I don't know the time necessary but I read somewhere that a VONC would have had to have been called before the recess to enable a debate on the date they return (but don't know if that's correct).
If you call an election before brexit it becomes a defacto 2nd referendum... Only there is one party that says leave... Several that are remain and one who mutter something about unicorns and Jews...
But if he holds an election beforehand he's got the Brexit Party and the LibDems as adversaries but if he waits until after Brexit the BP is irrelevant, the LibDems on a Remain platform (too late) and poor old dithering Jeremy.
Brexit party have pledged that provided Boris puts no deal on 31st in his manifesto they won't put up any MPs and will campaign for the conservatives
When did they say that (would anyone believe a word Farage says )
I heard farrage say it in in choppers podcast
Gut feel though brexit party know the best route to brexit is Boris in power so I think they would come to an agreement... Especially as they possibly don't have the on the ground structure to fight a ge
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I imagine they'll be a lot of politics played over this and it'll be who backs down first. If the Lib Dems refuse to block no deal because it would be Corbyn leading a caretaker government they'll be wiped out.
How about a starmer or Watson led labour government / coalition... Think Corbyn would back down for that?
It's simple since you accept that Tories should not be in charge. Vote tactically in your area to keep them out.
Don't think Labour would fall for that trap to be honest. Far worse than Clarke or Grieve in my view.
So you recon Corbyn would rather let a hard brexit happen than allow an interim government lead by a labour MP take charge becuase said MP might be seen as a Blairite. (I thought they would do anything in their power to prevent a hard Tory brexit)
It's nothing to do with the blairite thing and more to do how it breaks the way Labour elects leaders and is run. You can't just appoint a leader without the memberships say and keeping Corbyn party leader with Starmer or Watson as a caretaker PM would in the end damage labour due to all the proceeding fallout and backstabbing. It's an obvious mistake.So you recon Corbyn would rather let a hard brexit happen than allow an interim government lead by a labour MP take charge becuase said MP might be seen as a Blairite. (I thought they would do anything in their power to prevent a hard Tory brexit)
Is this Standing up not standing by or a straight talking honest politics... its so hard to keep track these days
The only person who has a solid plan and the bloodymindedness to stick by it is Dominic Cummins. All other sides are headless chickens
It's with conundrums like this that I'm glad I'm from the land of haggis and pie in a roll.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49337343
Wish i hadn't wasted the last ten minutes looking at the comments against that article. We're largely a country of feckwits
It's funny because for the last couple of days the highest voted comments on these articles have been pro remain. Suddenly the pro leave ones take over. Just when I thought people were starting to realise how fecked we were, the Brexit supporters or bots pop back up.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So the regression model omitted an important variable - culture/history or whatever - and then he goes on to explain how if you ignore this one important variable, the other variables that were in the model can be used to predict probability of voting tory in the areas where the omitted variable is strong? Well, that is not good analysis, to put it nicely.
He doesn't really ignore the important variable but say that these places are possible tory wins if the party ''de-toxifying'' its brand (Although in this case I image it actually means toxifying the party with One Nation Toryism)but the downside of this could be losing votes to the Lib Dems.
Yeah, I think he is: he is basically saying that a 55-year old plumber who lives in a semi in Wigan should (because of these demographics) really be a Tory voter if only he didn't live in Wigan. But being from Wigan is an important variable, probably more so than being 55, a plumber or living in a semi, because it essentially changes one's background. You would have to do an awful lot of de-toxifying to get over that one, whatever de-toxifying means.
He's not ignoring it, he's isolating it. He's saying that that is precisely the variable that the Tories have to overcome (He says as much in post 7/16).
But that's not how predictive models work. The regression model would not predict a 55 year old plumber who lives in Wigan as likely to vote Tory if the living in Wigan part was included in the model. To arrive at his conclusion, you first have to ignore the Wigan part. They are referring to these areas as 'unders' because all the demographics suggest they should vote Tory but that only makes sense of you ignore that key variable, i.e. the area itself.
The model works very well even as it excludes area. (which he shows in the initial tweets). And given that most welfare and tax schemes will affect people more based on their income than their geographic location (the comparison is between Wigan and another moderately sized place, not London or Manchester or some village), it makes sense that that is what is included in the models.
Had a quick skim at that earlier and thought it was interesting - I wonder how much of this is due to the sheer toxicity of Thatcher's legacy in some parts of the country?
It clearly doesn't. It misclassifies voters based on the demographics, if the area is excluded from the computation. Hence the false conclusion that areas that should be voting Tory don't vote Tory.
Are you really convinced by that chart? What is it actually showing? What is being predicted and what is the predictor? Have they plotted probability to vote Tory against what? voted Tory? How is the voted Tory on the vertical axis being measured? Shouldn't this be 0 or 1 (didn't vote Tory, voted Tory)?
If I had to guess the 0-1 represents voteshare and each point represents a constituency. They are predicting Tory voteshare given their mix of demographic predictors excluding the geographic location, and the thread describes the outliers in the graph and their relation to geographic location.
Why would it be Corbyn leading a caretaker government though? Why would the Lib Dems refuse to block no deal?
Well, the analysis is even worse than I figured then. Since it must be self evident that the so-called outliers would probably not be outliers if the model added data regarding, for example, historical voting patterns. They are trying to predict an area variable using only data based on the individuals that live there, as if the areas themselves have no important differences. I mean, you wouldn't try to predict the economic growth of towns based only on aggregated data on their residents whilst ignoring important differences in the structure of the economies across the towns, would you?
