|
Post by nobodyimportant on Oct 22, 2022 10:10:29 GMT
Unlikely. A 1931-style drubbing for the Conservatives is likely but it is important to remember that even in 1931, Labour still remained the main opposition party (although a split in the Liberals indirectly helped them slightly). The Conservatives are still likely to end up with Official Opposition status, albeit with a rump of less than 100 seats (Labour only retained 52 in 1931, counting unofficial Labour MPs including those from the ILP). I don't really see it being likely that the tories will get under 100 seats. We saw these kind of figures in reverse in 2008, and labour naturally recovered. And before that in 1994/5 with the recovery by the conservatives. At least if Sunak gets in i would be willing to bet the house on it. There was one poll in 2008 with a 28% lead for Con. The last 9 polls now have all given bigger Lab leads than that. I'd imagine that the 39% here is likely to remain the outlier but that's still 11 points bigger than the outlier in 2008. And we thought the 33% lead that yougov poll gave was going to remain the outlier as well... I doubt any Tory leader would be able to get back to a result comparable to what Labour got in 2010 at this point, barring some seismic event.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 22, 2022 10:15:45 GMT
I don't really see it being likely that the tories will get under 100 seats. We saw these kind of figures in reverse in 2008, and labour naturally recovered. And before that in 1994/5 with the recovery by the conservatives. At least if Sunak gets in i would be willing to bet the house on it. There was one poll in 2008 with a 28% lead for Con. The last 9 polls now have all given bigger Lab leads than that. I'd imagine that the 39% here is likely to remain the outlier but that's still 11 points bigger than the outlier in 2008. And we thought the 33% lead that yougov poll gave was going to remain the outlier as well... I doubt any Tory leader would be able to get back to a result comparable to what Labour got in 2010 at this point, barring some seismic event. But we live in an age when there are any number of unexpected events before breakfast on most days. And don't use seismic if you don't know what it means. There are plenty of good honest ordinary words without abusing the language.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,720
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 22, 2022 10:49:40 GMT
I don't really see it being likely that the tories will get under 100 seats. We saw these kind of figures in reverse in 2008, and labour naturally recovered. And before that in 1994/5 with the recovery by the conservatives. At least if Sunak gets in i would be willing to bet the house on it. There was one poll in 2008 with a 28% lead for Con. The last 9 polls now have all given bigger Lab leads than that. I'd imagine that the 39% here is likely to remain the outlier but that's still 11 points bigger than the outlier in 2008. And we thought the 33% lead that yougov poll gave was going to remain the outlier as well... I doubt any Tory leader would be able to get back to a result comparable to what Labour got in 2010 at this point, barring some seismic event. 28% remains the all time record for a Tory lead - set by Gallup in May 1968 (at the time of an electoral massacre for Labour in local elections, and a resultant botched coup attempt against Wilson by Cecil King) and MORI in September 2008, just before the Great Financial Crisis went "viral". Labour equalled this in spring 1990 - at the height of the poll tax protests - and subsequently surpassed it several times, both in 1994-96 and in recent weeks.
|
|
|
Post by nobodyimportant on Oct 22, 2022 11:07:36 GMT
There was one poll in 2008 with a 28% lead for Con. The last 9 polls now have all given bigger Lab leads than that. I'd imagine that the 39% here is likely to remain the outlier but that's still 11 points bigger than the outlier in 2008. And we thought the 33% lead that yougov poll gave was going to remain the outlier as well... I doubt any Tory leader would be able to get back to a result comparable to what Labour got in 2010 at this point, barring some seismic event. But we live in an age when there are any number of unexpected events before breakfast on most days. And don't use seismic if you don't know what it means. There are plenty of good honest ordinary words without abusing the language. I am well aware of both meanings of the word seismic. I am also well aware that the one I used is not the original one. That does not make it abuse of the language. There certainly do seem to be a larger than usual number of such events at present, though, although most recently have shifted things in the other direction of course.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 22, 2022 11:50:33 GMT
But we live in an age when there are any number of unexpected events before breakfast on most days. And don't use seismic if you don't know what it means. There are plenty of good honest ordinary words without abusing the language. I am well aware of both meanings of the word seismic. I am also well aware that the one I used is not the original one. That does not make it abuse of the language. There certainly do seem to be a larger than usual number of such events at present, though, although most recently have shifted things in the other direction of course. There is only one meaning and that was the point of my post. English is a large rich language and to an extent over-flexible in its usages, but it has an array of words for any and every situation. Seismic was a 19thC neologism for very specific use in the field of earthquake. That should be the sole use or it is degraded and becomes far less useful and eventually loses meaning and purpose. There are so many other good respectable words to demonstrate shock and awe! One does not need to take a useful technical specific term out of context for dramatic effect. There is far too much of it as a growing trend. It is an unpleasant trend and it is pointless as well as damaging. Our language is already debased with constant cliche and abundant misuses and they detract from effect rather than add to it. It does matter to me and I am not a grouch or a word snob. I just like precise clean clear good English.
|
|
|
Post by nobodyimportant on Oct 22, 2022 12:30:38 GMT
I am well aware of both meanings of the word seismic. I am also well aware that the one I used is not the original one. That does not make it abuse of the language. There certainly do seem to be a larger than usual number of such events at present, though, although most recently have shifted things in the other direction of course. There is only one meaning and that was the point of my post. English is a large rich language and to an extent over-flexible in its usages, but it has an array of words for any and every situation. Seismic was a 19thC neologism for very specific use in the field of earthquake. That should be the sole use or it is degraded and becomes far less useful and eventually loses meaning and purpose. There are so many other good respectable words to demonstrate shock and awe! One does not need to take a useful technical specific term out of context for dramatic effect. There is far too much of it as a growing trend. It is an unpleasant trend and it is pointless as well as damaging. Our language is already debased with constant cliche and abundant misuses and they detract from effect rather than add to it. It does matter to me and I am not a grouch or a word snob. I just like precise clean clear good English. And yet you are happy to use other words in ways that are not their original meanings (your use of "pointless" for example is not the original one). As do we all. It is not a recent trend. It is, however, perhaps one that you have noticed more recently. After all, like the rest of us, you have internalised any changes that occurred prior to your lifetime, and view them as right and correct. Unless perhaps you also feel disdain towards my use of "correct" as an adjective when it was originally only a verb? I can only imagine that you would have been horrified at the likes of Shakespeare if you had been alive in his time. His works, after all, are flooded (not sorry) with things you describe (oh wait, that one has changed meaning too hasn't it? As has "you" for that matter) as abuse of the language when they occur in the modern day. Indeed, that is one of the main (a word that has changed so much that it has almost lost its original meaning entirely) things for which he is celebrated (does it count as abuse if "celebrated" has always had this meaning, but stems from a meaning of "celebrate" which is not the original? Although of course it was past tense of "celebrate" before that) Every major dictionary acknowledges the two different uses of "seismic", and do not even feel the need to label one as informal or slang. The word has two meanings, whether you like it or not.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Oct 22, 2022 12:40:19 GMT
I am not a grouch or a word snob. Can we have a poll on this?
|
|
|
Post by willpower3 on Oct 22, 2022 12:51:21 GMT
I'm glad they are polling people and not ants.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 22, 2022 16:48:36 GMT
I can readily imagine both of those things simultaneously, in which case the drift to the right would probably be less pronounced due to the existence of Big Reform sucking up the nativist right and the LDs and Labour tending to fight over the centre-right. In that scenario I think any Labour shift right-ward would tend to be somewhat Johnsonian/Blairite, with nods to patriotism, Laura Norder and maybe a hint of protectionism, while I'd expect a LD shift to be more on economics. Again, not impossible for both to occur simultaneously. (All wild speculation at this point, but quite fun). I don't see protectionism as a right wing shift and I'd generally be in favour of it Yeah, it's certainly debatable, depends a bit on your definition of "right-wing," but historically it was popular with e.g. C19th Tories (Corn Laws), early C20th Tories (Tariff Reform,) US Republicans in the 20s and 30s (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act etc) Bismarck, Mussolini....of course on the other hand Tony Benn favoured it too. I'm not surprised you're in favour and it illustrates my point - it's the sort of policy area where Labour could appeal to certain voters currently classed as "right-wing" without necessarily adopting polices which would cause Labour voters or members to feel they had ceased to be a left-wing party. Equally, Lib Dems could go the opposite way and attract Conservative free-traders while still retaining our identity as Liberals. In the event (still remote) of the Conservative Party imploding these are the sort of shifts that I think are compatible with the (correct) assertion that the constituency which forms the Conservative core vote isn't going away but without necessarily meaning that a new Conservative party with or without the same name is inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 22, 2022 16:51:56 GMT
There was one poll in 2008 with a 28% lead for Con. The last 9 polls now have all given bigger Lab leads than that. I'd imagine that the 39% here is likely to remain the outlier but that's still 11 points bigger than the outlier in 2008. And we thought the 33% lead that yougov poll gave was going to remain the outlier as well... I doubt any Tory leader would be able to get back to a result comparable to what Labour got in 2010 at this point, barring some seismic event. But we live in an age when there are any number of unexpected events before breakfast on most days.
And don't use seismic if you don't know what it means. There are plenty of good honest ordinary words without abusing the language. I refuse to have any events whatsoever before breakfast, expected or otherwise. Civilisation must be maintained.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 22, 2022 19:34:54 GMT
But we live in an age when there are any number of unexpected events before breakfast on most days.
And don't use seismic if you don't know what it means. There are plenty of good honest ordinary words without abusing the language. I refuse to have any events whatsoever before breakfast, expected or otherwise. Civilisation must be maintained. A much needed sensible comment Adam.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Oct 22, 2022 19:37:51 GMT
But we live in an age when there are any number of unexpected events before breakfast on most days.
And don't use seismic if you don't know what it means. There are plenty of good honest ordinary words without abusing the language. I refuse to have any events whatsoever before breakfast, expected or otherwise. Civilisation must be maintained. It also allows us time to eat like a king
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on Oct 28, 2022 9:04:20 GMT
Last week's 14 for the Tories has disappeared. It looks very much like an outlier.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,720
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 28, 2022 9:24:41 GMT
Well wasn't that pretty obvious, a record low will almost be an outlier by definition.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 28, 2022 9:47:39 GMT
There is only one meaning and that was the point of my post. English is a large rich language and to an extent over-flexible in its usages, but it has an array of words for any and every situation. Seismic was a 19thC neologism for very specific use in the field of earthquake. That should be the sole use or it is degraded and becomes far less useful and eventually loses meaning and purpose. There are so many other good respectable words to demonstrate shock and awe! One does not need to take a useful technical specific term out of context for dramatic effect. There is far too much of it as a growing trend. It is an unpleasant trend and it is pointless as well as damaging. Our language is already debased with constant cliche and abundant misuses and they detract from effect rather than add to it. It does matter to me and I am not a grouch or a word snob. I just like precise clean clear good English. And yet you are happy to use other words in ways that are not their original meanings (your use of "pointless" for example is not the original one). As do we all. It is not a recent trend. It is, however, perhaps one that you have noticed more recently. After all, like the rest of us, you have internalised any changes that occurred prior to your lifetime, and view them as right and correct. Unless perhaps you also feel disdain towards my use of "correct" as an adjective when it was originally only a verb? I can only imagine that you would have been horrified at the likes of Shakespeare if you had been alive in his time. His works, after all, are flooded (not sorry) with things you describe (oh wait, that one has changed meaning too hasn't it? As has "you" for that matter) as abuse of the language when they occur in the modern day. Indeed, that is one of the main (a word that has changed so much that it has almost lost its original meaning entirely) things for which he is celebrated (does it count as abuse if "celebrated" has always had this meaning, but stems from a meaning of "celebrate" which is not the original? Although of course it was past tense of "celebrate" before that) Every major dictionary acknowledges the two different uses of "seismic", and do not even feel the need to label one as informal or slang. The word has two meanings, whether you like it or not. The word 'mob' sounds as English as could be, but is actually a relatively late arrival in the language. It derives from Latin 'mobile' in the sense of 'fickle' (cf. La donna e mobile).
The word in its modern sense was still a novelty at the time of Jonathan Swift, and he inveighed bitterly against it and demanded that instead should be used our good old English word for the same thing: 'rabble'.
Obviously these protests were in vain and 'mob' is now thoroughly established in the language. I've no wish to dislodge it even if I could: but I do agree with Swift that 'rabble' is a great word with a much better ring to it than 'mob'.
|
|
|
Post by london(ex)tory on Nov 3, 2022 12:03:13 GMT
Any sign of the full VI figures from this poll yet? - the article says "The staggering results, which also reveal the Tories are languishing 26 points behind Labour on just 16 per cent"...
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,720
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 3, 2022 12:34:52 GMT
Labour on "just" 42% then, where are all the other votes going?
(unless they are including don't knows, not normal practice for pollsters these days)
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Nov 3, 2022 13:19:02 GMT
Labour on "just" 42% then, where are all the other votes going? (unless they are including don't knows, not normal practice for pollsters these days) That was my first thought too. It would put Lab+Con on just 58%. They surely must have excluded the don't knows. That makes the Labour lead even higher.
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on Nov 3, 2022 13:51:34 GMT
Labour on "just" 42% then, where are all the other votes going? (unless they are including don't knows, not normal practice for pollsters these days) That was my first thought too. It would put Lab+Con on just 58%. They surely must have excluded the don't knows. That makes the Labour lead even higher. So Lib Dem surge or Faragist surge?
|
|
|
Post by london(ex)tory on Nov 3, 2022 14:32:21 GMT
That was my first thought too. It would put Lab+Con on just 58%. They surely must have excluded the don't knows. That makes the Labour lead even higher. So Lib Dem surge or Faragist surge? We can both live in hope!
|
|