Oh my fecking god I watched her get mauled by Paxman and I got so excited I was dip snapping all through it. I haven't done that since the 2000's 
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Some very conspicuous twitter silence from certain Labour MPs following that. Bit of a shame
It's sad when someone so horribly out of place and out of touch is leading the party that'll inevitably win.
But alas, we can try and vote against her, try...
But alas, we can try and vote against her, try...
The country won't be but most of the people will be.
May is laughable but I wonder how many she convinced..... to listen to her you'd think education or health were flourishing
West Indian mothers will go to the wall for their children'.
If she hadn't said West Indian it would be a flat out sexist remark. With the West Indian reference, it is racist and sexist.
Your problem here is that you are trying to pretend that making a preferential distinction between the commitment to their children of West Indian mothers versus mothers of other races is not racist. Clearly, it is. I do not understand how that escapes you.
Probably because it's bollocks.
"People from Newcastle pull together in a crisis". Oh my god, you mean anyone not from Newcastle doesn't pull together in a crisis?! You're calling people from Birmingham weak and anti-social?! You monster!
It's quite depressing that this 'no deal is better than a bad deal' line has actually broken through. Assuming Davis and May are still in place, I expect the negotiations to have broken down before the end of the year, probably over the summer.
He needs to be at the next debate to push that message, otherwise he comes off just as bad.
They are in a bit of a contradictory mess aren't they. (quelle surprise)
"No deal is better than a bad deal, but if we don't get a successful deal we are fecked"
Probably because it's bollocks.
"People from Newcastle pull together in a crisis". Oh my god, you mean anyone not from Newcastle doesn't pull together in a crisis?! You're calling people from Birmingham weak and anti-social?! You monster!
So people from Newcastle, they can send their kids to private school and attack people from everywhere else for doing so because they love their kids more?
That was Abbott's point.
Sure, if you completely ignore the context of that story I mentioned about why she supposedly allowed her kid to do what they wanted despite it being highly damaging to her own political image
This is the kind of thing that makes me sceptical
80% of people certain to vote... feels unlikely.
80% of people certain to vote... feels unlikely.
Is that weighted or unweighted?
Seems universally high across the board which may suggest they're adjusting for this over-reporting (it would be downright ridiculous if they weren't).
Well, I think quite a few learned today that Corbyn is actually capable of giving a very decent performance in TV. I remember this being question a lot of times, today he smiled more and looked much sharper than a Tory candidate, who would've thought in '15.
Those are the self-reported likelihoods to vote, which then get weighted at 1.0 for a 10, 0.9 for a 9 etc. But yeah, whilst I can fully believe that Corb's motivated the youngsters and they'll turn out higher than 2015, very sceptical 18-24 would be as close as that to 65-74s... But, politics has been anything but predictable of late.
Front page of The Sun tomorrow has a story on Corbyn and immigration and surprise surprise not a peep of May's disaster.
Absolutely hate the media, cannot find any source that will report the facts fairly and concisely.
Absolutely hate the media, cannot find any source that will report the facts fairly and concisely.
Sorry that wasn't clear. I realise that this is people self responding how likely they are to vote, but I was asking as to whether this is the raw data or Suvations estimate at turnout?
There have been a few articles on this topic recently, but the take away is that pollsters are aware both that they reach a more politically motivated audience than the UK average and that people over report.
They then adjust their raw data to attempt to get a representative sample of the UK. If the algorithm is junk, then the poll is junk, but they know they're not getting the full picture from their sample.
As far as I can tell, 92 is the raw figure in terms of responses, which has then been weighted up to 115 to reflect for a more accurate measure of population/registered voters at that age, and those figures are then weighted by 1.0, 0.9 etc. ICM and ComRes have more sophisticated turnout filters I believe, but as you say if those are off then the whole thing is junk. Survation's methodology notes suggest it's purely the self-reporting that they use.
Had also been long confused about the actual 18-24 turnout in the 2016 referendum, initial reports from Sky Data suggested really low in the 30s, later estimates put it closer to the 60s, but I think this may explain a lot of the difference:
Front pages: https://twitter.com/i/moments/869313202345172992
The Daily Telegraph: Corbyn ducks terror challenge
The Times: May woos working class with tough line on Brexit
i: May and Corbyn endure bruising TV debate
The Sun: Jez: No vow on migration cut
The Guardian: Corbyn tells Paxman: "I'm no dictator" in TV debate
Daily Express: Oily fish can beat dementia
Metro: Prime Minister's question time: We quiz Theresa May on Brexit, security, immigration, housing, fox hunting, the latest polls... and even dancing to Abba
The Scotsman: Corbyn rules out SNP deal but would 'consider' indyref2
Scottish Daily Mail: Corbyn waves white flag on Union
The Daily Telegraph: Corbyn ducks terror challenge
The Times: May woos working class with tough line on Brexit
i: May and Corbyn endure bruising TV debate
The Sun: Jez: No vow on migration cut
The Guardian: Corbyn tells Paxman: "I'm no dictator" in TV debate
Daily Express: Oily fish can beat dementia
Metro: Prime Minister's question time: We quiz Theresa May on Brexit, security, immigration, housing, fox hunting, the latest polls... and even dancing to Abba
The Scotsman: Corbyn rules out SNP deal but would 'consider' indyref2
Scottish Daily Mail: Corbyn waves white flag on Union
How are any of those what happened?! Eurrgh I am never buying a newspaper again.
If you also ignore the context as to why it was so damaging to her political image because she had made this an issue when others in her own party had done as she then did, which made her a massive fecking hypocrite. Which she then tried to sidestep by saying its Ok for West Indian women because they are more committed to their kids.
Defend that all you like. I'm happy with my side of this argument and we can go round and round and you will look worse and worse for trying to defend the undefendable.
The issue with the ref is that none of them had any historical data or exit polls to go off of; the Guardian/LSE poll had youth turnout at about 68% so you've got three wildly different numbers for the same event. The only conclusion you can draw is that they don't know and are using different methods to try and work it out.
I'm aware it's the self reporting polling that is giving Labour the highest leads (although I find it hard to believe YouGov and Survation aren't adjusting these for their projections), but then again if Labour's resurgence is based on voters that wouldn't, couldn't or didn't vote in the past then they're not going to show up in other polls who will penalise them based on historic voting patterns.
I think as soon as we're out of landslide territory then there are simply too many variables that people don't know about for them to be reliable: is the shy Tory effect still a thing? will people who say they're voting one way vote tactically on the day? will the young turn out to vote? These things are always true, of course, but the political landscape at the minute seems incredibly disturbed and it is impossible to know whether they've got a good grasp of it. We will see in June I suppose.
Her looking hypocritical is obvious, and the entire reason it was a tough decision for her to make in the first place.
If you look at that situation from the point of view of an actual human being though rather than just a political mistake then it makes a lot more sense. The fact she mentioned West Indian mothers was dumb given she's a politician but exactly the kind of comment a million other people could have made and everyone would have immediately realized they weren't making a racial point. With Dianne Abbott though, people like yourself and the Tory press are so keen to slip the knife in that you just ignored the human element entirely and jumped straight to 'Oh look, the black woman is racist!!'.
You're right, it's pointless going round and round on this with you. You either don't understand something very simple, or you're determined to make your Daily Mail point regardless.
Yeah I have no idea which end of the scale is going to be more reliable at this point, just gonna cop out and assume it's somewhere in the middle.
I am not an alien, I do look at this as a human being. I would respect a decision to put your kids first because my political views are mine and my kids best interests come first. The issue here is that Abbott didn't distinguish this point until it was her own child. Then rather than admitting she was wrong, she made a stupid racist sexist defence of her change of heart.
Then you and people like you who can't admit the truth, condemn everyone who takes issue with her for being such a hypocritical wanker, and calls them racist.
It is a bit bizarre that, she makes an actual racist comment which you can't bring yourself to admit is racist and your critique of those who point this out is that they are white and therefore racist.
Let's keep this debate going because I' have never had an easier win in any debate in my life than this.
Vote Oily Fish.
The Tories do seem to be targeting me with ads Got about 5 of theirs and none for Labour so far.
Got about 5 of theirs and none for Labour so far.You have to run it through the media's "She's promised to ditch Leveson 2" filter. Which also doesn't exist and is a Corbynite conspiracy because media coverage is straight down the middle when it comes to British politics.
Jezza needs a speech where he argues no deal is a bad deal and May is hamstrung by the Tory press / her own party from making any concessions towards a good a Brexit
They're not only heartless and incompetent but also corrupt.
I have no idea why the internment of the Palestinians who bombed the Israeli embassy was a roadblock to the Irish peace process, because Corbyn was protesting that too.
I also don't know why he was against the peace negotiations going on at the same time he was campaigning for the release of convicted IRA terrorists.
Don't make out it was all part of some righteous plan.
It's cute that you think you're winning here. The irony is you're talking about people like me condemning others for calling her hypocritical, when I also called her hypocritical. But of course I've only done that maybe 3 or 4 times now in this very thread in responses to you, so I can understand how you missed it.
Meanwhile I think you need to go and look up the definitions of the words 'racist' and 'sexist' as you're clearly having trouble with them. Both refer to discrimination or prejudice to be shown against a race or sex, OR the idea that one race or sex is superior. Saying something positive about a race or sex does not mean you're saying its superior. If I say that Geordies have a great sense of humour, I'm not implying that people from other cities don't.
Seriously, it's not hard.
Charities say 'gag law' stops them speaking out on Tory social care plans
They said Theresa May’s decision to means test winter fuel allowance would inadvertently result in some of the poorest pensioners in the country losing the support, adding that “will literally cost lives”.
And they claimed the so-called “dementia tax” on social care in the home would stop people who need support from seeking it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...hem-speaking-out-tory-social-care-plans#img-1
They said Theresa May’s decision to means test winter fuel allowance would inadvertently result in some of the poorest pensioners in the country losing the support, adding that “will literally cost lives”.
And they claimed the so-called “dementia tax” on social care in the home would stop people who need support from seeking it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...hem-speaking-out-tory-social-care-plans#img-1