Now we know why Blair fought so hard to prevent Brown taking over as leader for as long as possible.
Now we know why Blair fought so hard to prevent Brown taking over as leader for as long as possible.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Hmmm ... wonder whether Blair's rubbing his hands in glee at all this ...
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I doubt it.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
On a personal level - it wouldn't surprise me. Brown's eagerness to ascend to the throne caused more than a little personal discomfort for Blair. Some would say he was stabbed in the back.
From a Labour party point of view, no, I doubt he's too chuffed with Brown's shenanigans.
Brown looks like he's going to take Blair's 3-time winning party and take it instead into third place at the election. On a party level I can't imagine he's happy at all, on a personal level I bet he can't help but laugh.
"I told you so" are sometimes the four most pleasurable words in the world
To be fair, Labour is heading for third place because of the Lib Dem surge, and the Lib Dem surge is more to do with Clegg doing well in the first debate than Brown's incompetence.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I think its a bit of both Steely. If Brown was semi-decent then his support should have stayed up more.
Even without the debates quite a lot of the pre-debate polls had the LD's almost or even at the same level as Labour.
I just wish I could be a bit more at ease with voting for the LDs. Their anti-nuclear-power policy is really grating me.
That's why I want a Tory-Lib coalition which where I can pick and chose the policies I want from both parties. Sadly, as I live in a very safe Labour seat I will have no say in any of these things.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
If we could get the best bits of those two even I'd support that! Problem is I'd be concerned you'd end up with the lowest common denominator instead. My ideal election result would be a Tory majority, a decent sized Lib-Dem opposition to hold them honest, Labour consigned to third-place.
From the third debate, I'm biased but I thought that was Cameron's best performance by far; Clegg I found good in the first two, but I found a bit "meh" today - neither positive nor negative; Brown is well and truly a disgraceful horrid man and it was very good to see today him being thoroughly attacked on what is his weakest not strongest front: the economy. He's been an awful Chancellor and PM and we should hopefully be well shot of him in just 8 days time.
This was the first one I actually watched. I though Clegg was ahead for the first half, up until immigration, it was much more even for the rest. Brown was utter shit for the first half, but did a bit better towards the end - still very much finished third though.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
He doesn't have much further to fall in the polls, even Foot with his "longest suicide note in history" polled better than Brown is polling right now! He's down to his core vote and insulting his core vote - the only people supporting him - isn't the best idea. Will they bother to vote next Thursday now?
Interestingly Brown did rather well for him last week - but he was awful tonight in the final debate. Looked quite demoralised a lot and virtually apologised for yesterday again in his opening statement. Having to apologise in the introduction to a debate is hardly the best start he could have got!
YouGov poll on who won the debate: Cameron 41%, Clegg 32% and Brown 25%
Would be very good if that was the shares for each party next Thursday
---------------
Ironically the one issue I agree with Clegg is immigration, I believe in free migration and would be OK with an amnesty but bizarrely Clegg said this wasn't his policy and there'd be no amnesty - it is their policy and he's defended it quite well at the last 2 debates. Would have been better if he'd defended his policy again rather than suddenly pretend its not his policy
I hope to watch the third one in replay on CSPAN or something. Mostly to watch Brown with this new-found media coverage. That's kind of like cheating but whatever.
Besides noticing his tic and very uncomfortable behavior on camera, his words didn't "transcend" anything at all. He just comes across as bloated and puffy, and out of touch. Frustrated with "the regular folk", dissing them behind their backs but trying to use them for points. Made me wonder if he's genuine but uncomfortable in media, or if he's all puff 'n stuff relying on "handlers", like a puppet.
Television can work both ways, and it's not wise to vote based on telegenics, but Brown just seemed...smelly. He looks like he wants to let a big fart rip in the right company, then tell them either he didn't fart, or he passed gas (excuse me), or now didn't that smell like roses? No laughing or sniggering. Among friends for crying out loud.
But at least it's decisive. That's the main thing.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
The way things are looking, you will probably end up with a hung parliament
Hope is the denial of reality
no but, loki, right
apart from that
decisive
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Is there any particular reason you have 650 MPs by the way? That's about 7 times more representation per capita than the US.
Hope is the denial of reality
it's because britain is 7 times more democratic than america
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
As I've said, don't believe UNS. Its simplistic, according to UNS if Labour were to get 0 votes they'd still win seats. BS. UNS doesn't work when there are 3 parties and its a bad seat model, all other seat models put the results more 'fairly'. Although the LDs do suffer by being common second-placers, up to a point. Were they to become more popular it starts to work in their favour, after about 38% you could start to get a Lib-Dem plurality/majority.
Tory policy is to cut it by 10%.Is there any particular reason you have 650 MPs by the way? That's about 7 times more representation per capita than the US.
As a guess, I'd say because the Commons is both legislature and executive.
Another question: how come we don't see poll results that take districts into account? No one in the US was making predictions about which party will get how many seats based on national polling numbers. Why aren't British pollsters looking at who'll win every individual district? Surely that would be a far better indicator of who'll win how many seats than the inane method being used now.
Hope is the denial of reality
We do get "polls of marginals". Typically Lab-Con marginals because that's where most of the election will be decided, in the lead-up to the election there were quite a few marginal polls were it was assumed that the very weak Labour seats would easily fall, so eg seats 50-100 on the Tory target list were polled. These consistently showed that there was a 2% greater swing in the marginals than nationally.
ICM/The Guardian had uniquely a poll of Lib-Dem marginals earlier this week too, following the "Cleggasm". Despite the national opinion polls showing a big swing from both parties to the Lib-Dems, the marginals poll showed that in Labour -> LD marginals there was a bigger swing than the national opinion polls imply, while in Con -> LD polls there is a lower but still present swing than what is shown in the national polls. Imply the LDs to take more seats from Labour than national polls imply while getting fewer, if any, off the Tories.
These marginal polls are one (of many) reasons I believe UNS seat predictors to be complete and utter BS and that Labour will be pounded on Thursday more fairly than UNS predicts.
Have you found a niche, Loki? Since you seem to love statistics and politics, perhaps you can find a job in the UK? Or are you trying really hard to put your skillz to money? These things are never truly clear.
That's not a job for a political scientist; it's a job for a major polling company.
Hope is the denial of reality
Sure, but your implication is that no UK political party is utilizing a major polling company. They do employ political scientists with a statistical background. The client just wants to know how to use both "sciences" to improve their odds for election, or at least fending off "bad press".
I think they are, just not systematically. I've seen reports about each party targeting certain seats and having polling in those areas, but the polling is done by the parties, and only in those limited areas, which is not particularly efficient. The polling formulas are created by statisticians who have a minimal knowledge of political science.
Hope is the denial of reality
Interesting debate. Brown still better then he used to be, given his apparent disability in front of cameras. Not as good as last week though. Still seemed to do alright on "im the only one here who actually deals with this stuff." Which is a fair point. I thought his thing on immigration wasnt actually too bad. Labour actually have put in ways, effective or not, to manage immigration and plan to further it. Comparing that against two other parties which are essentially free to promise whatever they like, it has an effect. He gets to say "I did, and it wasnt perfect, but hindsight is the only perfect science."
Clegg does well again when he gets to run his mouth. Both other parties getting better at shutting him down. I think they know his weak points now - trident, nuclear energy, no experience, weak economically. I thought he sounded really really weak on the economy and tax, though his shots at the other two paries were pretty sharp. Was surprised by his turnaround on that amnesty. He denied it, then affirmed it. Weird. Admittedly he was defending himself against Camerons jab, but it was a stange dance. The important thing is that he talks like he belongs there. Big step for the lib dems.
Cameron was much better. His opening statement was excellent in delivery and content. He did well on almost everything, even though i disagree with him on immigration. (Hes still a posh twat though...
All three slipping in their catchphrases - "political point scoring, two old parties, blah blah blah"
We should have done a TWF live blog on the debates...
"Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink, because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
Since this is new for the UK, having a live televized debate like this, I want to go back to Loki and ask if our "random audiences" with their handy little devices used for instant analyses put on graph form (broadcast live for others to watch) wouldn't be a variable?
Exit polls, live polls, OMG we have so many types of polls that they seem reactive or stupid. But it reminds me of the debate between Kennedy and Nixon, when telegenics first came on the scene. Radio listeners and television listeners "polled differently", but the votes came out in favor of the visuals. Then "handlers" were employed.
Maybe I'm remembering that wrong.
So you found a niche? Past polls in the US have driven many future election formats. ie Obama had people who figured out the electoral vote and targeted those areas first, as a strategy. Obama had nothing to do with that....he just gave speeches at the right places and the right times.
Right?
Yes, I'm going to start my own polling company, find billions in start-up capital and find hundreds of statisticians to work for me.
Also keep in mind that if I was in this for the money, I wouldn't be in grad school.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
