Apart from the fact that it does. Otherwise you're fine there.

He is the Reek of British politics.

Don't get that reference but Sayeeda Warsi is a ****ing hero. There are plenty of Labour dissenters willing to admit what a racist sewer their party is, Warsi is almost a lone voice.

He was full of being a moderate and preventing no deal. Then Johnson gave him the full Ramsay Bolton and threatened his ministerial car and he was bang up for whatever Johnson wanted.

The MPs of both main parties are profoundly supine. The principled ones willing to call our their leader's unfitness are disproportionately leaving the Commons.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...-pal-667dhslvz

Thing called TV that was popular in the 20th century. People who still watch it think everyone else still is and will get references to it, despite being told that only about 6% of the country is watching a given programme.

Do we think this intervention is going to help or hinder the Tories in Dewsbury though?

Thoughts on the ICM turnout model?

Basically the other polling companies are asking people how likely they are to vote on a scale of 0 to 10 and converting this to a percentage chance for the respondent to vote. ICM are doing the same, but then where people are answering "Did you vote in the 2017 election?" with "No" they are halving the chance the person will vote. That's why their polls tend to be outliers, but which do we think is more accurate?

On the face of it it seems a reasonable methodology, but who knows?

Were ICM following the same methodology in 2017? How accurate were their polls then?

Google isn't helping me.

I imagine they've all changed models since then. They always fight the last war

I think up to 2017 pollsters had models assuming young people were less likely to vote than they said they were (see Lib Dem 2010 results) - as that had always proven to be the case in the past but that didn't work in 2017. I haven't read anything this time about age being a factor in turnout models.

It might be nicer to cross-reference it by what probability these people had said they would vote with in 2017. So if someone said 0 out of 10 then didn't vote, and is saying 10 out of 10 this time, they should be taken more seriously than someone who said 10 out of 10 last time but didn't vote. But then there is the problem with continually asking the same panel political questions - they start to become unrepresentative because you keep making them think about politics so it's not necessarily good to keep digging up the same respondents.

I think if this is really going to be the Brexit election that 2017 ended up not being, then arguably referendum participation should count too. Thinking about it more, I'd like to also look at whether these people voted in 2015 too.

ICM method seems too harsh - I don't think someone who gives themselves an 8 out of 10 chance of voting but didn't vote last time is only half as likely as someone who gives themselves an 8 out of 10 probability but did vote. On the other hand, I think the others are probably wrong to assume they are both equally likely to vote.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics...gusting-racism

Looks like he's angling for a ministerial position.

I think Claudia Webbe might be the M.P I most want to lose on Dec 12. V. unlikely ofc...

So I've been out of the country for a week now, I assume I've missed nothing other than everyone except for the Tories saying "we could talk about our policies, if they exist, but why be positive when we can just say don't vote for those guys?"

I almost forgot how insane Corbyn is.

Johnson must be going to sleep easy and smiling nowadays.

The free universal broadband idea from labour was a surprise and could be far more importantly radical than I think it's getting seen as so far. It's an idea that may survive this election however it goes.

I'n not sure about broadband in particular but the move towards the concept of universal free distribution of wealth is radical and vital imo. It might end up as free services, a UBI or a combination of both but it's where we need to be heading. The idea that the better off should pay more is horrible and something we have to break as an idea that's anything but a necessary sticking plaster given unfair taxation. What we need is fair taxation and universality.

</soapbox>

What was most impressive was people on social media taking free broadband, an idea they had literally never even considered 24 hours previously, and then arguing it was more important than water.

Universal free distribution of wealth? Awesome, sounds like I can stop working hard and get free money anyway!

It is very impressive tp have come out with something so radical seemingly out of nowhere.

But UBI, automation etc which is cut from the same cloth imo, has been getting increasing discussion. If this is part of that conversation then it is really important as well as being a novel approach.

that's the plan.

Increasingly,more people will never be able to get a half reasonable share of the wealth by working hard while fewer will get an increasingly larger share they can't possibly merit.

It's why the discussions of UBI have crept in and now, it seems, this ...

Just because it's new and radical doesn't mean it's good or well thought out.

By 2030, 6 and even 7g might be available - will the vast majority of people even need hard-wired internet at that point?

You can almost guarantee this whole policy started off with the question "How can we legitimately nationalise the telecoms sector?" and free broadband was the trojan horse they built.

I agree. It's also possible that it's a great progressive idea but the particular instance isn't great

That was my initial thought but a quick browse suggested that fibre will still be the way to go. I don't really know enough to be sure but it's kinda beside the point though because 100% fibre is where we are heading anyway - on that part the difference is purely about implementation.

I more or less agree on where it stared but it does appear that free universal ideas crept in and it's no worse for how it started. I'm cynical enough to accept that at some point it may have raised and adopted as a popular vote winner but that doesn't mean it's not the great emerging idea.

I haven't followed this entire discussion, but free and nonsponsored access to the internet is not an uncommon topic in human rights discussions and has been on the debate table a long time.

The principle is not new, most modern postal systems follow a similar line of thinking and do not charge for access (though as with the internet, specific services can cost money). We just take it for granted, so nobody ever thinks of it that way.

That makes no sense. The internet's backbone is literally based on the principle of a non-centralized distribution of resources. If you don't like redistribution of resources, go back to using BBS-systems and dial up your specific service.

For example: Right now Europe is massively sponsoring the world's internet bandwidth. You better give them a call and tell them you want slower internet for everyone, cause you need that money for a cup of coffee.