Categories
Getting the non voters out – politicalbetting.com
Getting the non voters out – politicalbetting.com
Post debate polls. Happy Saturday!Harris 50-45 (+5) MorningCHarris 47-42 (+5) IpsosHarris 51-47 (+4) RMGHarris 50-46 (+4) D4PHarris 49-45 (+4) YG/YahooHarris 49-45 (+4) YG/TimesHarris 47-43 (+4) TIPPHarris 50-47 (+3) LegerHarris 48-45 (+3) SoCalHarris 44-42 (+2) R/W
0
Comments
There was polling suggesting Harris' ratings actually went up when she pushed her gender and ethnicity as selling points.
FPT. FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/robert-jenrick-richard-desmond-housing-tory-donor-westferry-a9631876.html
Lammy twice makes a cringingly overfamiliar reference
Wait for the post debate glow to fade. There are still nearly 2 months to go.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
But that is not great, to put it mildly. Events in Ohio give a hint of what an empowered Trump base might do when there an is in the White House. And that's before you throw in the enablement of Putin. It's not a happy prospect.
Did the donor think Starmer is too poor to outfit him and his wife, or that they dressed badly so needed his help? Obviously not so just a really strange gift to accept.
https://x.com/SkySportsNews/status/1835233422450602242
(That's two game-changing debates out of two, if anyone is keeping count.)
Stuff does seem to be happening on delivery though, largely under the radar as the right wing press isn't interested in the dull grind. While the hospital sector looks to be on a shoestring budget in anticipation of a tough winter, we do seem to be making progress on waiting lists etc with a renewed sense of purpose.
Maybe it is just my Trust, but things seem to be happening elsewhere too. My dad is 89 in Hants and commencing treatment this week just 3 weeks from NHS referral, having seen the Consultant last week. It's a characteristic of our society that we focus on the problems and take real progress for granted.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/23/keir-starmer-scrap-tax-benefits-pension-crown-prosecution-service/?msockid=31b51b41443c6e511a480961403c6cb0
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Travis County to block an effort to register more voters before the November election.
Tories 411 seats
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/sep/15/all-the-rage-why-anger-drives-the-world-josh-cohen
The last election showed us that LLG vs RefCon does have some decent predictive power, though perhaps more on the LL front. The latest more in common is LLG:RefCon 51:43. General election result was 53:40. So a small swing right.
This is a highly partisan source but does contain quite a lot of facts and figures on the comparative effort: https://www.dailykos.com/story/2024/9/10/2268953/-Turnout-matters-but-Trump-s-barely-working-to-get-out-the-vote
As an example:
"The Trump campaign still refuses to give exact numbers, but claims they have a larger field operation than in 2022, when they had 350 staffers nationwide, and 50 in Pennsylvania. The Harris campaign currently has 375 staffers in Pennsylvania alone—more than Trump has on the entire map. "
So what we are in fact seeing is that it is the Democrats who are putting enormous efforts into new registrations of voters with a lower propensity of vote. The astonishing 189% increase in young black women in the number of new registrations, for example, contrasted with a 7% increase in Republicans.
Will enough of these new voters actually get around to voting to make the investment worthwhile? The election may turn on the answer to that but again the Dems are already geared up for a massive early vote effort to make that more likely. Trump seems to have been more interested in taking money away from the GOP and grifting it to his pals like Kirk.
I agree the first was.
Loses some of its humour after the 893rd time you post it, even though I like the idea of a fantasy Tory landslide.
- “Write down on that piece of paper exactly what you want for the gift”
- If they see stupid enough to do that, take it to a regulator/legal authority.
Way back, there was a Channel 4 sting, targeting the House of Lords. All the usual ex pols signed up merrily. Apart from one - DUP IIRC - who damned them as immoral and told them to go and never darken his door again.
When the DUP have the moral high road….
'Among the more than 67 million people who tuned in to the first US presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris was Lila Rose.
The young and charismatic founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action had hoped for big things from the Republican candidate: a bold display of anti-abortion beliefs and a promise to turn those beliefs into law.
She was quickly disappointed. While Trump criticised Democrats’ “extreme” abortion policies, he refused to take a position on a national ban, saying instead that the issue should be left to the states.
And he called himself a “leader” on IVF, putting himself at odds with Ms Rose and many in her movement, who oppose the procedure because it often involves destroying embryos.
“It was painful to watch,” Ms Rose said of Trump’s performance.
Ms Rose, 36, had always had reservations about Trump’s anti-abortion bona fides, after years of shifting positions (including previously declaring himself pro-choice) and his openness to what she called “concerning compromises”. But she, like most in her movement, had been encouraged by his first term and the three Trump-appointed Supreme Court nominees who went on to overturn Roe v Wade and end the nationwide right to abortion.
Then Trump changed course, and her disillusionment with the former president swelled. Now on his third White House run, Trump seems to be working to appeal to all sides.
He hinted he would sign federal abortion legislation, before later walking it back. He called the state-wide restrictions that came into place after Roe v Wade fell “a beautiful thing”. But later, he said abortion bans early in pregnancy went too far, suggesting Republican candidates needed to be moderate enough on the issue to “win elections”.
This summer, during the Democratic National Convention, the former president posted a statement online saying his future administration would be “great for women and their reproductive rights” - language typically used by pro-choice activists.
By late August, Ms Rose had had enough, telling her more than one million followers that Trump was “making it impossible” to vote for him.“It’s very clear that Trump is less pro-abortion than Kamala Harris,” she told the BBC on Thursday. “But our movement’s goal is not just to accept whatever the least worst candidate is and show up for them. Our goal is to help candidates who are going to be fighters for the pre-born.”
One of the most prominent leaders in the anti-abortion movement, Ms Rose’s defection signals a potential problem with Trump’s new strategy. As Trump attempts to moderate on abortion, he risks alienating some within his socially conservative base. And in an election that may be decided by a razor-thin margin, if those voters stay home in November it could cost Trump the White House.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62r2y62rwro
Places tin hat on head.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
If they did it because it was right, but they knew it was going to be unpopular, they did nothing to prepare the ground. Or soften the blow.
The idea that the bond market would collapse if they didn’t cut a few billion from the budget is nonsense.
I work in banking. The attitude in general is 1) relief at a change in government 2) waiting for the budget. The general expectation is that this government will be fiscally cautious. Much like New Labour in the first term.
Just tlistening to the hyperbole from the Tory diehards and their client media and you begin to understasnd how Starmer and Reeves surefootedness is unnerving them. I heard a report on how Reeves walked into the committee room for a meeting with the Labour PLP with a big smile on her face and a can of coke in her hand.....
I'm gone, I'm dust! Just like Leon.
This change makes the site unusable on my phone and annoying on my PC.
I have a friend of mine who lives in Hendon (a staunch Brexiteer) and drives past every year to see what's going on and gently encourage them to get a life. He said they were 100% white, earnest, all over 55 years old, and all very sad people.
Do you not get the irony. What you friend does must be the very definition of sad. He is as bad or worse than the sad people handing out the flags.
I think after this exchange, and after the Last Night, we need the Cats' Duet from Hinge and Brackett. Miaow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_emloH91VnU
Are there any PBers cross-dressing as single cat ladies?
Curve connecting the GWML to the Oxford line, just west of Didcot Parkway. GWR now have two Saturday-only round-trips from Bristol to Oxford direct.
The fact that most of the current Tory MPs were elected on a 2017 manifesto to end the WFP and end the triple lock is completely irrelevant to their current pearl clutching horror.
Then if you are deemed to be indulging in riotous, violent, or indecent behaviour in the church or churchyard, the Churchwarden can arrest you under Chapter 32 of The Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 and lock you up in the tower to wait for the constable.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/23-24/32
PB: Every day a school day.
The Guardian and now Unite Union are leading the opposition to it all the way to the floor of labour's conference
Vanity, vanity etc...
Starmer needs to see them moving in the right direction imo to prevent getting a possibly-negative real narrative pre-empted, so the Opposition attacks continue mainly to be clutching at straws.
The last time I checked, my hospital had waiting lists 30% less than average, but they are highly rated (though staff I asked whilst in for a time last summer said the shine was coming off in some respects).
All of which makes me think May was better at this stuff than Starmer.
They had a pile of measures and these got whittled down to WFA - the others were too politically difficult.
The BBC pay researchers buttons to find dozens of such people. The Guardian the same but they call them 'trainees'.
...........The fifth richest man in the country getting WFA living in Monaco while an 80 year old man living in Scunthorpe was eating Yaks testicles raw because he couldn't afford to switch on his cooker.....
.........If the Star won't take it they can always go to the Telegraph
Good morning, everyone.
And the point of course was 'the irony'. Referring to the people doing it as 'sad' when doing something which is clearly also 'sad' and not getting it.
I note that the Telegraph article linked mentions that Kamala Harris has more funding than Donald Trump, bit does mention that one of the main reason is Trump's possibly illegal looting of campaign and party funds to pay for his millions-per-month bill from the lawyers.
One further factor I have not seen numbers on is the Republican-linked campaign to prevent ethnic minority voters being able to vote by hundreds of thousands of questionable (word chosen carefully) challenges to voting roles, and by other means such as reducing numbers of polling places in probably Democrat voting areas.
Proof, if it were needed, that Sunak should have hung on 'til November.
ETA: confession time: sometimes my heart sinks if I see 500 unread comments and I will just wait for the next thread.
No matter how Labour supporters try to defend it, this policy has united opposition to it across all parties, age related organisations, and now the Unite union who are submitting a motion to the floor of the labour conference to reverse it
Additional the irony is that if the 800,000 pensioners claimed pension credit which they are entitled to, it would actually cost the Treasury billions rather than saving any money
This is not going away, and while most everyone would agree wealthy pensioners should not receive it there were far better ways of implementing it including in the Autumn statement and from 2025
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/05/labours-decision-to-cut-winter-fuel-payments-is-mean-and-politically-inept
I must say that over the last year my wife and I have often managed to get early hospital appointments by ringing up every so often and asking for cancellations.
But not disclosing? That’s just idiotic. Even if the rules say you don’t have to because Starmer is not the beneficiary. Over disclosure should be the approach
Petition to reconsider WFA decision.
Certainly a bit (lot???) more thought should have gone into a) introducing it and b) removing it.
Horrific! Trumpism! There should be a law!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2020to2021provisionaland2019to2020final
Even with the WFA, excess winter deaths were around 25k pre-COVID. These deaths will now, fairly or unfairly be laid at Labour's door. And if there is a particularly cold spell this winter, all the broadcast media will go around and interview people like the 81 year old above, shivering in a cold flat/house under 3 layers of blankets.
I'd abolish the whole thing.
- a bunch of Labour MPs
- Unite
- The Guardian
- Ed Davey and the Lib Dems
As Tory right wingers.
At this rate, whoever takes over as Tory leader won’t need to do much to rebuild the party. Everyone has joined….
Maybe they suggested the clothes money could be the equivalent to the Ecclestone scandal - but I'm not seeing what the quid pro quo for the donor was in this case.