paragraphs to the Crosby timing issue (p43-44) and seems convinced Crosby declared first. I suppose it could only be resolved by finding out the timing of the Crosby declaration (the Edgbaston one was caught on camera of course). This supports your (and Cathcart's) version of events: the ITV coverage from around midnight on 2nd May 1997. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLMJ86mVCLcCrosby is shown as a Labour gain, at 14 mins, in the 10% swing column (as that is what was needed for a Lab gain). However, they do not report the actual figures, nor the 18% swing achieved. At 18 mins ITV go to Edgbaston for the live declaration. I have just been playing back the ITV 97 results programme , and it is indeed true that Crosby flashes up as a Labour gain circa 10 minutes before the Edgbaston declaration. ITV also had Portsmouth North as a gain ahead of Edgbaston. However, no figures at all were produced at that stage for the Crosby and Portsmouth North results which strongly suggests the network was simply relying on firm information from those counts - rather than any detailed data. To be fair to the BBC, the reporter at the Edgbaston count made it pretty clear 20 minutes or so before the result was announced that Labour had won there. Not pleasant to be reminded of the revolting Gisela Stuart who exhorted people to vote Tory in support of Johnson in 2019.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on May 13, 2023 19:51:30 GMT
Opinium bucking the trend, although they did show an increase in the labour lead of 4% last week The one two weeks ago was definitely an outlier as it had them with a bigger Lab lead than most other polling organisations. Their 14 point lead is arguably a little bit higher than normal for them when you take into account the gap they are supposed to have with other polling organisations and pretty much what you;d expect from Opinium, so possibly confirms April drop in Lab lead has steadied and if anything is drifting a bit higher. Even with their higher Lab leads that Omnisis 27 point looks like a shocker of a rogue poll beyond just bad luck. |
|
:-
