As an aside, I find it hard to see any serious moral difference between Putin and Erdogan. Both are thuggish autocrats, both are prickly and ruthless, both of them bomb cities and kill enemies, both repress free speech.
About the only difference is that Putin has at least taken on the evil ISIS, whereas Erdogan encourages them, so Putin is a better friend to us than the Turk.
Spoken like a true Kipper!
If Putin kept his ambitions to bashing the Turks in the timehonoured Russian way it would be fine. Bumping off opponents using radioactive waste in the West End is a little beyond the pale.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
To be denied the nomination Cruz, Rubio and Kasich will have to combine their delegates to behind 1 candidate, even if he falls short that is unlikely and Trump will likely do a deal with Kasich
Not necessarily, as will be the subject of a thread tomorrow.
Unless Trump's delegates defect en masse to Cruz, which is not going to happen, then that is the only alternative
Er, that's exactly what might happen.
Says who? Outside of maybe Georgia and a few southern states I cannot see that happening.
David, If you don't mind me asking - If trump falls out after the first ballot, how would you break down the chances of Cruz/Kasich/Other?
As an aside, I find it hard to see any serious moral difference between Putin and Erdogan. Both are thuggish autocrats, both are prickly and ruthless, both of them bomb cities and kill enemies, both repress free speech.
About the only difference is that Putin has at least taken on the evil ISIS, whereas Erdogan encourages them, so Putin is a better friend to us than the Turk.
If you ignore is ventures into Ukraine and Georgia.
I will agree that Putin seems to be the only world leader willing to recognise Islamist terrorism for what it is and that it needs to be eradicated.
Erdogan's treatment of the Kurds is comparable. Sending tanks in to his own cities, killing thousands.
As an aside, I find it hard to see any serious moral difference between Putin and Erdogan. Both are thuggish autocrats, both are prickly and ruthless, both of them bomb cities and kill enemies, both repress free speech.
About the only difference is that Putin has at least taken on the evil ISIS, whereas Erdogan encourages them, so Putin is a better friend to us than the Turk.
Spoken like a true Kipper!
If Putin kept his ambitions to bashing the Turks in the timehonoured Russian way it would be fine. Bumping off opponents using radioactive waste in the West End is a little beyond the pale.
Interesting comments by legendary French special ops/counter terrorism officer Paul Barril.
Frankly it embarrass me the way odd Putin obsessives who seem to peddle the most bizarre and convoluted conspiracy theories about the man, like yourself, seem to have taken over the foreign policy of this country.
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
That does not prevent the SNP propping up a Corbyn minority government and of course Corbyn does not have to win over many Tory voters if Tory voters start to switch to UKIP
I think the likelihood of Con-UKIP floating voters deciding they'd rather let Corbyn come to power rather than vote Conservative is about 0%. I know these people.
Well it only takes a small minority, 10% of 2015 Tories have switched to UKIP in the latest yougov and that would be all Corbyn needs.
I don't know where you get the idea from that UKIP voters want to hand the election to Corbyn.
They don't, presumably they want to vote for UKIP and if, as looks likely, EU ref is a narrow Remain they will be even more determined to do so, just the consequence of their actions under FPTP is a Corbyn government is more likely. Under PR or AV UKIP voters would hold the balance of power at the moment
Under PR, UKIP MPs would hold the balance of power. I've not seen enough polling on AV re the 2015 result but I think it's highly unlikely that UKIP would be in anything like the same sort of position with that and it's not impossible that the Conservatives might have a bigger majority.
Under AV UKIP would surely have an even higher first preference vote as a UKIP vote would not be a wasted voted, the Tories may well have won a bigger majority.
Of the voting systems, AV makes most likely a centrist government with a majority, PR makes a centrist led government more likely (but with representation for smaller parties, FPTP is the best system for giving an extremist party a majority that is why it is Corbyn's best shot
As an aside, I find it hard to see any serious moral difference between Putin and Erdogan. Both are thuggish autocrats, both are prickly and ruthless, both of them bomb cities and kill enemies, both repress free speech.
About the only difference is that Putin has at least taken on the evil ISIS, whereas Erdogan encourages them, so Putin is a better friend to us than the Turk.
If you ignore is ventures into Ukraine and Georgia.
I will agree that Putin seems to be the only world leader willing to recognise Islamist terrorism for what it is and that it needs to be eradicated.
Erdogan's treatment of the Kurds is comparable. Sending tanks in to his own cities, killing thousands.
True, but I wouldn't want to get into bed with either, for the reasons you've pointed out plus the fact that neither can be trusted.
But that's exactly my point. We're meant to see Putin as mad, murderous and evil, whereas Erdogan is officially our "friend" and NATO ally, and leader of an EU member state manque.
Yet there is no significant difference. It's all complete hypocrisy.
Do you want to Remain in such a European Union, led and dominated by a nation where you get to sent to jail if you tell a JOKE that conflicts with its politics?
As an aside, I find it hard to see any serious moral difference between Putin and Erdogan. Both are thuggish autocrats, both are prickly and ruthless, both of them bomb cities and kill enemies, both repress free speech.
About the only difference is that Putin has at least taken on the evil ISIS, whereas Erdogan encourages them, so Putin is a better friend to us than the Turk.
If you ignore is ventures into Ukraine and Georgia.
I will agree that Putin seems to be the only world leader willing to recognise Islamist terrorism for what it is and that it needs to be eradicated.
Erdogan's treatment of the Kurds is comparable. Sending tanks in to his own cities, killing thousands.
True, but I wouldn't want to get into bed with either, for the reasons you've pointed out plus the fact that neither can be trusted.
But that's exactly my point. We're meant to see Putin as mad, murderous and evil, whereas Erdogan is officially our "friend" and NATO ally, and leader of an EU member state manque.
Yet there is no significant difference. It's all complete hypocrisy.
Well it's worrying because Erdogan seems to have the Germans in his pocket, it does change the landscape a bit for their possible EU entry. Given how poor Turkey is and how much development aid they would be entitled to the €6bn is just a drop in the ocean of what would be on offer for them within the EU.
Well the Osborne comparison is irrelevant as he won't be PM/Tory leader going into the election so you're left with Corbyn/Johnson and Corbyn/AN Other match-ups which it's hard to see Jezza winning to be honest
Johnson may not get through to the final 2, you cannot definitively say Osborne will not be next Tory leader and the likes of Gove poll as poorly as Osborne
Theresa. She is the safety first option with fewest negatives.
Safety is Hammond. Safety with bovver boots frightening the living daylights out of both the opposition (Lab) and the enemy (Cons backbenchers) is Fallon.
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a fool's errand extrapolating local election results into a general election scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where opposition parties have done well in local elections and then been mauled at the ensuing general election. Didn't it happen to Hague, and also Miliband? People are not choosing a national government or a PM in council elections, they are voting for a party and local issues (I doubt even the leader of the party has much influence in their vote either).
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
I agree. 34% at this stage is pitiful really, when you consider what the government's been going through. Even Labour under Miliband were getting in the high 30s, and even the mid 40s at one stage. That's all well and good, but when party leaders are subjected to a long and torturous general election campaign, the capabilities and weaknesses are brutally exposed for all to see (as Mr Miliband found out). I simply do not believe Corbyn either has the stomach or the intellectual capacity to go through that, or to cope with it, and I certainly do not believe Middle England could ever be persuaded to vote for him. By the way, I'm a little puzzled as to the fanfare surrounding Dan Jarvis. I get his backstory (though the public are more sophisticated than we all think to be persuaded to vote for someone because of their background), but whenever I have seen him on TV, he has been utterly dull. He doesn't strike me as being particularly bright either, but nevertheless, as other people have pointed out, he would be far harder to pin down than Corbyn and McDonnell.
I think it's a fool's errand extrapolating local election results into a general election scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where opposition parties have done well in local elections and then been mauled at the ensuing general election. Didn't it happen to Hague, and also Miliband? People are not choosing a national government or a PM in council elections, they are voting for a party and local issues (I doubt even the leader of the party has much influence in their vote either).
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
Welcome to the forum Jason. Actually it's not a fool's errand, though you'll want to have more than one year's worth of Local Election data to go off.
In the end Miliband slightly outperformed the preidcted 8.5% loss from this and only suffered a 5.7% defeat.
Nethertheless the intercept of (0,8%) on the x axis demonstrates that oppositions need to be winning local elections very well indeed to have a good shot at Government.
Lowish number of data points, decent r^2 though.
As good an indicator as any
Wiki says over 6 %, which makes that more impressive.
The 2013 locals were when Miliband really underperformed if he was a serious leader of a government in waiting, but it was overshadowed by UKIP.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
To be denied the nomination Cruz, Rubio and Kasich will have to combine their delegates to behind 1 candidate, even if he falls short that is unlikely and Trump will likely do a deal with Kasich
Not necessarily, as will be the subject of a thread tomorrow.
Unless Trump's delegates defect en masse to Cruz, which is not going to happen, then that is the only alternative
Er, that's exactly what might happen.
Says who? Outside of maybe Georgia and a few southern states I cannot see that happening.
David, If you don't mind me asking - If trump falls out after the first ballot, how would you break down the chances of Cruz/Kasich/Other?
Betfair implies something like 55%/15%/30%
Personally, I'm figuring 75%/5%/20%.
Trump won't fall out after the first ballot. There could be all sorts of dynamics that come into play but it'd take a while for Trump to decline to a level where he withdraws. That said, I'd give Kasich a bigger chance of coming through than Other. Having run has to count for something and his favourability and head-to-head ratings are good.
As an aside, I find it hard to see any serious moral difference between Putin and Erdogan. Both are thuggish autocrats, both are prickly and ruthless, both of them bomb cities and kill enemies, both repress free speech.
About the only difference is that Putin has at least taken on the evil ISIS, whereas Erdogan encourages them, so Putin is a better friend to us than the Turk.
If you ignore is ventures into Ukraine and Georgia.
I will agree that Putin seems to be the only world leader willing to recognise Islamist terrorism for what it is and that it needs to be eradicated.
Erdogan's treatment of the Kurds is comparable. Sending tanks in to his own cities, killing thousands.
True, but I wouldn't want to get into bed with either, for the reasons you've pointed out plus the fact that neither can be trusted.
But that's exactly my point. We're meant to see Putin as mad, murderous and evil, whereas Erdogan is officially our "friend" and NATO ally, and leader of an EU member state manque.
Yet there is no significant difference. It's all complete hypocrisy.
I agree. One group in the whole middle east drama that we ought to be slightly positive towards is the Kurds. They are not lovely liberal metrosexual democratic Islington types. They're Muslims. Their more fanatical fringe bombs Istanbul. But...they seem to have got themselves a relatively open-minded statelet going centred on Irbil, they fucking hate ISIS, and their Peshmerga forces are about the only boots on the ground that can and do credibly take ISIS on. We could (and have done) alot worse than being much more openly supportive of the Kurds. It's also a balancing power in the endless Shia/Sunni Muslim civil war.
This is, of course, a profound no-no to Turkey, who fear an independent Kurdistan much more than they fear ISIS. Erdogan's son is busy buying ISIS oil and Turkey is blocking the Peshmerga. Screw Turkey. They are NOT on our side in the greater scheme of things.
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
I agree. 34% at this stage is pitiful really, when you consider what the government's been going through. Even Labour under Miliband were getting in the high 30s, and even the mid 40s at one stage. That's all well and good, but when party leaders are subjected to a long and torturous general election campaign, the capabilities and weaknesses are brutally exposed for all to see (as Mr Miliband found out). I simply do not believe Corbyn either has the stomach or the intellectual capacity to go through that, or to cope with it, and I certainly do not believe Middle England could ever be persuaded to vote for him. By the way, I'm a little puzzled as to the fanfare surrounding Dan Jarvis. I get his backstory (though the public are more sophisticated than we all think to be persuaded to vote for someone because of their background), but whenever I have seen him on TV, he has been utterly dull. He doesn't strike me as being particularly bright either, but nevertheless, as other people have pointed out, he would be far harder to pin down than Corbyn and McDonnell.
To get a majority Corbyn clearly needs more but if the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP and he does a deal with the SNP he does not need a majority
Well the Osborne comparison is irrelevant as he won't be PM/Tory leader going into the election so you're left with Corbyn/Johnson and Corbyn/AN Other match-ups which it's hard to see Jezza winning to be honest
Johnson may not get through to the final 2, you cannot definitively say Osborne will not be next Tory leader and the likes of Gove poll as poorly as Osborne
Theresa. She is the safety first option with fewest negatives.
Safety is Hammond. Safety with bovver boots frightening the living daylights out of both the opposition (Lab) and the enemy (Cons backbenchers) is Fallon.
Fallon is also pro Remain and only a little duller than Hammond
As an aside, I find it hard to see any serious moral difference between Putin and Erdogan. Both are thuggish autocrats, both are prickly and ruthless, both of them bomb cities and kill enemies, both repress free speech.
About the only difference is that Putin has at least taken on the evil ISIS, whereas Erdogan encourages them, so Putin is a better friend to us than the Turk.
If you ignore is ventures into Ukraine and Georgia.
I will agree that Putin seems to be the only world leader willing to recognise Islamist terrorism for what it is and that it needs to be eradicated.
Erdogan's treatment of the Kurds is comparable. Sending tanks in to his own cities, killing thousands.
True, but I wouldn't want to get into bed with either, for the reasons you've pointed out plus the fact that neither can be trusted.
But that's exactly my point. We're meant to see Putin as mad, murderous and evil, whereas Erdogan is officially our "friend" and NATO ally, and leader of an EU member state manque.
Yet there is no significant difference. It's all complete hypocrisy.
Personally, I've never understood the fear of Putin.
Like.....what the f8ck is he going to do to anybody with an ounce of sense and hardware??
I think it's a fool's errand extrapolating local election results into a general election scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where opposition parties have done well in local elections and then been mauled at the ensuing general election. Didn't it happen to Hague, and also Miliband? People are not choosing a national government or a PM in council elections, they are voting for a party and local issues (I doubt even the leader of the party has much influence in their vote either).
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
Welcome to the forum Jason. Actually it's not a fool's errand, though you'll want to have more than one year's worth of Local Election data to go off.
In the end Miliband slightly outperformed the preidcted 8.5% loss from this and only suffered a 5.7% defeat.
Nethertheless the intercept of (0,8%) on the x axis demonstrates that oppositions need to be winning local elections very well indeed to have a good shot at Government.
Lowish number of data points, decent r^2 though.
As good an indicator as any
Have you got the figures for the Tory local election results prior to the 2001 general election? I would be interested to see those in reference to your statement about oppositions doing very well in order to win the next election. As I recall, Labour won by a landslide.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
To be denied the nomination Cruz, Rubio and Kasich will have to combine their delegates to behind 1 candidate, even if he falls short that is unlikely and Trump will likely do a deal with Kasich
Not necessarily, as will be the subject of a thread tomorrow.
Unless Trump's delegates defect en masse to Cruz, which is not going to happen, then that is the only alternative
Er, that's exactly what might happen.
Says who? Outside of maybe Georgia and a few southern states I cannot see that happening.
David, If you don't mind me asking - If trump falls out after the first ballot, how would you break down the chances of Cruz/Kasich/Other?
Betfair implies something like 55%/15%/30%
Personally, I'm figuring 75%/5%/20%.
Trump won't fall out after the first ballot. There could be all sorts of dynamics that come into play but it'd take a while for Trump to decline to a level where he withdraws. That said, I'd give Kasich a bigger chance of coming through than Other. Having run has to count for something and his favourability and head-to-head ratings are good.
Kasich would be more likely to do a deal with Trump to be his VP than actually have a chance of getting the nomination in my view
As an aside, I find it hard to see any serious moral difference between Putin and Erdogan. Both are thuggish autocrats, both are prickly and ruthless, both of them bomb cities and kill enemies, both repress free speech.
About the only difference is that Putin has at least taken on the evil ISIS, whereas Erdogan encourages them, so Putin is a better friend to us than the Turk.
If you ignore is ventures into Ukraine and Georgia.
I will agree that Putin seems to be the only world leader willing to recognise Islamist terrorism for what it is and that it needs to be eradicated.
Erdogan's treatment of the Kurds is comparable. Sending tanks in to his own cities, killing thousands.
True, but I wouldn't want to get into bed with either, for the reasons you've pointed out plus the fact that neither can be trusted.
But that's exactly my point. We're meant to see Putin as mad, murderous and evil, whereas Erdogan is officially our "friend" and NATO ally, and leader of an EU member state manque.
Yet there is no significant difference. It's all complete hypocrisy.
Why don't we compromise? Let those who want to remain terrorist-magnets and pursue their grand multi-culti experiment to the bitter end form a Union of their own, including SE England, parts of France, Belgium, parts of Germany and Scandinavia, Turkey, while those would like to remain White and culturally Christian (the fringes from Eastern Europe, to Ireland, Iceland, parts of Scotland and the North of England, maybe Portugal and bits of Spain) affiliate to the great bulwark, Mother Russia?
The problem would then be encircled and quarantined...
I think it's a fool's errand extrapolating local election results into a general election scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where opposition parties have done well in local elections and then been mauled at the ensuing general election. Didn't it happen to Hague, and also Miliband? People are not choosing a national government or a PM in council elections, they are voting for a party and local issues (I doubt even the leader of the party has much influence in their vote either).
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
Welcome to the forum Jason. Actually it's not a fool's errand, though you'll want to have more than one year's worth of Local Election data to go off.
In the end Miliband slightly outperformed the preidcted 8.5% loss from this and only suffered a 5.7% defeat.
Nethertheless the intercept of (0,8%) on the x axis demonstrates that oppositions need to be winning local elections very well indeed to have a good shot at Government.
Lowish number of data points, decent r^2 though.
As good an indicator as any
Have you got the figures for the Tory local election results prior to the 2001 general election? I would be interested to see those in reference to your statement about oppositions doing very well in order to win the next election. As I recall, Labour won by a landslide.
IIRC the numbers were for NEV:-
1993 Con 31, Lab 39 1994 Con 30, Lab 42 1995 Con 25, Lab 47 1996 Con 28, Lab 43, 1998 Con 33, Lab 38 1999 Con 34, Lab 36 2000 Con 37, Lab 32.
As an aside, I find it hard to see any serious moral difference between Putin and Erdogan. Both are thuggish autocrats, both are prickly and ruthless, both of them bomb cities and kill enemies, both repress free speech.
About the only difference is that Putin has at least taken on the evil ISIS, whereas Erdogan encourages them, so Putin is a better friend to us than the Turk.
Spoken like a true Kipper!
If Putin kept his ambitions to bashing the Turks in the timehonoured Russian way it would be fine. Bumping off opponents using radioactive waste in the West End is a little beyond the pale.
Interesting comments by legendary French special ops/counter terrorism officer Paul Barril.
Frankly it embarrass me the way odd Putin obsessives who seem to peddle the most bizarre and convoluted conspiracy theories about the man, like yourself, seem to have taken over the foreign policy of this country.
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
That's all well and good, but when party leaders are subjected to a long and torturous general election campaign, the capabilities and weaknesses are brutally exposed for all to see (as Mr Miliband found out). I simply do not believe Corbyn either has the stomach or the intellectual capacity to go through that, or to cope with it, and I certainly do not believe Middle England could ever be persuaded to vote for him. By the way, I'm a little puzzled as to the fanfare surrounding Dan Jarvis. I get his backstory (though the public are more sophisticated than we all think to be persuaded to vote for someone because of their background), but whenever I have seen him on TV, he has been utterly dull. He doesn't strike me as being particularly bright either, but nevertheless, as other people have pointed out, he would be far harder to pin down than Corbyn and McDonnell.
To get a majority Corbyn clearly needs more but if the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP and he does a deal with the SNP he does not need a majority
Mr Miliband thought he could slip that by the British public as well. Didn't work for him, and it won't work for Corbyn - unless, of course, Labour have the most seats - but they won't, because the thought of a Corbyn/SNP coalition will chill English voters to the bone. And how about all those Labour seats where UKIP came second? It isn't just the Tories that are losing votes to them.
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
I agree. 34% at this stage is pitiful really, when you consider what the government's been going through. Even Labour under Miliband were getting in the high 30s, and even the mid 40s at one stage. That's all well and good, but when party leaders are subjected to a long and torturous general election campaign, the capabilities and weaknesses are brutally exposed for all to see (as Mr Miliband found out). I simply do not believe Corbyn either has the stomach or the intellectual capacity to go through that, or to cope with it, and I certainly do not believe Middle England could ever be persuaded to vote for him. By the way, I'm a little puzzled as to the fanfare surrounding Dan Jarvis. I get his backstory (though the public are more sophisticated than we all think to be persuaded to vote for someone because of their background), but whenever I have seen him on TV, he has been utterly dull. He doesn't strike me as being particularly bright either, but nevertheless, as other people have pointed out, he would be far harder to pin down than Corbyn and McDonnell.
To get a majority Corbyn clearly needs more but if the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP and he does a deal with the SNP he does not need a majority
If he even looks like he will do a deal with the SNP the voters will run a mile. Plus you have to consider if the SNP would be interested in tarnishing their image doing a deal with someone like Corbyn.
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
That's all well and good, but when party leaders are subjected to a long and torturous general election campaign, the capabilities and weaknesses are brutally exposed for all to see (as Mr Miliband found out). I sim
To get a majority Corbyn clearly needs more but if the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP and he does a deal with the SNP he does not need a majority
Mr Miliband thought he could slip that by the British public as well. Didn't work for him, and it won't work for Corbyn - unless, of course, Labour have the most seats - but they won't, because the thought of a Corbyn/SNP coalition will chill English voters to the bone. And how about all those Labour seats where UKIP came second? It isn't just the Tories that are losing votes to them.
Actually according to the latest yougov it is mainly the Tories losing votes to UKIP. Since the 2015 election and with Cameron now having backed Remain the Tories have lost 10% of their voters to UKIP, Labour have lost 4%. There has been little net switch between the Tories and Labour, Labour have picked up 2% of Tories, the Tories 3% of Labour, Labour have picked up 17% of the few who voted LD in 2015
So Labour have a 3% lead almost entirely due to Tory moves to UKIP coupled with winning over a few more LDs
As an aside, I find it hard to see any serious moral difference between Putin and Erdogan. Both are thuggish autocrats, both are prickly and ruthless, both of them bomb cities and kill enemies, both repress free speech.
About the only difference is that Putin has at least taken on the evil ISIS, whereas Erdogan encourages them, so Putin is a better friend to us than the Turk.
If you ignore is ventures into Ukraine and Georgia.
I will agree that Putin seems to be the only world leader willing to recognise Islamist terrorism for what it is and that it needs to be eradicated.
Erdogan's treatment of the Kurds is comparable. Sending tanks in to his own cities, killing thousands.
True, but I wouldn't want to get into bed with either, for the reasons you've pointed out plus the fact that neither can be trusted.
But that's exactly my point. We're meant to see Putin as mad, murderous and evil, whereas Erdogan is officially our "friend" and NATO ally, and leader of an EU member state manque.
Yet there is no significant difference. It's all complete hypocrisy.
Personally, I've never understood the fear of Putin.
Like.....what the f8ck is he going to do to anybody with an ounce of sense and hardware??
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
I agree. 34% at this stage is pitiful really, when you consider what the government's been going through. Even Labour under Miliband were getting in the high 30s, and even the mid 40s at one stage. That's all well and good, but when party leaders are subjected to a long and torturous general election campaign, the capabilitie
To get a majority Corbyn clearly needs more but if the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP and he does a deal with the SNP he does not need a majority
If he even looks like he will do a deal with the SNP the voters will run a mile. Plus you have to consider if the SNP would be interested in tarnishing their image doing a deal with someone like Corbyn.
Many of the SNP backbenchers actually like Corbyn and by 2020 the prospect of Osborne in power again may be less enticing for the average swing voter than allowing Angus Robertson a say
I think it's a fool's errand extrapolating local election results into a general election scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where opposition parties have done well in local elections and then been mauled at the ensuing general election. Didn't it happen to Hague, and also Miliband? People are not choosing a national government or a PM in council elections, they are voting for a party and local issues (I doubt even the leader of the party has much influence in their vote either).
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
Welcome to the forum Jason. Actually it's not a fool's errand, though you'll want to have more than one year's worth of Local Election data to go off.
In the end Miliband slightly outperformed the preidcted 8.5% loss from this and only suffered a 5.7% defeat.
Nethertheless the intercept of (0,8%) on the x axis demonstrates that oppositions need to be winning local elections very well indeed to have a good shot at Government.
Lowish number of data points, decent r^2 though.
As good an indicator as any
Wiki says over 6 %, which makes that more impressive.
The 2013 locals were when Miliband really underperformed if he was a serious leader of a government in waiting, but it was overshadowed by UKIP.
The GB Tory lead in 2015 was 6.5%, which was the metric used in the model...
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
That's all well and good, but when party leaders are subjected to a long and torturous general election campaign, the capabilities and weaknesses are brutally exposed for all to see (as Mr Miliband found out). I sim
To get a majority Corbyn clearly needs more but if the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP and he does a deal with the SNP he does not need a majority
Mr Miliband thought he could slip that by the British public as well. Didn't work for him, and it won't work for Corbyn - unless, of course, Labour have the most seats - but they won't, because the thought of a Corbyn/SNP coalition will chill English voters to the bone. And how about all those Labour seats where UKIP came second? It isn't just the Tories that are losing votes to them.
Actually according to the latest yougov it is mainly the Tories losing votes to UKIP. Since the 2015 election and with Cameron now having backed Remain the Tories have lost 10% of their voters to UKIP, Labour have lost 4%. There has been little net switch between the Tories and Labour, Labour have picked up 2% of Tories, the Tories 3% of Labour, Labour have picked up 17% of the few who voted LD in 2015
So Labour have a 3% lead almost entirely due to Tory moves to UKIP coupled with winning over a few more LDs
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
I agree. 34% at this stage is pitiful really, when you consider what the government's been going through. Even Labour under Miliband were getting in the high 30s, and even the mid 40s at one stage. That's all well and good, but when party leaders are subjected to a long and torturous general election campaign, the capabilitie
To get a majority Corbyn clearly needs more but if the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP and he does a deal with the SNP he does not need a majority
If he even looks like he will do a deal with the SNP the voters will run a mile. Plus you have to consider if the SNP would be interested in tarnishing their image doing a deal with someone like Corbyn.
Many of the SNP backbenchers actually like Corbyn and by 2020 the prospect of Osborne in power again may be less enticing for the average swing voter than allowing Angus Robertson a say
On the other hand if it's that nice Scot Mr Gove...
There is clearly a window for Labour to recover from a very weak position. However, it is not yet setup to take advantage of it. The question is will Labour be ready before that window closes. Hard to tell.
The FT also makes it clear that this was and is a political decision. Merkel could have refused the Turkish request.
Merkel has historically done a nice line in giving vain men enough rope to hang themselves. I wouldn't take her apparent indulgence of Erdogan at face value.
Once we leave the EU we can crack on with some real reform, reduce the size of both houses by half and abolish county councils. The savings will be immense and nobody will notice other than the jobsworths counting beans. They can go and get a proper job, the Poles manage to.
Now, it is something to be celebrated. “The Tories would like to cut back on EU workplace rights if they could,” he said. He gave thanks to “regulations in Europe that have improved beaches and waterways and air pollution”, while the “Tory government have cut regulatory burdens on fracking and increased them on onshore wind”,
If it weren’t for the EU, the democratically elected Tories would be able to do whatever they bloody wanted. Where would we be without a European bureaucracy, totally unaccountable to anybody, taking power away from national parliaments?
The details of the Merkel Madness are even more alarming.
"Turkey formally requested that the German authorities prosecute Mr Böhmermann, under an antiquated German law which makes it a crime to insult foreign heads of state.
"However, such proceedings can only go ahead if the government of the day grants authorisation. This is what Ms Merkel provided on Friday.
"Ms Merkel said Turkey was a Nato ally that was seeking EU membership and as a “close partner” was due “respect”."
There you go. That's the reason she's allowing a German comedian to be prosecuted for satirising a foreign autocrat who jails his own journalists while helping Islamists.
It's because we must RESPECT Turkey and Recep Erdogan.
Once we leave the EU we can crack on with some real reform, reduce the size of both houses by half and abolish county councils. The savings will be immense and nobody will notice other than the jobsworths counting beans. They can go and get a proper job, the Poles manage to.
The polls I have seen have the neocon poster boy and media darling (Putin obsessive too) losing to outsider challenger Kelli Ward in the Republican primary. Would be hugely symbolic if McCain were to lose, however he has access to unlimited funds, just don't ask for their provenance, so he might hold on. A pointer to the general anti establishment trend.
Never understood how, despite the cash and favourable media coverage, he has managed to hold on given his crazy foreign policy and immigration stances.
The FT also makes it clear that this was and is a political decision. Merkel could have refused the Turkish request.
Merkel has historically done a nice line in giving vain men enough rope to hang themselves. I wouldn't take her apparent indulgence of Erdogan at face value.
You keep pushing this line, but it is complete rubbish.
Once we leave the EU we can crack on with some real reform, reduce the size of both houses by half and abolish county councils. The savings will be immense and nobody will notice other than the jobsworths counting beans. They can go and get a proper job, the Poles manage to.
Why do we need to leave the EU to do that?
We don't but it's a natural progression in reducing the size of the state. When we Leave and people discover the sun still rises they'll realise how pointless politicians are, especially the two bob councillors.
You know, the ones that want to charge us for jogging around the park.
I must say those Libyan families are very good at makeup, because they look convincingly like sub-saharan african males in their early or mid twenties.
Old donkey paths snaking through the Alps between Italy and Austria have become a new route for people smugglers leading desperate migrants into Europe. With huge amounts of refugees now attempting the Mediterranean route through Italy - latest figures show 6,000 have arrived in the past three days alone - border patrols and checks have intensified.
Once we leave the EU we can crack on with some real reform, reduce the size of both houses by half and abolish county councils. The savings will be immense and nobody will notice other than the jobsworths counting beans. They can go and get a proper job, the Poles manage to.
Good luck with that. Not sure why you think the EU is holding back parliamentary reform.
Once we leave the EU we can crack on with some real reform, reduce the size of both houses by half and abolish county councils. The savings will be immense and nobody will notice other than the jobsworths counting beans. They can go and get a proper job, the Poles manage to.
Good luck with that. Not sure why you think the EU is holding back parliamentary reform.
I never said it is, I've no idea why you made that up.
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
I agree. 34% at this stage is pitiful really, when you consider what the government's been going through. Even Labour under Miliband were getting in the high 30s, and even the mid 40s at one stage. That's all well and good, but when party leaders are subjected to a long and torturous general election campaign, the capabilitie
To get a majority Corbyn clearly needs more but if the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP and he does a deal with the SNP he does not need a majority
If he even looks like he will do a deal with the SNP the voters will run a mile. Plus you have to consider if the SNP would be interested in tarnishing their image doing a deal with someone like Corbyn.
Many of the SNP backbenchers actually like Corbyn and by 2020 the prospect of Osborne in power again may be less enticing for the average swing voter than allowing Angus Robertson a say
I will grant you that Osborne would seem to be a very bad choice for the Tories at the moment, and I see a choice between him and Corbyn at the next election about as enticing as a diagnosis of syphilis or chlamydia. Here's my prediction - neither of them will be party leader in 2020. I can't see the Tories not choosing Boris, and I do believe Labour will finally come to their senses and boot Corbyn and McDonnell back to where they belong, in back bench obscurity.
I must say those Libyan families are very good at makeup, because they look convincingly like sub-saharan african males in their early or mid twenties.
Old donkey paths snaking through the Alps between Italy and Austria have become a new route for people smugglers leading desperate migrants into Europe. With huge amounts of refugees now attempting the Mediterranean route through Italy - latest figures show 6,000 have arrived in the past three days alone - border patrols and checks have intensified.
I think it's a fool's errand extrapolating local election results into a general election scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where opposition parties have done well in local elections and then been mauled at the ensuing general election. Didn't it happen to Hague, and also Miliband? People are not choosing a national government or a PM in council elections, they are voting for a party and local issues (I doubt even the leader of the party has much influence in their vote either).
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
Welcome to the forum Jason. Actually it's not a fool's errand, though you'll want to have more than one year's worth of Local Election data to go off.
In the end Miliband slightly outperformed the preidcted 8.5% loss from this and only suffered a 5.7% defeat.
Nethertheless the intercept of (0,8%) on the x axis demonstrates that oppositions need to be winning local elections very well indeed to have a good shot at Government.
Lowish number of data points, decent r^2 though.
As good an indicator as any
Wiki says over 6 %, which makes that more impressive.
The 2013 locals were when Miliband really underperformed if he was a serious leader of a government in waiting, but it was overshadowed by UKIP.
The GB Tory lead in 2015 was 6.5%, which was the metric used in the model...
Cameron has expended his political capital on Europe, to no effect.
@britainelects 23m23 minutes ago Undecided voters // On who you DON'T trust re: the EU: N Farage: 67% D Cameron: 60% J Corbyn: 54% B Johnson: 53% N Sturgeon: 53%
He is now less trusted on the referendum than Johnson or Corbyn. And he was meant to be a key figure for REMAIN. And the polling is neck and neck.
Hmm.
which is probably why we haven't seen much of him.
let's hope it stays that way.
Cameron's numbers aren't great either - I mean worse than Corbyn ?
Cameron has expended his political capital on Europe, to no effect.
@britainelects 23m23 minutes ago Undecided voters // On who you DON'T trust re: the EU: N Farage: 67% D Cameron: 60% J Corbyn: 54% B Johnson: 53% N Sturgeon: 53%
He is now less trusted on the referendum than Johnson or Corbyn. And he was meant to be a key figure for REMAIN. And the polling is neck and neck.
Hmm.
which is probably why we haven't seen much of Farage.
let's hope it stays that way.
Cameron's numbers aren't great either - I mean worse than Corbyn ?
Cameron has expended his political capital on Europe, to no effect.
@britainelects 23m23 minutes ago Undecided voters // On who you DON'T trust re: the EU: N Farage: 67% D Cameron: 60% J Corbyn: 54% B Johnson: 53% N Sturgeon: 53%
He is now less trusted on the referendum than Johnson or Corbyn. And he was meant to be a key figure for REMAIN. And the polling is neck and neck.
Hmm.
What's with the Sturgeon rating? I can't recall hearing her say anything about it.
Cameron has expended his political capital on Europe, to no effect.
@britainelects 23m23 minutes ago Undecided voters // On who you DON'T trust re: the EU: N Farage: 67% D Cameron: 60% J Corbyn: 54% B Johnson: 53% N Sturgeon: 53%
He is now less trusted on the referendum than Johnson or Corbyn. And he was meant to be a key figure for REMAIN. And the polling is neck and neck.
I think it's a fool's errand extrapolating local election results into a general election scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where opposition parties have done well in local elections and then been mauled at the ensuing general election. Didn't it happen to Hague, and also Miliband? People are not choosing a national government or a PM in council elections, they are voting for a party and local issues (I doubt even the leader of the party has much influence in their vote either).
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
Welcome to the forum Jason. Actually it's not a fool's errand, though you'll want to have more than one year's worth of Local Election data to go off.
In the end Miliband slightly outperformed the preidcted 8.5% loss from this and only suffered a 5.7% defeat.
Nethertheless the intercept of (0,8%) on the x axis demonstrates that oppositions need to be winning local elections very well indeed to have a good shot at Government.
Lowish number of data points, decent r^2 though.
As good an indicator as any
Wiki says over 6 %, which makes that more impressive.
The 2013 locals were when Miliband really underperformed if he was a serious leader of a government in waiting, but it was overshadowed by UKIP.
The GB Tory lead in 2015 was 6.5%, which was the metric used in the model...
Yeah. I know.
The 5.7 % comes from the post I quoted.
I went off this:
Conservative David Cameron 36.8 330 +28 Labour Ed Miliband 30.5 232 -24
The FT also makes it clear that this was and is a political decision. Merkel could have refused the Turkish request.
Merkel has historically done a nice line in giving vain men enough rope to hang themselves. I wouldn't take her apparent indulgence of Erdogan at face value.
You keep pushing this line, but it is complete rubbish.
'Merkel's gone mad' seems to be the most popular piece of groupthink of the year.
The FT also makes it clear that this was and is a political decision. Merkel could have refused the Turkish request.
Merkel has historically done a nice line in giving vain men enough rope to hang themselves. I wouldn't take her apparent indulgence of Erdogan at face value.
You keep pushing this line, but it is complete rubbish.
'Merkel's gone mad' seems to be the most popular piece of groupthink of the year.
The opinion polling in Germany suggests that it's shared to some degree by the electorate there as well.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
That's all well and good, but when party leaders are subjected to a long and torturous general election campaign, the capabilities and weaknesses are brutally exposed for all to see (as Mr Miliband found out). I sim
To get a majority Corbyn clearly needs more but if the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP and he does a deal with the SNP he does not need a majority
Mr Miliband thought he could slip that by the British public as well. Didn't work for him, and it won't work for Corbyn - unless, of course, Labour have the most seats - but they won't, because the thought of a Corbyn/SNP coalition will chill English voters to the bone. And how about all those Labour seats where UKIP came second? It isn't just the Tories that are losing votes to them.
Actually according to the latest yougov it is mainly the Tories losing votes to UKIP. Since the 2015 election and with Cameron now having backed Remain the Tories have lost 10% of their voters to UKIP, Labour have lost 4%. There has been little net switch between the Tories and Labour, Labour have picked up 2% of Tories, the Tories 3% of Labour, Labour have picked up 17% of the few who voted LD in 2015
So Labour have a 3% lead almost entirely due to Tory moves to UKIP coupled with winning over a few more LDs
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
I agree. 34% at this stage is pitiful really, when you consider what the government's been going through. Even Labour under Miliband were getting in the high 30s, and even the mid 40s at one stage. That's all well and good, but when party leaders are subjected to a long and torturous general election campaign, the capabilitie
To get a majority Corbyn clearly needs more but if the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP and he does a deal with the SNP he does not need a majority
If he even looks like he will do a deal with the SNP the voters will run a mile. Plus you have to consider if the SNP would be interested in tarnishing their image doing a deal with someone like Corbyn.
Many of the SNP backbenchers actually like Corbyn and by 2020 the prospect of Osborne in power again may be less enticing for the average swing voter than allowing Angus Robertson a say
On the other hand if it's that nice Scot Mr Gove...
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
I agree. 34% at this stage is pitiful really, when you consider what the government's been going through. Even Labour under Miliband
To get a majority Corbyn clearly needs more but if the Tories continue to lose voters to UKIP and he does a deal with the SNP he does not need a majority
If he even looks like he will do a deal with the SNP the voters will run a mile. Plus you have to consider if the SNP would be interested in tarnishing their image doing a deal with someone like Corbyn.
Many of the SNP backbenchers actually like Corbyn and by 2020 the prospect of Osborne in power again may be less enticing for the average swing voter than allowing Angus Robertson a say
I will grant you that Osborne would seem to be a very bad choice for the Tories at the moment, and I see a choice between him and Corbyn at the next election about as enticing as a diagnosis of syphilis or chlamydia. Here's my prediction - neither of them will be party leader in 2020. I can't see the Tories not choosing Boris, and I do believe Labour will finally come to their senses and boot Corbyn and McDonnell back to where they belong, in back bench obscurity.
Boris may not even get enough MPs to get to the final 2, if not Corbyn McDonnell will likely be leading Labour
The FT also makes it clear that this was and is a political decision. Merkel could have refused the Turkish request.
Merkel has historically done a nice line in giving vain men enough rope to hang themselves. I wouldn't take her apparent indulgence of Erdogan at face value.
You keep pushing this line, but it is complete rubbish.
'Merkel's gone mad' seems to be the most popular piece of groupthink of the year.
The opinion polling in Germany suggests that it's shared to some degree by the electorate there as well.
Given how slavishly pro-Merkel they have been for the past few years that article must have been painful to write. The whole first paragraph is dedicated to shitting on the comedian and essentially saying "he's wrong" without saying.
A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of voters under the guise of conducting a poll.
If Labour replace Corbyn before 2020 with someone you can't describe as a terrorist sympathiser (yes I'm thinking of Dan Jarvis) then the Tories are screwed
To describe Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser is so OTT it will get no traction except with Tory extremists. It is so out of kilter with the man we are getting to know and love.
He does not have integrity or decent values. Any close look at what Corbyn has said and done over 30 years shows that. No-one with any decency would associate, consistently, with the sorts of people he has associated with and supported over the years.
Integrity should not be confused with consistency. Someone holding repellent views does not become a person of integrity because he has done so for thirty years.
He does not even engage with the arguments of those who raise questions about the views he holds. He turns it all into a personal issue, as if being asked questions was somehow a personal attack on him, thus deliberately conflating the personal with the argument in an attempt to deflect away from the argument. He says that he should not be tainted by his associations but he seeks protection and credit by association e.g. when he refers to his mother campaigning against Mosley as an answer to why he associates with anti-Semites. It's as if he takes the view that even to question him is improper. Or he tries to claim an ex post facto justification, namely that contrary to all the evidence and in a way which insults those who did far more than he ever did to bring about peace, that somehow he was acting as an avant la letter peacemaker.
Comments
I imagine James Madison would have had something to say about that too.
If Putin kept his ambitions to bashing the Turks in the timehonoured Russian way it would be fine. Bumping off opponents using radioactive waste in the West End is a little beyond the pale.
Betfair implies something like 55%/15%/30%
Personally, I'm figuring 75%/5%/20%.
Interesting comments by legendary French special ops/counter terrorism officer Paul Barril.
Frankly it embarrass me the way odd Putin obsessives who seem to peddle the most bizarre and convoluted conspiracy theories about the man, like yourself, seem to have taken over the foreign policy of this country.
Mr. T, they're both shits. Putin's more aggressive in overseas military adventures, Erdogan has the stench of Islamism.
Also, interesting to read there was no prosecution allowed in 1987. Merkel's a moron.
Is the German government really going to prosecute someone for telling a joke?
The optics and omens of that are simply awful, particularly with their history.
Of the voting systems, AV makes most likely a centrist government with a majority, PR makes a centrist led government more likely (but with representation for smaller parties, FPTP is the best system for giving an extremist party a majority that is why it is Corbyn's best shot
Two large Agincourt sized fingers to that.
LEAVE.
The 2013 locals were when Miliband really underperformed if he was a serious leader of a government in waiting, but it was overshadowed by UKIP.
This is, of course, a profound no-no to Turkey, who fear an independent Kurdistan much more than they fear ISIS. Erdogan's son is busy buying ISIS oil and Turkey is blocking the Peshmerga. Screw Turkey. They are NOT on our side in the greater scheme of things.
Erdogan would be better off sueing the German satirist in the UK. The financial costs would totally break him.
Like.....what the f8ck is he going to do to anybody with an ounce of sense and hardware??
Have you got the figures for the Tory local election results prior to the 2001 general election? I would be interested to see those in reference to your statement about oppositions doing very well in order to win the next election. As I recall, Labour won by a landslide.
Mr. Herdson, for you, Jan, ze satire iz over!
You'll annoy the millions of Liverpool fans who worship a German, Jurgen Klopp (pbuh)
I mean they might elect another one in November.
The problem would then be encircled and quarantined...
1993 Con 31, Lab 39
1994 Con 30, Lab 42
1995 Con 25, Lab 47
1996 Con 28, Lab 43,
1998 Con 33, Lab 38
1999 Con 34, Lab 36
2000 Con 37, Lab 32.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Barril
So Labour have a 3% lead almost entirely due to Tory moves to UKIP coupled with winning over a few more LDs
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/k0c0qjfg6w/TimesResults_160412_VI&EURef_W.pdf
This isn't the Star, Guardian, Sun or Express reporting - it's the Financial Times !
Chilling.
There is clearly a window for Labour to recover from a very weak position. However, it is not yet setup to take advantage of it. The question is will Labour be ready before that window closes. Hard to tell.
Never understood how, despite the cash and favourable media coverage, he has managed to hold on given his crazy foreign policy and immigration stances.
You know, the ones that want to charge us for jogging around the park.
I thought Dave's reputation had been taking a hit, but in the last year Merkel has totally trashed hers.
I think we know which way Project Fear is going to go next.
Where is our Charles Martel? Our Jean de Valette?
http://capx.co/less-than-a-third-of-americans-would-support-eu-type-arrangements-for-the-usa/
Quite.
The 5.7 % comes from the post I quoted.
'Like not joining the €?'
Spot on, this is exactly the same crap we were bombarded with, thankfully it was completely ignored.
let's hope it stays that way.
Cameron's numbers aren't great either - I mean worse than Corbyn ?
Conservative David Cameron 36.8 330 +28
Labour Ed Miliband 30.5 232 -24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015 and can't add up it seems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xIlOJBPa1Q
Bad memory from many years ago. Apologies.
Try standing on your head to see if it helps...
NAFTA Parliament ?
NAFTA Court of Justice ?
NAFTA Common Defense Policy ?
NAFTA Common Agricultural Policy ?
NAFTA Arrest Warrant ?
etc..
NATFA = EFTA
He does not have integrity or decent values. Any close look at what Corbyn has said and done over 30 years shows that. No-one with any decency would associate, consistently, with the sorts of people he has associated with and supported over the years.
Integrity should not be confused with consistency. Someone holding repellent views does not become a person of integrity because he has done so for thirty years.
He does not even engage with the arguments of those who raise questions about the views he holds. He turns it all into a personal issue, as if being asked questions was somehow a personal attack on him, thus deliberately conflating the personal with the argument in an attempt to deflect away from the argument. He says that he should not be tainted by his associations but he seeks protection and credit by association e.g. when he refers to his mother campaigning against Mosley as an answer to why he associates with anti-Semites. It's as if he takes the view that even to question him is improper. Or he tries to claim an ex post facto justification, namely that contrary to all the evidence and in a way which insults those who did far more than he ever did to bring about peace, that somehow he was acting as an avant la letter peacemaker.