The next PM.

Aren’t all mps an odious shower of chancers?
No not all.
I have known some very good ones in my lifetime.

Latest.......Scottish Secretary of State Mundell saying he would never work with Johnson two weeks ago ….now saying he would happily work with him.
Scottish Tory MP's are desperately scrabbling about in the muck, they are now toast come the next election/referendum.
 
No not all.
I have known some very good ones in my lifetime.

Latest.......Scottish Secretary of State Mundell saying he would never work with Johnson two weeks ago ….now saying he would happily work with him.
Scottish Tory MP's are desperately scrabbling about in the muck, they are now toast come the next election/referendum.

You'll like this then -
there is quite a bit of Boris related flip flopping going on for sure.
mundruth.jpg
 
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in but this one seemed as good as any. The following graph shows the results of a YouGov poll on voting intentions if there was a general election....

GeneralElection.jpg

What I don't understand is how that vote share can then relate to a forecast of projected seats......

"Based on current polling the Brexit Party could be on course to win almost 250 seats at a general election, the website Electoral Calculus suggests.
Its analysis of opinion polls at the end of May put the party on 249, short of a majority, based on winning 24.1 per cent of the vote - ahead of Labour on 216. The Tories would become the fourth-largest party with 54 MPs, behind the SNP and only just ahead of the Lib Dems, who would have 51.
That would set up a potential coalition government between Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP."

How can the Lib Dems only get 51 seats with a 22% vote share but the Conservatives would get 54 seats with a 17% vote share? And Labour with a 19% vote share would get 216 seats? Does anyone understand how that works?
 
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in but this one seemed as good as any. The following graph shows the results of a YouGov poll on voting intentions if there was a general election....

View attachment 27560

What I don't understand is how that vote share can then relate to a forecast of projected seats......

"Based on current polling the Brexit Party could be on course to win almost 250 seats at a general election, the website Electoral Calculus suggests.
Its analysis of opinion polls at the end of May put the party on 249, short of a majority, based on winning 24.1 per cent of the vote - ahead of Labour on 216. The Tories would become the fourth-largest party with 54 MPs, behind the SNP and only just ahead of the Lib Dems, who would have 51.
That would set up a potential coalition government between Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP."

How can the Lib Dems only get 51 seats with a 22% vote share but the Conservatives would get 54 seats with a 17% vote share? And Labour with a 19% vote share would get 216 seats? Does anyone understand how that works?

You're assuming an even spread of votes in each constituency. The Libdems spread of votes might only be concentrated in a particular geographical area/constituencies. If you have a think on how red the map is up north and how blue it is down south... bit of a simplistic answer but thats the gist of it.
 
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in but this one seemed as good as any. The following graph shows the results of a YouGov poll on voting intentions if there was a general election....

View attachment 27560

What I don't understand is how that vote share can then relate to a forecast of projected seats......

"Based on current polling the Brexit Party could be on course to win almost 250 seats at a general election, the website Electoral Calculus suggests.
Its analysis of opinion polls at the end of May put the party on 249, short of a majority, based on winning 24.1 per cent of the vote - ahead of Labour on 216. The Tories would become the fourth-largest party with 54 MPs, behind the SNP and only just ahead of the Lib Dems, who would have 51.
That would set up a potential coalition government between Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP."

How can the Lib Dems only get 51 seats with a 22% vote share but the Conservatives would get 54 seats with a 17% vote share? And Labour with a 19% vote share would get 216 seats? Does anyone understand how that works?
Considering they missed out on what was probably thier best ever chance of an MP I'd take that graph with a big pinch of salt
 
Considering they missed out on what was probably thier best ever chance of an MP I'd take that graph with a big pinch of salt

I'm assuming that you mean the Brexit party when you say "best ever chance of an MP"? If so, it would also be accurate to say that they very narrowly missed out on getting an MP in the first, and to date ONLY, chance they have had so far of getting an MP, or that in their first ever election they lost by only 2% to the party defending the seat. So yes it was their best ever chance of an MP but equally it has been their only chance so far. But I guess that doesn't suit the spin that you want to put on it.
 
I'm assuming that you mean the Brexit party when you say "best ever chance of an MP"? If so, it would also be accurate to say that they very narrowly missed out on getting an MP in the first, and to date ONLY, chance they have had so far of getting an MP, or that in their first ever election they lost by only 2% to the party defending the seat. So yes it was their best ever chance of an MP but equally it has been their only chance so far. But I guess that doesn't suit the spin that you want to put on it.
? Yes the brexit party. What spin ? Under the fptp system id be surprised if they got any mps. Under the UKIP guise they polled many votes with zero MP s.

Sure maybe this time round they may snatch the odd seat, but 250 seats 😂😂😂😂😂😂 you're in dreamland and some
 
? Yes the brexit party. What spin ? Under the fptp system id be surprised if they got any mps. Under the UKIP guise they polled many votes with zero MP s.

Sure maybe this time round they may snatch the odd seat, but 250 seats 😂😂😂😂😂😂 you're in dreamland and some

Your spin. They missed their "best ever chance of an MP"? Well technically you're correct it was their best ever chance but it was also the first by election they'd contested so also their first and only chance so far. Losing by 2% is hardly the abject failure you're trying to portray it as.

Why am I "in dreamland"? I simply posted the poll and questioned how they came up with the figures for the seats gained. I haven't claimed that any party would get any number of seats. Did you see the tiny little lines that are floating in the air either side of part of the text I posted? They look a little bit like this -----> " " Those little floating lines are also called quotation marks, or open inverted commas and close inverted commas and and are used to show that it was a quote from the article and not my opinion. Glad to be able to educate the youngsters. (y)
 
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in but this one seemed as good as any. The following graph shows the results of a YouGov poll on voting intentions if there was a general election....

View attachment 27560

What I don't understand is how that vote share can then relate to a forecast of projected seats......

"Based on current polling the Brexit Party could be on course to win almost 250 seats at a general election, the website Electoral Calculus suggests.
Its analysis of opinion polls at the end of May put the party on 249, short of a majority, based on winning 24.1 per cent of the vote - ahead of Labour on 216. The Tories would become the fourth-largest party with 54 MPs, behind the SNP and only just ahead of the Lib Dems, who would have 51.
That would set up a potential coalition government between Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP."

How can the Lib Dems only get 51 seats with a 22% vote share but the Conservatives would get 54 seats with a 17% vote share? And Labour with a 19% vote share would get 216 seats? Does anyone understand how that works?

Dianne Abbott did the sums!
 
Your spin. They missed their "best ever chance of an MP"? Well technically you're correct it was their best ever chance but it was also the first by election they'd contested so also their first and only chance so far. Losing by 2% is hardly the abject failure you're trying to portray it as.

Why am I "in dreamland"? I simply posted the poll and questioned how they came up with the figures for the seats gained. I haven't claimed that any party would get any number of seats. Did you see the tiny little lines that are floating in the air either side of part of the text I posted? They look a little bit like this -----> " " Those little floating lines are also called quotation marks, or open inverted commas and close inverted commas and and are used to show that it was a quote from the article and not my opinion. Glad to be able to educate the youngsters. (y)
So you spin it
Your spin. They missed their "best ever chance of an MP"? Well technically you're correct it was their best ever chance but it was also the first by election they'd contested so also their first and only chance so far. Losing by 2% is hardly the abject failure you're trying to portray it as.

Why am I "in dreamland"? I simply posted the poll and questioned how they came up with the figures for the seats gained. I haven't claimed that any party would get any number of seats. Did you see the tiny little lines that are floating in the air either side of part of the text I posted? They look a little bit like this -----> " " Those little floating lines are also called quotation marks, or open inverted commas and close inverted commas and and are used to show that it was a quote from the article and not my opinion. Glad to be able to educate the youngsters. (y)

No spin, as UKIP 0 seats. As brexit party 0 seats . These are the facts and I don't see that changing. You clearly are trying to spin it...
 
So you spin it


No spin, as UKIP 0 seats. As brexit party 0 seats . These are the facts and I don't see that changing. You clearly are trying to spin it...

I'm not sure how you think any of what I posted is me spinning it.

It was the first by-election the Brexit Party had fought which clearly means it was their first chance to get an MP. And they lost by 2% of the vote. All three of those things are indisputable facts and can be easily proven as true. So which of those is me putting a spin on things?
 
I'm not sure how you think any of what I posted is me spinning it.

It was the first by-election the Brexit Party had fought which clearly means it was their first chance to get an MP. And they lost by 2% of the vote. All three of those things are indisputable facts and can be easily proven as true. So which of those is me putting a spin on things?
You accuse me of spinning it one way while you simultaneously spin it another.

Oof
 
You accuse me of spinning it one way while you simultaneously spin it another.

Oof

I notice that as is usual with your responses you failed to address the question posed - it's becoming a common theme in your posts. I'll help you out again.... the little curly line with the dot under it at the end of a sentence is called a question mark. It looks a bit like this ----> ? That indicates that someone is asking a question. Glad to be able to educate the youngsters, again. (y)

You either have no idea what spin is or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or both. Perhaps you could explain how posting provable facts is classed as spin in your world. Or perhaps you could actually answer the question for once and explain which of the three things I posted you disagree with or which I have put a spin on.
 
I notice that as is usual with your responses you failed to address the question posed - it's becoming a common theme in your posts. I'll help you out again.... the little curly line with the dot under it at the end of a sentence is called a question mark. It looks a bit like this ----> ? That indicates that someone is asking a question. Glad to be able to educate the youngsters, again. (y)

You either have no idea what spin is or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or both. Perhaps you could explain how posting provable facts is classed as spin in your world. Or perhaps you could actually answer the question for once and explain which of the three things I posted you disagree with or which I have put a spin on.

Tbf at this point i absolutely no idea wtf you're on about 🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
 
I notice that as is usual with your responses you failed to address the question posed - it's becoming a common theme in your posts. I'll help you out again.... the little curly line with the dot under it at the end of a sentence is called a question mark. It looks a bit like this ----> ? That indicates that someone is asking a question. Glad to be able to educate the youngsters, again. (y)

You either have no idea what spin is or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or both. Perhaps you could explain how posting provable facts is classed as spin in your world. Or perhaps you could actually answer the question for once and explain which of the three things I posted you disagree with or which I have put a spin on.

You might have more joy if you write it on the side of a bus
 
Top