|
What is the best flav... you all know what this question is: This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour |
|
907 | 49.92% |
| Theresa May Team (Conservative) |
|
48 | 2.64% |
| Liberal Democrats |
|
31 | 1.71% |
| UKIP |
|
13 | 0.72% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
25 | 1.38% |
| Green |
|
22 | 1.21% |
| Scottish Socialist Party |
|
12 | 0.66% |
| Scottish Conservative Party |
|
1 | 0.06% |
| Scottish National Party |
|
59 | 3.25% |
| Some Kind of Irish Unionist |
|
4 | 0.22% |
| Alliance / Irish Nonsectarian |
|
3 | 0.17% |
| Some Kind of Irish Nationalist |
|
36 | 1.98% |
| Misc. Far Left Trots |
|
35 | 1.93% |
| Misc. Far Right Fash |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
49 | 2.70% |
| Space Navies Party |
|
39 | 2.15% |
| Independent / Single Issue |
|
2 | 0.11% |
| Can't Vote |
|
188 | 10.35% |
| Won't Vote |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Spoiled Ballot |
|
15 | 0.83% |
| Pissflaps |
|
312 | 17.17% |
| Total: | 1817 votes | ||
|
Did anyone mention that Corbyn is now seen as the better PM in London? And Labour are on track to win seats from the Tories in both London and Wales. https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/870246512554651648
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Jesus Farron is not doing well here. He seems to just be waiting for Neil to start talking so he can speak over him with another inane comment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
It makes me very happy every time BBC news brings up yesterday's debate and the only thing they have to talk about is Theresa May's absence.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Neil was loving brutal and Farron was pathetic. The #LibDemFightback was hilariously Hindenberg. Watching people like Farron and May get interviewed really emphasises the fact that although Corbyn has become a lot more politically astute recently he still tries to answer the loving question. He may dodge obvious traps now but he's light years ahead of these prats. I mean twice today May dodged the question of 'did you watch the debate?' It's such a direct question it just makes you look terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
For anyone who missed the Corbyn/Starmer/Thornberry/Gardiner tag team today, you can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n6vDftR4Rk It's a good watch. Corbyn is on good form, and Thornberry and Gardiner are clearly having the time of their loving lives with this campaign. Starmer looks equal parts happy and like he hasn't quite convinced himself it's not all a dream yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:If the methodology is solid some will be wrong in Con favour, others in Lab favour. It should balance out to give a confidence interval for the overall result. It's an interesting approach, and one that I think it worth pursuing because as you've said national vote share is meaningless. Yeah, the thing to remember with their model is that the 95% confidence intervals are absolutely massive, so taking the prediction and imagining it will be accurate to within a couple of seats is highly unlikely. I'm much more inclined to trust that the final result will be within the 95% bounds though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You think the final seat count will be within 95% of what, exactly? It's by no means certain, but I'm willing to believe the final result will fall within the 95% confidence interval of YouGov's predictions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Firos posted:Ed "Who cares" Miliband is loving great. There's a distinct 'who cares' attitude to the campaign right now, and it seems to be working really well. I mean Thornberry was sacked from Ed's shadow cabinet and forced to make an apology for a tweet The Sun took offence to. Today she told a journalist their question was stupid and yesterday she spontaneously gatecrashed the interview of a Tory cabinet minister. She's loving it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'd probably describe it as hydrating you but also giving you salt poisoning. High salt intake will kill you even if you drink a lot of water with it, your body has a maximum salinity it can tolerate before the sodium just fucks up your other functions too much. It's all about whether the liquid you're taking in is saltier than the saltiest urine your kidneys can produce. If it is, every millilitre you drink will result in you producing more than a millilitre of urine, and you'll dehydrate. If it's less salty than the urine your kidneys can produce then you can excrete the salt and hang on to some of the water, and it will hydrate you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/870383818942935040 I've been really shocked by the relatively tame front pages we've seen for the last few days. I was sure we'd be seeing full-throated personal attacks on Corbyn from drat near every mainstream newspaper, but instead it's just... this. It's almost like they've been told the personal attacks aren't working and now they're just directionless. In other news, anyone watching Barry Gardiner vs. David Davis on Question Time tonight? Should be a good one, Davis is one of the best presented Tories at the moment but Gardiner has been absolutely crushing it recently.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
What's with the explosion of nerd glasses on QT?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The only boring torpedo is a liquorice one.  Oh really?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Tough crowd on QT tonight. People actually booing the idea of more spending on public services.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Gardiner seemed to get in a muddle on Brexit. Putting Gardiner and Davis together seems to be a recipe for a very dry debate with both of them trying to make very specific points. It doesn't help that actually their positions aren't that different. EDIT: gently caress off Nick, going after the Labour party by agreeing 100% with the Tories that we must never tax the rich.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Jesus Clegg. "Most politicians are not amoral beings". Just join the Tory party already.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Akala on This Week totally walking all over Ed Balls and Michael Gove.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Prince John posted:I thought this was an interesting question (and answer), because I don't think we're seeing Corbyn with support from the PLP* in this campaign. With the exception of Miliband, I can't think of a single Labour heavy-hitter whose been actively supporting this national campaign - it's been either deafening silence (the vast majority) or unhelpful interventions from a minority - and of course, some continuing leaks. Am I missing something? There's been a distinct lack of public appearances from what most of the media would regard as the big names of the Labour party. I know I've seen virtually nothing from people like Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Chuka Umunna, Stephen Kinnock etc. Even the less well known names like Dan Jarvis, Heidi Alexander or Jess Phillips have been notable absences. You can almost explain it by saying they're just back-bench MPs now, but the counter-argument is that never stopped them seeking publicity before. I think their sudden disappearance is all part of the plan to 'let Corbyn fail on his own' and 'own the election result'. Of course it seems to have backfired, since he's much more popular without one of those pricks showing up on Peston every week to contradict everything he's said.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 02:32
|
|
But no, I wouldn't regard Diane Abbott as a big political hitter for the record. I guess as well as Joe Smith the average MP in the centre of the party, I'm more specifically referring to what the press might call 'Labour party grandees' who can get exposure in the media due to their public profile.
|
Oberleutnant posted:Remember a couple of years ago when Google Glass with the built-in cameras were a big deal for a minute? There was at least one story that was doing the rounds of a woman working as a waitress who felt really uncomfortable when some fedora wearing creep was recording her while she was working. As an amateur photographer I always get a little bit worried when people say that being photographed/filmed while out in public is a violation of your personal privacy. If you were going to do something about it, where do you draw the line between taking snapshots that happen to contain members of the public and unacceptable creeping on people?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I think there's already a fairly obvious distinction between taking photos in public, and deliberately photographing specific people. It becomes even clearer when the division is between obviously having a camera setup because you're an amateur photographer (or even a professional one), and the kind of intrusive secret and semi-secret recording of specific individuals. There's plenty of times you might want to take a picture of a specific individual though. Maybe they have an interesting look, or are doing something interesting, or they just compose a shot nicely. At the moment the assumption is that if you're out in public for everyone to see then you don't have a presumption of privacy. Is that wrong in your opinion?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I had two personal experiences of this, and they're both goony as gently caress so y'all can get a good laugh out of it. I know what you mean. I'd be way more comfortable taking a picture of a random stranger with my DSLR than with my phone, simply because it's more obvious what you're doing. I don't think you should have to ask permission to photograph someone in a public place, but I also think you shouldn't deliberately do it surreptitiously. Trin Tragula posted:The line is at the exact moment when you start behaving like a creep. I've heard this argument a few times, but no-one has ever adequately explained what kind of 'who-knows-what' someone could do with a photograph of you. A picture taken in public rather than one taken privately, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The specific example I was thinking of is that I know someone who has a court order that prohibits anyone from taking photographs or video of them without their consent. This is to protect them from being found by a murderously abusive partner. Lots of people have abusive exes who could and would use a photo of them in a particular place at a particular time as a starting point for tracking them down. I guess I can understand this, although to me it still seems like trying to legislate against someone recognising you in a public place. Having someone take a picture of you that then goes on to become famous has got to be a lower risk than, for example, wandering into the background of a live news broadcast. Oberleutnant posted:This reminds me of another personal incident. Yeah, I don't think that's ethical purely because the care home was where the woman lived. You definitely do have an expectation of privacy at home, and that includes from people who may be visiting or visiting people you live with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
It's all just white noise so far. Nothing to damage her reputation, nothing to improve it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
This audience is a bit pathetic. Someone needs to actually stick the boot in.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Well this has been a wash, mainly thanks to a truly browbeaten audience. Looks like the best Jezza can hope for is a draw, at least in terms of media coverage.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Let's hope Corbs is on top form.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Not another small business owner. Same answer as before please Corbyn.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Everyone who tries an attack question on Corbyn ends up looking seriously rattled when he comes back with an actual answer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THEM JEREMY? Not with Trident for sure, since it's entirely a retaliatory weapon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
namesake posted:Damage is loving done. Bunch of paranoid death fetishists going to growl about how May would have the guts to order a strike from her secret bunker while they're annihilated in nuclear fire and vote for her. Meh, I don't think it's a mortal wound. He got bogged down, it's surprising he didn't have a better answer for it and the right-wing press will go nuts, but everyone already knows Corbyn's stance on nukes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Jeez people here are easily depressed. It was a bad moment, but he didn't poo poo himself on stage. Like the IRA, it's an issue that's already priced in to this election.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
The audience is one-third Tory and they all know the IRA and Trident are the two things to press Corbyn on. It's not a huge surprise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:So that facial hair is apparently worthy of being called on twice. At least he asked an easy question.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Yeah, but he already needed a flawless performance & May loving up to have even a slim chance of winning. Momentum is a funny thing & one iffy performance could be enough to make people who were wavering stop wavering & go back to voting for the Nuclear Armageddon Party, coz it's a strong & stable pair of hands hovering over the red button. You have to think of the headlines that can result from this. 'Corbyn refuses to answer question on nukes' isn't really going to change many minds. If that was people's top priority they already know he's not on the same page as them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:So was it just a poo poo audience that kept hammering on about the same things or was Corbyn answering badly? Or both? Both. He got asked about nukes twice from an audience member, then Dimbleby pressed him on it about three times, then a totally different audience member asked the same question again. It dominated quite a lot of the debate. He didn't have a good answer though, and that's pretty poor considering how likely it was to come up. He should have just said that discussing the circumstances in which the deterrent would be used weakens the deterrent, and just kept repeating that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
JOHNSON COCKSLAP posted:lol if you think those three guys who wanted child murder would've accepted that. The wouldn't, but at least it's a clear line and it's an honest reason for not answering the question. Genuinely this issue isn't top in the minds of most of the electorate. It's much more about appearing confident and prime ministerial when you answer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:My guess is that this won't change much. Anyone that keen to start firing nukes was never going to vote for Corbyn. These were not swing voters and their message won't appeal to swing voters. More important was how Corbyn looked when answering. How obvious was it that he was bumbling? His worst moment was when an audience member made yet another comment about nukes, and Corbyn was just silent for a second looking nervous. Then Dimbleby asked him if he wanted to come back on the point and he said 'no'. Some in the audience laughed. It picked up from there. It was embarrassing, and certainly a lost opportunity, but not something that's going to do serious harm.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
BBC News interviews 'small business owner' who asked Corbyn about the minimum wage. Turns out he's a Tory activist. Shocker, he thinks Corbyn did badly and May was Jesus incarnate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
BBC news interviewing audience members, including the two who asked Corbyn about nukes and antisemitism, and apparently no-one has changed their mind as a result of the debate. All undecided voters remain undecided.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Snipee posted:This is hope. At least it doesn't seem like the nuke question hurt him. Broadcasters are under election obligations at the moment, which broadly means every time they show Corbyn stumbling over nukes they have to show May getting barracked by a nurse. More people care about nurses than nukes, and most (not all) of the highlights of Jeremy talking about nukes don't sound too bad. It was the section as a whole that was most embarrassing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Seems like May was counting on 'I had the balls to call an election' being the shocking highlight of her interview. Except the questioner shouted over it so it doesn't make a good clip because you can barely hear her. Legend.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 22:43
|
|