So .. what have all these Brind pieces been about then?
It was mentioned in the comments that he was working on the Smith campaign. So it was about spin then. And pretty poor spin at that.
Assuming of course that You Gov is not wildly inaccurate.... some people will be really pissed off if Brind's stuff was just all spin.. people(not me) on this site base bets on information gleaned.
It probably should have been mentioned that Don Brind was helping run the campaign.
However, the campaign has mainly been distinguished by Owen's c0ck size and his misogyny ("smash May back on her heels").
So, I imagine Don likes to keeps quiet about his involvement, on the grounds of reputational damage.
However terrible a candidate Owen Smith is, I'm struggling to imagine who actually could have beaten Corbyn. The only name that comes to mind is Alan Johnson, but would anyone have had a chance against the army of post-GE true believers?
Probably not. Corbyn's base comes from two main groups:
- Those who want a far-left 38-degrees protest leadership, who are delighted by Corbyn having become leader and enthusiastically back him. These represent the great bulk of new members, as the YouGov figures show, but also include a much smaller number of pre-2015 members. - Those who were ambivalent about Corbyn but felt a need for change from the likes of Miliband and believe that Corbyn deserves a fair shout. People like NickP, for example.
The mainstream will never win over the former but they might outlast them. Endurance is the only credible strategy there.
The latter, by contrast, can be won over - and are being won over going by the pre-2015 membership figures. But therein lies the problem: the maths doesn't work at the moment. The scale of the post-2015 pro-Corbyn membership is too big for the swing 'give-him-a-chance' group to make the difference. Even if they were entirely won, Corbyn would still have a majority. Only if he loses confidence from the current true believers can they fight back. In the meantime, their best option is to give Corbyn as much rope as he wants.
Agreed. I fear that the young generation who mainly form your first group will need to learn the lesson that my generation of left-ish activists learnt the hard way in 1980s and early 90s. Impotent protest does not lead to power.
I well remember waking the morning after 1992 election and thinking how could this have happened, again?
So .. what have all these Brind pieces been about then?
It was mentioned in the comments that he was working on the Smith campaign. So it was about spin then. And pretty poor spin at that.
As a pro Owen Smith and non-declared spokesman for ‘Saving Labour’ a more appropriate term would be ramping – something that was once frown upon here for betting markets.
62/38 sounds about right, though I suspect that Smith may end up doing a little bit better than that. I really don't know where dear odl Don as getting his hope from.
What it all means is that anti-Corbyn Labour has the second biggest paid support base of any political party in the UK. However, I remain convinced that in this election campaign Corbyn has sown the seeds of his own destruction. All apart from his most die-hard, hard-left supporters know that he cannot win and now that he cannot lead. I do not think he will be there in 2020.
29% of the 38% who support Smith is 11% of the total. Not much of a split, more like a chip.
And they're not joining other parties, so odds are they'll still turnout to vote labour. Maybe they'll stay home, but it's not as big an impact as a split might be.
So .. what have all these Brind pieces been about then?
It was mentioned in the comments that he was working on the Smith campaign. So it was about spin then. And pretty poor spin at that.
Assuming of course that You Gov is not wildly inaccurate.... some people will be really pissed off if Brind's stuff was just all spin.. people(not me) on this site base bets on information gleaned.
Quite. But we don't have any good reason to assume that the YouGov was wildly inaccurate. The CLP nominations last time were a reasonable guide to the final outcome (in fact, they understated Corbyn's support, although that may have been down to his support growing during the campaign and also his overwhelming win in the supporters' section, who wouldn't have attended CLP meetings). This time, the CLP nominations show a very comfortable Corbyn win.
YouGov also has a decent track record. Their 6-10 Aug 2015 poll had Corbyn winning 53, with Burnham leading Cooper 21 to 18 for second and Kendall trailing on 8. That was pretty close to the final result and given that voting was still ongoing at that point, may well have been even closer to the scores at that time, given the likely momentum effects for both Corbyn and Kendall.
However terrible a candidate Owen Smith is, I'm struggling to imagine who actually could have beaten Corbyn. The only name that comes to mind is Alan Johnson, but would anyone have had a chance against the army of post-GE true believers?
Probably not. Corbyn's base comes from two main groups:
- Those who want a far-left 38-degrees protest leadership, who are delighted by Corbyn having become leader and enthusiastically back him. These represent the great bulk of new members, as the YouGov figures show, but also include a much smaller number of pre-2015 members. - Those who were ambivalent about Corbyn but felt a need for change from the likes of Miliband and believe that Corbyn deserves a fair shout. People like NickP, for example.
The mainstream will never win over the former but they might outlast them. Endurance is the only credible strategy there.
The latter, by contrast, can be won over - and are being won over going by the pre-2015 membership figures. But therein lies the problem: the maths doesn't work at the moment. The scale of the post-2015 pro-Corbyn membership is too big for the swing 'give-him-a-chance' group to make the difference. Even if they were entirely won, Corbyn would still have a majority. Only if he loses confidence from the current true believers can they fight back. In the meantime, their best option is to give Corbyn as much rope as he wants.
Agreed. I fear that the young generation who mainly form your first group will need to learn the lesson that my generation of left-ish activists learnt the hard way in 1980s and early 90s. Impotent protest does not lead to power.
I well remember waking the morning after 1992 election and thinking how could this have happened, again?
I suspect that an awful lot of them will have walked away well before 2020. If they haven't, most will immediately afterwards.
Actually it is a good idea to replace expenses with allowances. It will also be cheaper because it needs almost no administration.
Cheap administration is not the most important aspect of such a system. sometimes inefficiency is preferred if, for instance, it is more open and transparent.
62/38 sounds about right, though I suspect that Smith may end up doing a little bit better than that. I really don't know where dear odl Don as getting his hope from.
What it all means is that anti-Corbyn Labour has the second biggest paid support base of any political party in the UK. However, I remain convinced that in this election campaign Corbyn has sown the seeds of his own destruction. All apart from his most die-hard, hard-left supporters know that he cannot win and now that he cannot lead. I do not think he will be there in 2020.
He cannot lead because the PLP refuses to be led.
Labour can't go into 2020 like this, so either Corbyn goes or the PLP goes.
In my opinion, if Corbyn wins again, he is perfectly entitled to act against those who refuse to accept his leadership, which will have been confirmed twice by the membership.
The way he (and you) try to use that graphic shows how readily Corbyn supporters are willing to twist words (conflating "will" and "can") in order to deceive.
What the graphic actually shows is that most Corbyn supporters believe (incredibly) that Labour under Corbyn WILL win the next general election. Not even CAN but WILL. Labour is actually set on course to win in their minds, if only the party continues with this lunatic course.
I am tempted to say that these Corbyn cultists really do live in the same parallel universe of simple counterfactual certainties inhabited by supporters of Donald Trump. However, that is being unfair to supporters of Donald Trump. The polls are close enough to suggest that Trump CAN win, if not that he actually WILL.
62/38 sounds about right, though I suspect that Smith may end up doing a little bit better than that. I really don't know where dear odl Don as getting his hope from.
What it all means is that anti-Corbyn Labour has the second biggest paid support base of any political party in the UK. However, I remain convinced that in this election campaign Corbyn has sown the seeds of his own destruction. All apart from his most die-hard, hard-left supporters know that he cannot win and now that he cannot lead. I do not think he will be there in 2020.
He cannot lead because the PLP refuses to be led.
Labour can't go into 2020 like this, so either Corbyn goes or the PLP goes.
In my opinion, if Corbyn wins again, he is perfectly entitled to act against those who refuse to accept his leadership, which will have been confirmed twice by the membership.
Absolutely. I think he's awful but labour disagrees, they love him, why shouldn't he take steps to stop dissent?
One thing I do predict is when Corbyn wins a whole bunch of corbynites going 'you said he was awful and could never win, ha' to the rest of us, even most people always thought he'd win this contest, and the non-corbynites for the most part were talking about GEs. You see this all the time when someone is called unelectable.
I remain convinced that in this election campaign Corbyn has sown the seeds of his own destruction. All apart from his most die-hard, hard-left supporters know that he cannot win and now that he cannot lead. I do not think he will be there in 2020.
No, this polling shows that most of them not only they believe that Corbyn CAN win but that he WILL win a general election. See below. They are delusional and we need to face up to that fact.
62/38 sounds about right, though I suspect that Smith may end up doing a little bit better than that. I really don't know where dear odl Don as getting his hope from.
What it all means is that anti-Corbyn Labour has the second biggest paid support base of any political party in the UK. However, I remain convinced that in this election campaign Corbyn has sown the seeds of his own destruction. All apart from his most die-hard, hard-left supporters know that he cannot win and now that he cannot lead. I do not think he will be there in 2020.
He cannot lead because the PLP refuses to be led.
Labour can't go into 2020 like this, so either Corbyn goes or the PLP goes.
In my opinion, if Corbyn wins again, he is perfectly entitled to act against those who refuse to accept his leadership, which will have been confirmed twice by the membership.
He can try, but he will need to get votes through the NEC and conference. That will take a minimum of two years. That's two more years of losing elections and being behind in opinion polls. And if he succeeds, he creates a new party that will become the official opposition and will also probably have access to union funding from the likes of the GMB, as well as significant funding form private individuals.
The fact is that because of FPTP Labour remains the best vehicle the centre left has in the UK, so those who oppose Corbyn are likely to stick around. If they are purged, though, they have no other option but to create something else.
Already Chairman Corbyn is planning a conciliatory holiday with his treacherous lickspittle MPs. Whilst the chairman enjoys his usual modest stay in Moscow, there to learn in the hallowed halls of socialist history, he has a more exotic trip planned for the PLP.
Places are already reserved in the most exclusive establishment in Siberia. Chairman Corbyn, keen to expand his sphere of influence beyond the borders of the UK, has also drawn up a shortlist of especial MPs, such as capitalist traitor Benn, bourgeois metropolitan enemy of the people Umunna, and prime dissenter (and enormous penis) Smith, for a once-in-a-lifetime voyage to the Moon.
Chairman Corbyn eagerly awaits the return of his lunatics, just as soon as the technology is developed to bring them back.
Whether it has any bearing on the Election is debatable, but we could compare total votes cast for republicans and democrats in each sub-election with the results from 2012
e.g. district 9
2012: Democrats 165,000 Republicans 99,000 - for the house 2016: Democrats 43,000: Republicans 33,600 - total votes cast to select candidate
Although of course we don't know whether republicans are more likely than democrats to vote in these contests.
(Rubio was selected as A republican senator contestant)
District 9?
Do the Prawns get the vote now? Gee they really do take Diversity seriously over there.
I remain convinced that in this election campaign Corbyn has sown the seeds of his own destruction. All apart from his most die-hard, hard-left supporters know that he cannot win and now that he cannot lead. I do not think he will be there in 2020.
No, this polling shows that most of them not only they believe that Corbyn CAN win but that he WILL win a general election. See below. They are delusional and we need to face up to that fact.
I worry about their reaction if, as expected, they are not merely beating but annihilated at the next election. I was in Bristol in May 2015 and the student activists who were very confident of a Miliband victory were really angry and upset, mostly because that hammering came as such a shock to them. They were talking openly about punching people who had humiliated them. Given Corbyn's supporters are already noted for their violence, it could get very nasty.
Of course, the fact that his fellow travellers are such thugs is in itself a very good request he should not be allowed anywhere near power.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
62/38 sounds about right, though I suspect that Smith may end up doing a little bit better than that. I really don't know where dear odl Don as getting his hope from.
What it all means is that anti-Corbyn Labour has the second biggest paid support base of any political party in the UK. However, I remain convinced that in this election campaign Corbyn has sown the seeds of his own destruction. All apart from his most die-hard, hard-left supporters know that he cannot win and now that he cannot lead. I do not think he will be there in 2020.
He cannot lead because the PLP refuses to be led.
Labour can't go into 2020 like this, so either Corbyn goes or the PLP goes.
In my opinion, if Corbyn wins again, he is perfectly entitled to act against those who refuse to accept his leadership, which will have been confirmed twice by the membership.
He can try, but he will need to get votes through the NEC and conference. That will take a minimum of two years. That's two more years of losing elections and being behind in opinion polls. And if he succeeds, he creates a new party that will become the official opposition and will also probably have access to union funding from the likes of the GMB, as well as significant funding form private individuals.
The fact is that because of FPTP Labour remains the best vehicle the centre left has in the UK, so those who oppose Corbyn are likely to stick around. If they are purged, though, they have no other option but to create something else.
Andrew Roberts argues in todays DT that a generational realignment is taking place and Labour MPs better get the right side of it. Of course he is a Tory iirc.
I remain convinced that in this election campaign Corbyn has sown the seeds of his own destruction. All apart from his most die-hard, hard-left supporters know that he cannot win and now that he cannot lead. I do not think he will be there in 2020.
No, this polling shows that most of them not only they believe that Corbyn CAN win but that he WILL win a general election. See below. They are delusional and we need to face up to that fact.
They won't. Their attachment to representative democracy is slight. As was noted in the previous thread. When he was an officer of the Hornsey CLP he never supported the IRA but he studiously avoided the least criticism of Labour activist who did so. 35 years on, he hasn't changed, so far as I can see.
Actually it is a good idea to replace expenses with allowances. It will also be cheaper because it needs almost no administration.
Cheap administration is not the most important aspect of such a system. sometimes inefficiency is preferred if, for instance, it is more open and transparent.
Allowances are transparent. We would know just by looking at a map that the Honourable Member for Dunny-on-the-Wold gets £X travel allowance, £Y second home allowance and so on. What we can't answer under the present system is how much will your MP claim in expenses in this parliament.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
The depth of the division between Corbynites and the rest is astonishing. I'm saying 'the rest' because it's obvious that Smith doesn't feature in the voters' thoughts except as a means to an end. Sure, those thinking of backing him have some nice things to say but only 33% of them think he could win the 2020GE. His purpose is clearly to arrest what they see as the spiral of decline under Corbyn, not to aspire to No 10.
But the contrast between the two camps is immense. 94% of Corbyn supporters think he is doing a good job whereas 97% of those opposing him take the negative view. Unsurprising? To an extent but there's no thought of the best of two good (or bad) candidates; it's one or the other. 56% of Corbynites think he's likely to win in 2020; just 1% of Smith-backers agree.
If Corbyn wins, nearly half of Smith-backers say they'd be prepared to join a breakaway party; 54% of Corbynites would be prepared to follow their man out should he lose and go. 39% of all Lab leadership voters think a split likely or very likely.
After yesterday's jokes about IRA Hat Man and dismal game concepts.
It's actually true!
"an avant-garde movement of artists, activists and theoreticians engaged in the production of works of ludic subversion in the bureaucratic society of controlled consumption”
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
All parties have weak periods. Labour is having its weak period. This is nothing special in itself. So far Labour have 70 more seats than the Tories had in their trough.
What's potentially different is the impact Corbyn might be having. Labour should be looking to recover ground in 2020. Not sure he'll do that.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
By definition, an opposition is in that position. Otherwise, it would be in office.
Yes, but an opposition that wants to be in government should at least be trying to win them back. Under Corbyn, it seems likely that instead they will lose still more seats in these conurbations. It also immediately disproves the idea that 'Labour do well in cities' therefore the south is a no-go area, which was my point.
After yesterday's jokes about IRA Hat Man and dismal game concepts.
It's actually true!
"an avant-garde movement of artists, activists and theoreticians engaged in the production of works of ludic subversion in the bureaucratic society of controlled consumption”
What's potentially different is the impact Corbyn might be having. Labour should be looking to recover ground in 2020. Not sure he'll do that.
I think you're optimistic. I'm sure he won't.
If Labour hold five seats south of the Severn-Wash line outside London at the next election - one each in Luton, Bristol, Oxford and a couple of others - they will have done considerably better than I expect them to.
After yesterday's jokes about IRA Hat Man and dismal game concepts.
It's actually true!
"an avant-garde movement of artists, activists and theoreticians engaged in the production of works of ludic subversion in the bureaucratic society of controlled consumption”
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
She is too shrew for that and even then Thatcher won in 1983 by a landslide
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
All parties have weak periods. Labour is having its weak period. This is nothing special in itself. So far Labour have 70 more seats than the Tories had in their trough.
What's potentially different is the impact Corbyn might be having. Labour should be looking to recover ground in 2020. Not sure he'll do that.
This is more than a weak period this is like the Tories re-electing IDS as leader but even worse
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
She is too shrew for that and even then Thatcher won in 1983 by a landslide
Actually it is a good idea to replace expenses with allowances. It will also be cheaper because it needs almost no administration.
In an era where expenses can be done in seconds with your phone and a camera, its no longer a hassle to do expenses - in fact this is about the first time when you could argue that a properly designed expenses system would be quicker and simpler than an allowance based system...
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
So .. what have all these Brind pieces been about then?
It was mentioned in the comments that he was working on the Smith campaign. So it was about spin then. And pretty poor spin at that.
Assuming of course that You Gov is not wildly inaccurate.... some people will be really pissed off if Brind's stuff was just all spin.. people(not me) on this site base bets on information gleaned.
It probably should have been mentioned that Don Brind was helping run the campaign.
However, the campaign has mainly been distinguished by Owen's c0ck size and his misogyny ("smash May back on her heels").
So, I imagine Don likes to keeps quiet about his involvement, on the grounds of reputational damage.
There is no 'probably' about it. This point was made by lots of PB'ers after Don's first posting, and I was very surprised (remaining polite) to see a second post that made no mention of his obvious personal interest. A post that clearly comes from 'inside' one of the campaigns should be clearly identified as such, allowing readers to weigh up the benefit of the inside perspective against the risk of bias and spin.
If things turn out as YouGov predict, I won't be giving much credibility to any future Brind pontifications.
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
She is too shrew for that and even then Thatcher won in 1983 by a landslide
I was unemployed at the time. I still voted Tory in '83, but that's only because the Labour manifesto was clearly bonkers.
As I'm socially wet, I wondered whether it was my failing memory that's driven my (almost) lifelong Tory vote. So, had a look at all Labour manifestos from my adult life.
From '74-'92 they were essentially unilateralists. I'm not. In '97 and '01 they had it about right. '05 I think is a special case of 'events'. But in '10 and '15 they're clearly tacking Left and remaining pro-immigration and pro-Europe. Whereas I'm pro-immigrant but anti-FoM and quite Euro skeptic.
Labour have serially 'coerced' me into voting for the Tories.
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
She is too shrew for that and even then Thatcher won in 1983 by a landslide
Wonder who May is planning to go to war with.
1) Milk-snatcher didn't go to war. She authorised the repulsion of an invasion force which had illegally occupied British territory.
2) She had already retaken the lead in the polls and would likely have won the next election anyway. The chief impact of the Falklands was that it rallied her own very divided party behind her, with the exception of a few irreconcilables like Heath and Pym.
It should also be remembered that Foot, who unlike the current idiot ruining the party was a genuine man of principle - one of his principles being that you don't suck up to Fascist regimes - supported the government all the way and made a fine, genuine speech of congratulations on the announcement of the Argentine surrender.
The depth of the division between Corbynites and the rest is astonishing. I'm saying 'the rest' because it's obvious that Smith doesn't feature in the voters' thoughts except as a means to an end. Sure, those thinking of backing him have some nice things to say but only 33% of them think he could win the 2020GE. His purpose is clearly to arrest what they see as the spiral of decline under Corbyn, not to aspire to No 10.
But the contrast between the two camps is immense. 94% of Corbyn supporters think he is doing a good job whereas 97% of those opposing him take the negative view. Unsurprising? To an extent but there's no thought of the best of two good (or bad) candidates; it's one or the other. 56% of Corbynites think he's likely to win in 2020; just 1% of Smith-backers agree.
If Corbyn wins, nearly half of Smith-backers say they'd be prepared to join a breakaway party; 54% of Corbynites would be prepared to follow their man out should he lose and go. 39% of all Lab leadership voters think a split likely or very likely.
How on earth does Labour recover from this?
One of two things will happen: 1. After a couple more years of appalling electoral and opinion poll performances Corbyn goes and takes his die-hard supporters with him. 2. Corbyn stays and creates a new party on the centre left by effectively purging the moderates out of Labour.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
Labour has never won in Canterbury, and it seems very unlikely that they will any time soon - the closest they have ever got was a loss by about 2k in 2001, when the defeated candidate was one E. Thornberry.
And yet on UNS they need to take Canterbury to get a majority in the teens.
(I know a bit about the area as my mum lives there...)
What's potentially different is the impact Corbyn might be having. Labour should be looking to recover ground in 2020. Not sure he'll do that.
I think you're optimistic. I'm sure he won't.
If Labour hold five seats south of the Severn-Wash line outside London at the next election - one each in Luton, Bristol, Oxford and a couple of others - they will have done considerably better than I expect them to.
As Justin pointed out correctly yesterday or the day before, Labour have been tightening their grip in Cambridge in local elections.
Many of the seats Labour now hold in the South are dominated by Universities.
Corbyn has a definite appeal to University folk -- there is a charming video on youtube of the queue around Great St Marys Church when Corbyn came to Cambridge.
So, I think the seats in the South that Labour hold may actually swing to Labour under Corbyn (of course, Corbyn has big problems elsewhere like in the Midlands marginals).
By contrast, Owen Smith comes across a a stupid, macho Fool. I think he'd lose seats like Cambridge, though do better in Nuneaton.
A NOBEL Prize-winning economist and SNP Government adviser has admitted it “may have been a mistake” to push for a currency union after Scottish independence.
Joseph Stiglitz made the U-turn despite insisting the plan to share sterling would work before the 2014 referendum vote.
Yesterday, Stiglitz said a separate Scottish currency would have been a better bet for the government to stimulate the economy.
As one wag observed, when the Nat onal ran this story next to their 60p price flag, they wondered whether that was the exchange rate with the GBP......
You have yet to work out what is UK currency and what is not I see.
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
She is too shrew for that and even then Thatcher won in 1983 by a landslide
Wonder who May is planning to go to war with.
May will wait until an aggressive foreign power invades British Sovereign territory. a la Thatch.
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
A 50:50 shot then.
A bit on the high side I think. But there's definitely a decent chance of a fluffed execution. Say 20%,
After yesterday's jokes about IRA Hat Man and dismal game concepts.
It's actually true!
"an avant-garde movement of artists, activists and theoreticians engaged in the production of works of ludic subversion in the bureaucratic society of controlled consumption”
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
Chichester and Maidstone did not even vote for Blair but otherwise right as he won the rest
Chichester was Liberal Democrat on the back of tactical voting, as I recall (although I haven't checked).
Maidstone puzzles me. Why does it not return Labour MPs when Canterbury does?
Edit - I had thought Canterbury went red in 97, but I'm told upthread I was wrong. Again, why is it not a seat where Labour are challenging? On the surface it looks like an ideal spot - two universities and a biggish mobile population.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
Even so, that might be a necessary condition for Corbyn to win, but it isn't sufficient.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
62/38 sounds about right, though I suspect that Smith may end up doing a little bit better than that. I really don't know where dear odl Don as getting his hope from.
What it all means is that anti-Corbyn Labour has the second biggest paid support base of any political party in the UK. However, I remain convinced that in this election campaign Corbyn has sown the seeds of his own destruction. All apart from his most die-hard, hard-left supporters know that he cannot win and now that he cannot lead. I do not think he will be there in 2020.
He cannot lead because the PLP refuses to be led.
Labour can't go into 2020 like this, so either Corbyn goes or the PLP goes.
In my opinion, if Corbyn wins again, he is perfectly entitled to act against those who refuse to accept his leadership, which will have been confirmed twice by the membership.
He must clear out the dead wood, even if he brings in numpties the current lot have shown they are useless , not to be trusted and have to go unless they repent.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
What's potentially different is the impact Corbyn might be having. Labour should be looking to recover ground in 2020. Not sure he'll do that.
I think you're optimistic. I'm sure he won't.
If Labour hold five seats south of the Severn-Wash line outside London at the next election - one each in Luton, Bristol, Oxford and a couple of others - they will have done considerably better than I expect them to.
As Justin pointed out correctly yesterday or the day before, Labour have been tightening their grip in Cambridge in local elections.
Many of the seats Labour now hold in the South are dominated by Universities.
Corbyn has a definite appeal to University folk -- there is a charming video on youtube of the queue around Great St Marys Church when Corbyn came to Cambridge.
So, I think the seats in the South that Labour hold may actually swing to Labour under Corbyn (of course, Corbyn has big problems elsewhere like in the Midlands marginals).
By contrast, Owen Smith comes across a a stupid, macho Fool. I think he'd lose seats like Cambridge, though do better in Nuneaton.
What's potentially different is the impact Corbyn might be having. Labour should be looking to recover ground in 2020. Not sure he'll do that.
I think you're optimistic. I'm sure he won't.
If Labour hold five seats south of the Severn-Wash line outside London at the next election - one each in Luton, Bristol, Oxford and a couple of others - they will have done considerably better than I expect them to.
As Justin pointed out correctly yesterday or the day before, Labour have been tightening their grip in Cambridge in local elections.
Many of the seats Labour now hold in the South are dominated by Universities.
Corbyn has a definite appeal to University folk -- there is a charming video on youtube of the queue around Great St Marys Church when Corbyn came to Cambridge.
So, I think the seats in the South that Labour hold may actually swing to Labour under Corbyn (of course, Corbyn has big problems elsewhere like in the Midlands marginals).
By contrast, Owen Smith comes across a a stupid, macho Fool. I think he'd lose seats like Cambridge, though do better in Nuneaton.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
Chichester and Maidstone did not even vote for Blair but otherwise right as he won the rest
Chichester was Liberal Democrat on the back of tactical voting, as I recall (although I haven't checked).
Maidstone puzzles me. Why does it not return Labour MPs when Canterbury does?
Edit - I had thought Canterbury went red in 97, but I'm told upthread I was wrong. Again, why is it not a seat where Labour are challenging? On the surface it looks like an ideal spot - two universities and a biggish mobile population.
Chichester has always beeen a very safe Tory seat (he asserts without checking!)
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
Even so, that might be a necessary condition for Corbyn to win, but it isn't sufficient.
There are no rational circumstances under which Corbyn can win an election. A crap Brexit deal is perfectly possible, but Corbyn would not benefit. He literally cannot engage with non-believers. And then there is all the baggage. He guarantees catastrophic defeat.
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
Even so, that might be a necessary condition for Corbyn to win, but it isn't sufficient.
Yes, you're quite right. There would have to be other factors present, else 1983 redux as Mr @HYUFD pointed out earlier.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
Chichester and Maidstone did not even vote for Blair but otherwise right as he won the rest
Chichester was Liberal Democrat on the back of tactical voting, as I recall (although I haven't checked).
Maidstone puzzles me. Why does it not return Labour MPs when Canterbury does?
Chichester has never had a LibDem MP. Maidstone is the better bet for the LibDems, which probably explains Labour's relative weakness.
So another one goes down - I can only assume I was thinking of Lewes instead. This immediately starts to unpick the idea that Labour are strong in cities. They are strong in certain types of major conurbation but clearly not in the areas where over half the population live.
Corbyn appears to have written off the south. But the appeal he is putting out is more likely to be of interest to places like Chichester than it is to the voters of Bolton or even Merthyr. He really hasn't got a chance, has he?
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
What's potentially different is the impact Corbyn might be having. Labour should be looking to recover ground in 2020. Not sure he'll do that.
I think you're optimistic. I'm sure he won't.
If Labour hold five seats south of the Severn-Wash line outside London at the next election - one each in Luton, Bristol, Oxford and a couple of others - they will have done considerably better than I expect them to.
As Justin pointed out correctly yesterday or the day before, Labour have been tightening their grip in Cambridge in local elections.
Many of the seats Labour now hold in the South are dominated by Universities.
Corbyn has a definite appeal to University folk -- there is a charming video on youtube of the queue around Great St Marys Church when Corbyn came to Cambridge.
So, I think the seats in the South that Labour hold may actually swing to Labour under Corbyn (of course, Corbyn has big problems elsewhere like in the Midlands marginals).
By contrast, Owen Smith comes across a a stupid, macho Fool. I think he'd lose seats like Cambridge, though do better in Nuneaton.
There are a lot more Nuneatons than Cambridges.
I agree.
Unfortunately, Labour needs them both (given the loss of Scotland & the impending reduction of the Welsh seats).
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
Chichester and Maidstone did not even vote for Blair but otherwise right as he won the rest
Chichester was Liberal Democrat on the back of tactical voting, as I recall (although I haven't checked).
Maidstone puzzles me. Why does it not return Labour MPs when Canterbury does?
Chichester has never had a LibDem MP. Maidstone is the better bet for the LibDems, which probably explains Labour's relative weakness.
So another one goes down - I can only assume I was thinking of Lewes instead. This immediately starts to unpick the idea that Labour are strong in cities. They are strong in certain types of major conurbation but clearly not in the areas where over half the population live.
Corbyn appears to have written off the south. But the appeal he is putting out is more likely to be of interest to places like Chichester than it is to the voters of Bolton or even Merthyr. He really hasn't got a chance, has he?
Labour won a 180 majority without Chichester or Lewes.
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
Even so, that might be a necessary condition for Corbyn to win, but it isn't sufficient.
There are no rational circumstances under which Corbyn can win an election. A crap Brexit deal is perfectly possible, but Corbyn would not benefit. He literally cannot engage with non-believers. And then there is all the baggage. He guarantees catastrophic defeat.
Someone like Corbyn could win in the circumstances that Syriza won in Greece. It'd need the same sense of hopelessness in the situation and of utter lack of confidence in the established political class. Another long recession without sign of meaningful recovery might do it but you'd be looking at 2025 now, not 2020.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
Actually it is a good idea to replace expenses with allowances. It will also be cheaper because it needs almost no administration.
In an era where expenses can be done in seconds with your phone and a camera, its no longer a hassle to do expenses - in fact this is about the first time when you could argue that a properly designed expenses system would be quicker and simpler than an allowance based system...
The problem with allowances is: a blanket one will not work. Ever. Think travle.
For London MPs, underground. For Orkney MPs, lots of flights and hotels.. For Midland MPs , rail fares and hotels.
And so on.
It is surely obvious to anyone who is familiar with travelling costs and variables, that expenses are the way to go. Allowances would end up very complex with all sorts of special circumstances (train delayed so took taxi etc)
According to Twitter, there's been a stabbing by a Dave in Toulouse. Not on the BBC, as yet [that I can see].
Ironically, this call for more protection for mothers [making it harder to get rid of them during/after pregnancy] will probably have the impact of making employers, especially smaller ones, less likely to hire women: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37222674
The more rights mothers get, the more onerous the burden on a business, the more reluctant they'll be to hire women.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
Chichester and Maidstone did not even vote for Blair but otherwise right as he won the rest
Chichester was Liberal Democrat on the back of tactical voting, as I recall (although I haven't checked).
Maidstone puzzles me. Why does it not return Labour MPs when Canterbury does?
Chichester has never had a LibDem MP. Maidstone is the better bet for the LibDems, which probably explains Labour's relative weakness.
So another one goes down - I can only assume I was thinking of Lewes instead. This immediately starts to unpick the idea that Labour are strong in cities. They are strong in certain types of major conurbation but clearly not in the areas where over half the population live.
Corbyn appears to have written off the south. But the appeal he is putting out is more likely to be of interest to places like Chichester than it is to the voters of Bolton or even Merthyr. He really hasn't got a chance, has he?
Labour won a 180 majority without Chichester or Lewes.
That was with the Wales and Scotland fiefdoms and before the mass demographic changes in seats like South and Mid Dorset. Oh, and the Midlands - which is Leaver central.
Unlikely to happen now. I can't feasibly see a Labour path to No. 10.
Anyway, let's take the classic example of my own seat - Cannock. Around 100,000 inhabitants, 90% urban, ex-coal mining, public sector employment at roughly 10% at a guess, the rest in skilled/semi skilled light industry or retail. One or two wealthy pockets but mostly quite poor. House prices are low and so is immigration. Has voted Labour 1945-70 and again 1992-2010 (possibly with one other spell in between).
The workers are simply not interested in Corbyn. They even dislike him. They actually expressed interest in Miliband, but they were turned off in the election by the fact that the Labour candidate was a certifiable lunatic who thought the way to win an election in Mid-Staffordshire was to campaign on Labour's record on the NHS.
With rare exceptions the public sector are increasingly embarrassed by Corbyn's antics, and study their coffee mugs when people talk about him. He sometimes makes good points, they mumble, but...
Which leaves the prospect that Labour will come third if UKIP pick the candidate who spent half his time railing against the iniquities of the EU and half his time fighting to save the disabled children's playground.
Now Cannock is typical of many seats in the WM or even the north. It is the type of seat that Labour have got to win to take power, and challenge in to remain relevant. But here, Corbyn's leadership is causing them to disintegrate.
We've established Labour are writing off the south despite there being many winnable seats there. They are losing ground in the Midlands. If they are struggling in Cannock, I have no doubt they will struggle in the semi-rural north. Which raises the question - where and what can they win under Corbyn?
And that is why, whatever Smith's faults and inadequacies, it is desperately important that he should win, even if he then has to resign later in favour of someone better.
I now think Labour's only hope is if May completely fumbles Brexit, which results in a proper non-technical recession. Think 1980-81 style with unemployment rising above EU levels.
Even so, that might be a necessary condition for Corbyn to win, but it isn't sufficient.
There are no rational circumstances under which Corbyn can win an election. A crap Brexit deal is perfectly possible, but Corbyn would not benefit. He literally cannot engage with non-believers. And then there is all the baggage. He guarantees catastrophic defeat.
Someone like Corbyn could win in the circumstances that Syriza won in Greece. It'd need the same sense of hopelessness in the situation and of utter lack of confidence in the established political class. Another long recession without sign of meaningful recovery might do it but you'd be looking at 2025 now, not 2020.
Agree , voting is not rational and so there is every chance Labour can win in 2020, as we hav eseen in the recent referendum, Trump and Scottish elections , anything is possible.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
Chichester and Maidstone did not even vote for Blair but otherwise right as he won the rest
Chichester was Liberal Democrat on the back of tactical voting, as I recall (although I haven't checked).
Maidstone puzzles me. Why does it not return Labour MPs when Canterbury does?
Chichester has never had a LibDem MP. Maidstone is the better bet for the LibDems, which probably explains Labour's relative weakness.
So another one goes down - I can only assume I was thinking of Lewes instead. This immediately starts to unpick the idea that Labour are strong in cities. They are strong in certain types of major conurbation but clearly not in the areas where over half the population live.
Corbyn appears to have written off the south. But the appeal he is putting out is more likely to be of interest to places like Chichester than it is to the voters of Bolton or even Merthyr. He really hasn't got a chance, has he?
Labour won a 180 majority without Chichester or Lewes.
That was with the Wales and Scotland fiefdoms and before the mass demographic changes in seats like South and Mid Dorset. Oh, and the Midlands - which is Leaver central.
Unlikely to happen now. I can't feasibly see a Labour path to No. 10.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
Chichester and Maidstone did not even vote for Blair but otherwise right as he won the rest
Chichester was Liberal Democrat on the back of tactical voting, as I recall (although I haven't checked).
Maidstone puzzles me. Why does it not return Labour MPs when Canterbury does?
Edit - I had thought Canterbury went red in 97, but I'm told upthread I was wrong. Again, why is it not a seat where Labour are challenging? On the surface it looks like an ideal spot - two universities and a biggish mobile population.
The urban city itself is pretty small, so the surrounding villages have a bigger influence on the constituency than you might expect.
What's potentially different is the impact Corbyn might be having. Labour should be looking to recover ground in 2020. Not sure he'll do that.
I think you're optimistic. I'm sure he won't.
If Labour hold five seats south of the Severn-Wash line outside London at the next election - one each in Luton, Bristol, Oxford and a couple of others - they will have done considerably better than I expect them to.
As Justin pointed out correctly yesterday or the day before, Labour have been tightening their grip in Cambridge in local elections.
Many of the seats Labour now hold in the South are dominated by Universities.
Corbyn has a definite appeal to University folk -- there is a charming video on youtube of the queue around Great St Marys Church when Corbyn came to Cambridge.
So, I think the seats in the South that Labour hold may actually swing to Labour under Corbyn (of course, Corbyn has big problems elsewhere like in the Midlands marginals).
By contrast, Owen Smith comes across a a stupid, macho Fool. I think he'd lose seats like Cambridge, though do better in Nuneaton.
We hear a lot about Midlands marginals (is it the alliteration?). We shouldn't ignore those in north, which are just as important. Places like Bury North, Pudsey or Stockton South, made up of medium towns or the suburban hinterlands to larger cities. These are just as much the key to No 10, and there are plenty of them, just as in the Midlands.
Interesting little fact from Andrew Roberts in todays DT:
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
Only true if you exclude London, which you really shouldn't to make that particular point. Labour wins in cities and there are few cities in those areas.
It is perfectly normal for all sorts of measures for people to use South (excl London). Sure it's used for a political point as here (although surely Labour have won plenty outside the cities in the South, excluding London, before so why is 'labour win in cities' an excuse) but you see it all the time in a non-political fashion.
What's potentially different is the impact Corbyn might be having. Labour should be looking to recover ground in 2020. Not sure he'll do that.
I think you're optimistic. I'm sure he won't.
If Labour hold five seats south of the Severn-Wash line outside London at the next election - one each in Luton, Bristol, Oxford and a couple of others - they will have done considerably better than I expect them to.
Looking at the 12 seats in the south outside London:
Corbyn can probably do better in Bristol W, Cambs, Norwich S, Oxford E and Hove Lab should still hold Slough, Exeter and Bristol S even if they lose votes Luton N will go in the boundary changes (adds Tory Dunstable) but Luton S will become a little safer Bristol E and Soton Test look vulnerable.
Comments
However, the campaign has mainly been distinguished by Owen's c0ck size and his misogyny ("smash May back on her heels").
So, I imagine Don likes to keeps quiet about his involvement, on the grounds of reputational damage.
I well remember waking the morning after 1992 election and thinking how could this have happened, again?
What it all means is that anti-Corbyn Labour has the second biggest paid support base of any political party in the UK. However, I remain convinced that in this election campaign Corbyn has sown the seeds of his own destruction. All apart from his most die-hard, hard-left supporters know that he cannot win and now that he cannot lead. I do not think he will be there in 2020.
YouGov also has a decent track record. Their 6-10 Aug 2015 poll had Corbyn winning 53, with Burnham leading Cooper 21 to 18 for second and Kendall trailing on 8. That was pretty close to the final result and given that voting was still ongoing at that point, may well have been even closer to the scores at that time, given the likely momentum effects for both Corbyn and Kendall.
Labour can't go into 2020 like this, so either Corbyn goes or the PLP goes.
In my opinion, if Corbyn wins again, he is perfectly entitled to act against those who refuse to accept his leadership, which will have been confirmed twice by the membership.
What the graphic actually shows is that most Corbyn supporters believe (incredibly) that Labour under Corbyn WILL win the next general election. Not even CAN but WILL. Labour is actually set on course to win in their minds, if only the party continues with this lunatic course.
I am tempted to say that these Corbyn cultists really do live in the same parallel universe of simple counterfactual certainties inhabited by supporters of Donald Trump. However, that is being unfair to supporters of Donald Trump. The polls are close enough to suggest that Trump CAN win, if not that he actually WILL.
"today there are more people who have walked on the Moon than there are Labour MPs in the East, South-East and South-West of England"
The fact is that because of FPTP Labour remains the best vehicle the centre left has in the UK, so those who oppose Corbyn are likely to stick around. If they are purged, though, they have no other option but to create something else.
Comrades, rejoice!
Already Chairman Corbyn is planning a conciliatory holiday with his treacherous lickspittle MPs. Whilst the chairman enjoys his usual modest stay in Moscow, there to learn in the hallowed halls of socialist history, he has a more exotic trip planned for the PLP.
Places are already reserved in the most exclusive establishment in Siberia. Chairman Corbyn, keen to expand his sphere of influence beyond the borders of the UK, has also drawn up a shortlist of especial MPs, such as capitalist traitor Benn, bourgeois metropolitan enemy of the people Umunna, and prime dissenter (and enormous penis) Smith, for a once-in-a-lifetime voyage to the Moon.
Chairman Corbyn eagerly awaits the return of his lunatics, just as soon as the technology is developed to bring them back.
Do the Prawns get the vote now? Gee they really do take Diversity seriously over there.
Of course, the fact that his fellow travellers are such thugs is in itself a very good request he should not be allowed anywhere near power.
These are all places where Labour should be winning. But they are doing so in less than half of them. It is not a good record.
The depth of the division between Corbynites and the rest is astonishing. I'm saying 'the rest' because it's obvious that Smith doesn't feature in the voters' thoughts except as a means to an end. Sure, those thinking of backing him have some nice things to say but only 33% of them think he could win the 2020GE. His purpose is clearly to arrest what they see as the spiral of decline under Corbyn, not to aspire to No 10.
But the contrast between the two camps is immense. 94% of Corbyn supporters think he is doing a good job whereas 97% of those opposing him take the negative view. Unsurprising? To an extent but there's no thought of the best of two good (or bad) candidates; it's one or the other. 56% of Corbynites think he's likely to win in 2020; just 1% of Smith-backers agree.
If Corbyn wins, nearly half of Smith-backers say they'd be prepared to join a breakaway party; 54% of Corbynites would be prepared to follow their man out should he lose and go. 39% of all Lab leadership voters think a split likely or very likely.
How on earth does Labour recover from this?
It's actually true!
"an avant-garde movement of artists, activists and theoreticians engaged in the production of works of ludic subversion in the bureaucratic society of controlled consumption”
http://www.classwargames.net/
What's potentially different is the impact Corbyn might be having. Labour should be looking to recover ground in 2020. Not sure he'll do that.
If Labour hold five seats south of the Severn-Wash line outside London at the next election - one each in Luton, Bristol, Oxford and a couple of others - they will have done considerably better than I expect them to.
Clinton 47 .. Trump 42
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/08/30/clinton-leads-5-voters-label-trump-inconsistent-im/
If things turn out as YouGov predict, I won't be giving much credibility to any future Brind pontifications.
As I'm socially wet, I wondered whether it was my failing memory that's driven my (almost) lifelong Tory vote. So, had a look at all Labour manifestos from my adult life.
From '74-'92 they were essentially unilateralists. I'm not. In '97 and '01 they had it about right. '05 I think is a special case of 'events'. But in '10 and '15 they're clearly tacking Left and remaining pro-immigration and pro-Europe. Whereas I'm pro-immigrant but anti-FoM and quite Euro skeptic.
Labour have serially 'coerced' me into voting for the Tories.
2) She had already retaken the lead in the polls and would likely have won the next election anyway. The chief impact of the Falklands was that it rallied her own very divided party behind her, with the exception of a few irreconcilables like Heath and Pym.
It should also be remembered that Foot, who unlike the current idiot ruining the party was a genuine man of principle - one of his principles being that you don't suck up to Fascist regimes - supported the government all the way and made a fine, genuine speech of congratulations on the announcement of the Argentine surrender.
1. After a couple more years of appalling electoral and opinion poll performances Corbyn goes and takes his die-hard supporters with him.
2. Corbyn stays and creates a new party on the centre left by effectively purging the moderates out of Labour.
Either way the Tories win.
And yet on UNS they need to take Canterbury to get a majority in the teens.
(I know a bit about the area as my mum lives there...)
Many of the seats Labour now hold in the South are dominated by Universities.
Corbyn has a definite appeal to University folk -- there is a charming video on youtube of the queue around Great St Marys Church when Corbyn came to Cambridge.
So, I think the seats in the South that Labour hold may actually swing to Labour under Corbyn (of course, Corbyn has big problems elsewhere like in the Midlands marginals).
By contrast, Owen Smith comes across a a stupid, macho Fool. I think he'd lose seats like Cambridge, though do better in Nuneaton.
Maidstone puzzles me. Why does it not return Labour MPs when Canterbury does?
Edit - I had thought Canterbury went red in 97, but I'm told upthread I was wrong. Again, why is it not a seat where Labour are challenging? On the surface it looks like an ideal spot - two universities and a biggish mobile population.
Corbyn appears to have written off the south. But the appeal he is putting out is more likely to be of interest to places like Chichester than it is to the voters of Bolton or even Merthyr. He really hasn't got a chance, has he?
Unfortunately, Labour needs them both (given the loss of Scotland & the impending reduction of the Welsh seats).
a blanket one will not work. Ever.
Think travle.
For London MPs, underground.
For Orkney MPs, lots of flights and hotels..
For Midland MPs , rail fares and hotels.
And so on.
It is surely obvious to anyone who is familiar with travelling costs and variables, that expenses are the way to go. Allowances would end up very complex with all sorts of special circumstances (train delayed so took taxi etc)
The article confirms as I've indicated on PB that for The Donald it's all of FOP or bust - Florida .. Ohio .. Pennsylvania.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/293882-polls-tighten-in-presidential-race
NEW THREAD
Ironically, this call for more protection for mothers [making it harder to get rid of them during/after pregnancy] will probably have the impact of making employers, especially smaller ones, less likely to hire women:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37222674
The more rights mothers get, the more onerous the burden on a business, the more reluctant they'll be to hire women.
Unlikely to happen now. I can't feasibly see a Labour path to No. 10.
The workers are simply not interested in Corbyn. They even dislike him. They actually expressed interest in Miliband, but they were turned off in the election by the fact that the Labour candidate was a certifiable lunatic who thought the way to win an election in Mid-Staffordshire was to campaign on Labour's record on the NHS.
With rare exceptions the public sector are increasingly embarrassed by Corbyn's antics, and study their coffee mugs when people talk about him. He sometimes makes good points, they mumble, but...
Which leaves the prospect that Labour will come third if UKIP pick the candidate who spent half his time railing against the iniquities of the EU and half his time fighting to save the disabled children's playground.
Now Cannock is typical of many seats in the WM or even the north. It is the type of seat that Labour have got to win to take power, and challenge in to remain relevant. But here, Corbyn's leadership is causing them to disintegrate.
We've established Labour are writing off the south despite there being many winnable seats there. They are losing ground in the Midlands. If they are struggling in Cannock, I have no doubt they will struggle in the semi-rural north. Which raises the question - where and what can they win under Corbyn?
And that is why, whatever Smith's faults and inadequacies, it is desperately important that he should win, even if he then has to resign later in favour of someone better.
Corbyn can probably do better in Bristol W, Cambs, Norwich S, Oxford E and Hove
Lab should still hold Slough, Exeter and Bristol S even if they lose votes
Luton N will go in the boundary changes (adds Tory Dunstable) but Luton S will become a little safer
Bristol E and Soton Test look vulnerable.
So i reckon they should at least keep 9 out of 12
Re hash of the panda bet. More Labour MPs in the South than Astronauts ?