Westminstenders: "They are ahead in the polls"

[RedToothBrush]

The nominations are in!

A reminder about polling...

... And its significance in this election.

In 2017 YouGov got it right. They did two types of poll. One was a general poll which was done on regional polling. Early versions of this during the campaign discounted the don't knows. Later ones guesstimated how the don't knows would vote. This polling turned out to be close to the result but not exact.

The other poll you Gov did was on a constituency level. It was right before the election and it proved to be the most accurate of all, until we saw John Curtice's exit poll (which was spot on).

This time around YouGov have just switched to a constituency version of their polling because its much more complex this time with various pacts in action. They will be promoting respondents on the basis of who is standing in their constituency.

I'm not aware of other pollsters and their methodology but YouGov is interesting because of how close they were to the result last time.

This time around we are also seeing the active use of polling to lead voters, rather than necessarily reflect it. The Lib Dems and Remain have done a lot in what they see as key marginals to aid their credibility as realistic challengers. It's a more sophisticated version of their infamous, 'Only the LDs can beat X here' barcharts of shame. But it's unlikely they will be the only ones to try and use the technique. They probably will just be a little more transparent about it.

John Curtice has gone on record as saying there are only two realistic outcomes for the election: A Tory Majority or a Hung Parliament.

For the Tories to win they need a significant lead in the polls. To be sure probably 10% lead because of the regionality and constituency anomalies. Anything less than 6 or 7 percentage ahead and it tips to a hung parliament. YouGov currently have them on 13pt lead... BUT that's without fully accounting for the 1/5 of voters who are currently undecided. Last time around those who decided at the last moment tipped heavily in favour of Labour rather than the Conservatives.

Who stays at home, or who spoils a ballot could have particular significance this time around as disenchanted voters are made up of a higher number of voters who do usually vote than usual and a broken tribalism. Thus making it more difficult to predict than ever before.

So be a bit wary of polls and what they show - and what they don't show...

I think (I may be wrong) that Labour are only talking about nationalising OpenReach, not the whole of BT.

It’s economic illiteracy of epic proportions. Labour’s throwing out trillions of pounds worth of promises to hold on to their core vote for dear life, in the hope that if they survive this election they can finally win by default in 2024 when the Tories are exhausted.

Well it's about living in a democracy where people vote for the government they like within the system the country has.

All the companies which were nationalised were sold off by one government to be owned by private companies and greedy share holders over decades. Governments stupid enough to hold a referendum to get us to leave the EU. Voters who were gullible enough to believe a government that said those things were a good idea for the country. While running down the NHS, education, police and judiciary, fuck people over with their benefit changes. Etc etc.

"Funny how sanguine you are about a return to 1970s socialism in the UK, while cheerfully voting for the centre-right CDU where it will actually affect you and your finances..."

If the CDU ever advocated Dexit, I'd be voting SPD without hesitation, however leftwing the leader

In fact I had a real struggle deciding between CDU & SPD anyway, because they are both pretty moderate,
They both believe in a "social contract" of rights & public services

• which many Tories want to tear up in the UK.

I happily pay higher tax for good public services - which all the main parties here agree must be paid for properly.

I don't have the worry with Merkel that I do with BJ, either wrt the leader or the policies
I may support SPD when she retires, as I am a floating voter.

The Tories have promised a massive load of spending. How's that going to be funded?

Well exactly.

I don't support free broadband, but I'm not shocked by the policy either
The better off with shares may be horrified

The Uk - like many other countries - has nationalised several industries & utilities in the past
The shareholders were pissed, but had to accept

Look up the outrage that doctors felt when the NHS was formed, the threats that doctors would quit and patients would be doomed .....

Interesting that the nationalisations / renationalisations are the main reason Corbyn is a Lexiter:
he thinks EU rules won't allow all he wants to do

I wonder if his manifesto assumes Brexit happens

The broadband thing sounds a bit wacky to be fair. I wish they could nuance their policies more - means-testing of tuition fees, free broadband for small business and those on low incomes, that sort of thing.

Election campaigning doesn't lend itself to fine detail though, especially when you're also trying to fight against a massive smear campaign.

I actually agree with you Mother - especially since Government (in general) is pushing access to services (including benefits and job seeking) to be in many cases digital only. It's become an everyday necessity like electricity (yet we don't expect electricity to be free )

It's just that the proposal (as currently presented) is unrealistic and doesn't reflect the telecoms infrastructure and industry. BT may still be lumbered with the Universal Service Obligation but there are costs involved in getting fibre to every household. And in some areas, it's not (just) BT but other companies who have the fibre rather than the copper infrastructure (hence why I had a job in the Carrier Sales part of a competitor to BT, so that we didn't all need to build everywhere ). The other telcos (Vodafone and Virgin are the large ones, but there are smaller localised ones, amongst others, including the other mobile operators) have put in major investment building that infrastructure.

If BT were part privatised in order to deliver this (I'm presuming they mean Openreach, which is the infrastructure arm), where does that leave the infrastructure investment of the other telcos?

I suspect Labour is showing the same lack of understanding of the telecoms industry that the Government is already demonstrating, when it tells the industry to start looking to aligning itself with the US telecoms industry rather than the EU - without understanding the practicalities of data sharing nor that the US companies themselves think that the EU regulations are actually better for the industry

I wish they could nuance their policies more - means-testing of tuition fees, free broadband for small business and those on low incomes, that sort of thing.

I disagree AD for a universal benefit it should be open to all regardless of wealth, in the long run its better for a policy to include everyone so that it becomes the norm as with the NHS

The problem with BT owning all the telecomms infrastructure it makes it prohibitive for small businesses to become competitive in the broadband supply business, the small provider I'm with recently had to put their prices up because of BT, they seemed quite worried that people were going to abandon them because of this, I pay £50 a month it used to be £43 most of that is the BT charge which eventually reaches a shareholders pocket, Id rather it was re-invested into the treasury than some already wealthy off shore hording rich fuckers pockets

Jay Goodall🌷
@Jayrgoodall
·
9m
Another one for the doorsteps. Anyone who still thinks Labour are a ‘risk to the economy’ needs to wake up their ideas.
Quote Tweet

Ramesh Patel - They Would Rather You Ignore This
@IamalrightJack
· 4h
#bbcqt TORIES STILL WON'T ANSWER THIS

2010, Labour left a debt of £759 bn

Now 2019, debt = £1.7 Trillion

That's an increase of £1 Trillion in 9 yrs

A rise of 124% & they have nothing to show for it

So, what everyone wants to know is

WHERE'S ALL THE MONEY GONE TOO

Free broadband = bonkers. To compensate, broadband providers would just put their prices up for other stuff. They would still be charging the same each month as before.

And all by 2030? Isn't that when the 4 day week is planned? I know - we could have it installed on a Friday - our new day off. Oh wait - the engineers would be on a day off too Same bills and one day's les pay. Marvellous Who thinks of this shite?

Now, if they said free dental care I'd be interested.

I know - we could have it installed on a Friday - our new day off.

Too privileged to have heard of shift work?

Rob Blackie 🔶
@robblackie
· Nov 3
Nigel Farage claims he, and Richard Rice, were offered peerages in exchange for bit standing against Conservatives.

This is a crime under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act of 1925.

I've reported this crime to the police.
Show this thread

Corbyn is never going to nationalise broadband because he will never have a majority to do it. It's a stupid unworkable policy but manifestos often include stupid unworkable policies.

Does anyone remember leaving the Tory manifesto promise to leave the ECHR? Everyone who knew anything said it was practically and legally impossible (the Good Friday Agreement being one obstacle among others). Government persisted with developing the policy for some years before quietly dropping it. And that was a government with a working majority, which Corbyn won't have.

So why humiliate yourself by making a special announcement about it?

Why did Cameron and others make a big deal about leaving the ECHR and reducing immigration to tens of thousands when they knew it was impossible?

Because it plays to the base. Cameron wanted racists to vote for him. Corbyn wants people who want free stuff to vote for him.

It ain't complicated, that's politics 101.

Free broadband... Interesting populist idea, and one that makes sense from a social perspective in my opinion even if there are economic issues.

It doesn’t necessarily require nationalisation of providers... In fact that would just in necessarily complicate matters. The Government could separate the country into a number of zones and ask broadband providers to bid for providing the broadband service across those zones. The Government then pick up the bill. Expensive, yes, but not necessarily unworkable.

Alternatively it zones at local authority level with councils responsible for contracting with providers, with a commensurate increase in their funding to pay for this. Broadband then becomes a local service alongside waste collection, highway maintenance and street lighting, and managed accordingly.

I’m not a socialist but I’m talking myself into liking this idea!

Free broadband = bonkers. To compensate, broadband providers would just put their prices up for other stuff. They would still be charging the same each month as before.

Presumably it’s free for households, not that providers are obliged to deliver it for free - that would be bonkers! The Government would presumably pay providers, either using the existing market (which would be sensible imo) or nationalise the provision (which would be unnecessarily disruptive).

I actually don't think it's fundamentally unreasonable (if you consider broadband a public good like water - and there's an argument to be made for that).

I just think it's a bit pointless discussing a policy which would require a majority government, strong stakeholder support and a competent minister to have any chance of being implemented.

@leonardocarella on Twitter:
Labour loves free shit unless it’s free movement.

(I know this is a bit gratuitous but Labour lost me when they opposed free moment).