Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2020 20:00:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by london(ex)tory on Apr 8, 2020 21:17:31 GMT
Oh bollocks. He can shove his overly ramped polls up his fundament. Given where the national polls are at present I suspect this has the Tories about 3 or 4 points ahead and forecast to be the largest party in the assembly but well short of a majority. Which would be an interesting part of the continuous dataset and also fairly amusing for all of about 5 minutes but hardly worth the ridiculous over the top ramping from Scully who I’ve come to regard as a bit of a twat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 9:30:15 GMT
Oh bollocks. He can shove his overly ramped polls up his fundament. Given where the national polls are at present I suspect this has the Tories about 3 or 4 points ahead and forecast to be the largest party in the assembly but well short of a majority. Which would be an interesting part of the continuous dataset and also fairly amusing for all of about 5 minutes but hardly worth the ridiculous over the top ramping from Scully who I’ve come to regard as a bit of a twat. in Westminster Wales polls Tories already by 4 or 5 so I'm guessing double digit lead. But yes could be ahead in assembly too. Either that or Starmer bounce Labour turn it round and retake lead in Westminster poll and extend lead in assembly
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,223
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Apr 9, 2020 9:44:28 GMT
Oh bollocks. He can shove his overly ramped polls up his fundament. Given where the national polls are at present I suspect this has the Tories about 3 or 4 points ahead and forecast to be the largest party in the assembly but well short of a majority. Which would be an interesting part of the continuous dataset and also fairly amusing for all of about 5 minutes but hardly worth the ridiculous over the top ramping from Scully who I’ve come to regard as a bit of a twat. Has he *ever* been known to say "Same as last time, folks, nothing to see here"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 12:04:35 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,729
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 9, 2020 12:24:04 GMT
Poll taken both sides of Starmer's election, you might think they could have finessed that better.
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Apr 9, 2020 12:28:35 GMT
|
|
mike
Non-Aligned
Posts: 400
|
Post by mike on Apr 9, 2020 12:30:05 GMT
Those poll numbers translate to a disproportionatly high number of Labour and Plaid seats.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Apr 9, 2020 12:52:22 GMT
Those poll numbers translate to a disproportionatly high number of Labour and Plaid seats. You can thank regional (rather than national) lists for that. But excuse me as I take a moment to be smug about a Conservatives gain Neath poll.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,341
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Apr 9, 2020 13:15:33 GMT
Poll taken both sides of Starmer's election, you might think they could have finessed that better. Bizarre to be even doing one at all under the circumstances. Expensive but also entirely worthless.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,877
|
Post by jamie on Apr 9, 2020 14:39:05 GMT
I am very much in favour of polling continuing in order to provide a historical record and show the effect of the current circumstances on voting intentions. I am also very much in favour of ignoring anyone who thinks the current polling, which comes after a landslide election victory and in the midst of a national crisis, is going to be predictive of future elections.
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Apr 9, 2020 15:19:17 GMT
Except no-one is facing any challenge at present since all elections have been scrapped for the next year.
|
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765
|
Post by clyde1998 on Apr 12, 2020 14:05:47 GMT
Those poll numbers translate to a disproportionatly high number of Labour and Plaid seats. That Tweet is misleading, as those are the VIs for Westminster rather than the Senedd. The Senedd VIs are: Con 38%/37% (+2/+4 on Dec) Lab 32%/29% (nc/-2) Plaid 19%/18% (-1/-1) Lib 4%/4% (-1/-1) Brx 4%/4% (nc/nc) Grn 3%/3% (nc/nc) AWA NA/3% (na/nc) Oth 1%/2% (nc/nc) Those lead to a disproportionatly high number of Labour seats at the expense of the smaller parties. The Conservatives and Plaid would be at their proportional share give or take a seat or two.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Apr 12, 2020 18:19:20 GMT
Except no-one is facing any challenge at present since all elections have been scrapped for the next year. If only we could scrap unelected life peers for the next year too...
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 12, 2020 18:26:06 GMT
Except no-one is facing any challenge at present since all elections have been scrapped for the next year. If only we could scrap unelected life peers for the next year too... Every opposition party in either chamber (sans the DUP and UUP, perhaps) supports replacing all or most of them with democratically elected peers. When the coronavirus crisis is behind us, I don't think it'll be impossible for a PM with a large majority to radically reform the second chamber.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Apr 12, 2020 18:49:17 GMT
If only we could scrap unelected life peers for the next year too... Every opposition party in either chamber (sans the DUP and UUP, perhaps) supports replacing all or most of them with democratically elected peers. When the coronavirus crisis is behind us, I don't think it'll be impossible for a PM with a large majority to radically reform the second chamber. We don't need two Houses of Commons. The issue is with the method of appointment and the absolutely excessive numbers appointed between 1997 and 2010. I see three acceptable solutions: 1) Reverting to the hereditary principle. 2) Appointment by lot. 3) Removal of the automatic right of life peers to sit, with each intake/party electing representative life peers, with reducing maximum numbers for each previous parliament, and numbers capped at being proportionate to representation in those parliaments. But furloughing all 1997-2015 life peers for the next year is a good start to any destination. And it would prevent the dross from giving the Earl Marshal the Coronavirus.
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Apr 12, 2020 19:09:38 GMT
The Earl Marshal never turns up. (Or only for two minutes when he has to read out a message from Madge). I am amused by the idea that the life peers you want to "furlough" (if this the first known use of this new trendy word in relation to the Lords I ask?) are mostly non-Tory while the ones you want to keep are all the recent Tories. Now if you are looking for dross...!!!
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 12, 2020 21:28:36 GMT
The Earl Marshal never turns up. (Or only for two minutes when he has to read out a message from Madge). I am amused by the idea that the life peers you want to "furlough" (if this the first known use of this new trendy word in relation to the Lords I ask?) are mostly non-Tory while the ones you want to keep are all the recent Tories. Now if you are looking for dross...!!! ... We don't have to look any further than you.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 18, 2020 4:21:42 GMT
Every opposition party in either chamber (sans the DUP and UUP, perhaps) supports replacing all or most of them with democratically elected peers. When the coronavirus crisis is behind us, I don't think it'll be impossible for a PM with a large majority to radically reform the second chamber. We don't need two Houses of Commons. The issue is with the method of appointment and the absolutely excessive numbers appointed between 1997 and 2010. I see three acceptable solutions: 1) Reverting to the hereditary principle. 2) Appointment by lot. 3) Removal of the automatic right of life peers to sit, with each intake/party electing representative life peers, with reducing maximum numbers for each previous parliament, and numbers capped at being proportionate to representation in those parliaments. But furloughing all 1997-2015 life peers for the next year is a good start to any destination. And it would prevent the dross from giving the Earl Marshal the Coronavirus. So life peers are only legitimate if appointed under a Tory majority government?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 19:30:36 GMT
Every opposition party in either chamber (sans the DUP and UUP, perhaps) supports replacing all or most of them with democratically elected peers. When the coronavirus crisis is behind us, I don't think it'll be impossible for a PM with a large majority to radically reform the second chamber. We don't need two Houses of Commons. The issue is with the method of appointment and the absolutely excessive numbers appointed between 1997 and 2010. I see three acceptable solutions: 1) Reverting to the hereditary principle. 2) Appointment by lot. 3) Removal of the automatic right of life peers to sit, with each intake/party electing representative life peers, with reducing maximum numbers for each previous parliament, and numbers capped at being proportionate to representation in those parliaments. But furloughing all 1997-2015 life peers for the next year is a good start to any destination. And it would prevent the dross from giving the Earl Marshal the Coronavirus. lets just have one house then and abolish the lords
|
|