Mr. B2, to be fair, that's a bloody good reason to hate those hill-tribe swine.
Edited extra bit: unsure if anyone follows this (and if you do you probably know already) but it seems there's no UK race in Formula E in the forthcoming season.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
The key to the sW is tactical voting - the non-Tory element of the local electorate simply needs to realise (remember) that in their part of the world it is LibDem or Tory. As the government becomes more unpopular and as Brexit fails to deliver apples for all, that isn't so unrealistic?
Or we misunderstood tactical voting - few non political types are strongly non- anything: tactical voting is a proxy for centrism. Mayism stays close to the centre because there be electoral gold there.
Having spent a lifetime canvassing for the LibDems, I struggle to see anything in my experience that would paint tactical voting in the way you describe. Are you an armchair analyst or is your suggestion based on your own experience? IME voters have a clearer picture of what they don't want than of what they do. Indeed, further, in the far off days of two-party politics, it was very common indeed that if you asked either a Tory supporter or a Labour Party supporter why they supported their party, within seconds they would be listing the negatives of the other party, which they would never vote for.
That's my experience too.
It's far easier to get someone fired up against something than for something.
Imagine trying to get someone fired up for the EU, or for expertise and experience.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
The key to the sW is tactical voting - the non-Tory element of the local electorate simply needs to realise (remember) that in their part of the world it is LibDem or Tory. As the government becomes more unpopular and as Brexit fails to deliver apples for all, that isn't so unrealistic?
Or we misunderstood tactical voting - few non political types are strongly non- anything: tactical voting is a proxy for centrism. Mayism stays close to the centre because there be electoral gold there.
Having spent a lifetime canvassing for the LibDems, I struggle to see anything in my experience that would paint tactical voting in the way you describe. Are you an armchair analyst or is your suggestion based on your own experience?
15 years canvassing in a LD Tory marginal.
2005 - didn't want Howard 2010 - split between fear of change (voted LD) and desire for change (voted Tory) 2015 - happy with status quo and real fears expressed of Sturgeon and Miliband
If that isn't mere centrism, I don't know what is. It was a strong maj in 05, smallest LD maj Over Tory in 2010 and now has a romping 10k Tory maj.
Errr: your description of 2005 sounds very much like tactical voting to me.
Tricky one that - also suggests centrism doesn't it. Could be a mix of the two I suppose...
Looking back over our exchange, we clearly agree that they key for the Tories is the extent to which May can remain positioned in the centre, as per her Downing Street speech. But disagree on the underlying rationale.
I’m a little surprised that the Corbynites are so keen on uncontrolled immigration.
Surely that’s incoherent for International Socialists? We take the young, fit population from the country of origin leaving them with a proportionately larger cohort of elderly and unfit. Our only slight disadvantage is that demographic tends to be include more criminals.
But a true Trotskyite would insist on flying over the unproductive too to make up for that. Otherwise we are acting like Imperialists robbing the countries of their riches. I sense a large dose of hypocrisy here.
Ukip’s attitude is at least honest. They want the useful immigrant rather than the criminal or insane. You can, at least, maintain overseas aid to ease your conscience. At the moment, Jezza is showing his true colours … he’s a Red Tory. Burn him.
As that bastion of communism, the Statue of Liberty says …. Give me Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
To the barricades, brothers, send us your old gits too.
Come on, Mr McDonnell, Mr Tyson, Dr Palmer, defend your boys.
BTW and totally off topic, can it really be true that Big Fat Stan is set to receive around £1 million compesation from the F.A. after just two months work (if you can call overseeing one England game "work") and having supposedly resigned in disgrace .... words fail me!
I don't know what sort of contracts are drawn up these days, but in my day 'Gross Misconduct' was 'here's a bin-bag for your stuff (carefully checked) and the door is over there'.......
With gross misconduct don't you still get a payment in lieu of notice (but nothing for loss of position)?
No you don't. If you are guilty of gross misconduct you have repudiated the contract so there is no obligation on the employer to pay you. However, rather than risk the employee suing for unfair dismissal many employers will go for a settlement agreement (used to be called compromise agreement) rather than dismissing for gross misconduct. This involves paying the employee a sum of money in return for the employee agreeing to give up their right to sue the employer.
BTW and totally off topic, can it really be true that Big Fat Stan is set to receive around £1 million compesation from the F.A. after just two months work (if you can call overseeing one England game "work") and having supposedly resigned in disgrace .... words fail me!
I don't know what sort of contracts are drawn up these days, but in my day 'Gross Misconduct' was 'here's a bin-bag for your stuff (carefully checked) and the door is over there'.......
With gross misconduct don't you still get a payment in lieu of notice (but nothing for loss of position)?
No you don't. If you are guilty of gross misconduct you have repudiated the contract so there is no obligation on the employer to pay you. However, rather than risk the employee suing for unfair dismissal many employers will go for a settlement agreement (used to be called compromise agreement) rather than dismissing for gross misconduct. This involves paying the employee a sum of money in return for the employee agreeing to give up their right to sue the employer.
In some professions you can even lose your already earned pension entitlement, which is the severest penalty available for any worker.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
The key to the sW is tactical voting - the non-Tory element of the local electorate simply needs to realise (remember) that in their part of the world it is LibDem or Tory. As the government becomes more unpopular and as Brexit fails to deliver apples for all, that isn't so unrealistic?
Or we misunderstood tactical voting - few non political types are strongly non- anything: tactical voting is a proxy for centrism. Mayism stays close to the centre because there be electoral gold there.
Having spent a lifetime canvassing for the LibDems, I struggle to see anything in my experience that would paint tactical voting in the way you describe. Are you an armchair analyst or is your suggestion based on your own experience?
15 years canvassing in a LD Tory marginal.
2005 - didn't want Howard 2010 - split between fear of change (voted LD) and desire for change (voted Tory) 2015 - happy with status quo and real fears expressed of Sturgeon and Miliband
If that isn't mere centrism, I don't know what is. It was a strong maj in 05, smallest LD maj Over Tory in 2010 and now has a romping 10k Tory maj.
Read your own post: didnt want Howard. Fear of change. Didn't want Sturgeon and Miliband. All essentially negative reasons for a political preference, not centrism (whatever that might be) at all.
Yes, but why didn't people want them? Arguably because they were seen as extreme.
Very interesting piece, and comments. It's received wisdom that a party of national Govt tends to lose council seats throughout their reign. The people like a check and balance, and rage against the machine. What made 2010 to 2015 different is there were two parties of Government. The people decided to rage against the moral yellow crusaders for daring to govern at national level.
So, now the Libs are out of power, local influence seeps back. So, naturally the new party of Govt, the blues lose a bit.
Labour in opinion pools are still at MOE of 2010 and 2015 elections. So are Tories. The challenges is that they are not picking up locally from not being party of Govt. That said, Labour will never die. The Unions and all Govt staff will be red until they die. So, the fight for the yellows will meander. Tories will never win local Govt in big, northern cities. Libs might. Libs can win in countryside where Labour is irrelevant.
My dream scenario is UKIP and Libs win share off Labour in Northern cities - Tories can't. Labour implode in Wales, A Plaid/Tory regional Govt. These two are far more likely than my other dreams that Labour dies in London.
Long live Corbyn, but even he can't kill the reds.
''Football transfers have always been dodgy. As a fan I am really not that bothered, as long as my team wins. Football economics are not in the real world.''
What hard evidence have the Telegraph actually provided of Premiership managers behaving illicitly? All they have is a bunch of flaky agents who are now rowing back.
Meanwhile the Prem brand has taken a battering.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Telegraph was looking at a giant lawsuit here.
BTW and totally off topic, can it really be true that Big Fat Stan is set to receive around £1 million compesation from the F.A. after just two months work (if you can call overseeing one England game "work") and having supposedly resigned in disgrace .... words fail me!
I don't know what sort of contracts are drawn up these days, but in my day 'Gross Misconduct' was 'here's a bin-bag for your stuff (carefully checked) and the door is over there'.......
With gross misconduct don't you still get a payment in lieu of notice (but nothing for loss of position)?
No you don't. If you are guilty of gross misconduct you have repudiated the contract so there is no obligation on the employer to pay you. However, rather than risk the employee suing for unfair dismissal many employers will go for a settlement agreement (used to be called compromise agreement) rather than dismissing for gross misconduct. This involves paying the employee a sum of money in return for the employee agreeing to give up their right to sue the employer.
In some professions you can even lose your already earned pension entitlement, which is the severest penalty available for any worker.
I think Big Sam went "by mutual consent" rather than gross misconduct.
No one in their right mind should take the England Manager job. It is a hospital pass.
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
The key to the sW is tactical voting - the non-Tory element of the local electorate simply needs to realise (remember) that in their part of the world it is LibDem or Tory. As the government becomes more unpopular and as Brexit fails to deliver apples for all, that isn't so unrealistic?
Or we misunderstood tactical voting - few non political types are strongly non- anything: tactical voting is a proxy for centrism. Mayism stays close to the centre because there be electoral gold there.
Having spent a lifetime canvassing for the LibDems, I struggle to see anything in my experience that would paint tactical voting in the way you describe. Are you an armchair analyst or is your suggestion based on your own experience?
15 years canvassing in a LD Tory marginal.
2005 - didn't want Howard 2010 - split between fear of change (voted LD) and desire for change (voted Tory) 2015 - happy with status quo and real fears expressed of Sturgeon and Miliband
If that isn't mere centrism, I don't know what is. It was a strong maj in 05, smallest LD maj Over Tory in 2010 and now has a romping 10k Tory maj.
Errr: your description of 2005 sounds very much like tactical voting to me.
Tricky one that - also suggests centrism doesn't it. Could be a mix of the two I suppose...
Looking back over our exchange, we clearly agree that they key for the Tories is the extent to which May can remain positioned in the centre, as per her Downing Street speech. But disagree on the underlying rationale.
That sounds like a fair summary - fall back for the Tories is that, as Labour used to, we have a large and widespread base. 30% is our floor. What is LD base do we think?
Mr. Sandpit, if it's wet, that may be worse for Rosberg (if it's consistently wet rather than helpfully timed). In the wet, Hamilton's very good and the Red Bull will be relatively faster.
Mr. Bedfordshire, lucky I didn't wolf-whistle anyone or the Sheriffs of Nottingham would come-a-calling.
Very interesting piece, and comments. It's received wisdom that a party of national Govt tends to lose council seats throughout their reign. The people like a check and balance, and rage against the machine. What made 2010 to 2015 different is there were two parties of Government. The people decided to rage against the moral yellow crusaders for daring to govern at national level.
So, now the Libs are out of power, local influence seeps back. So, naturally the new party of Govt, the blues lose a bit.
Labour in opinion pools are still at MOE of 2010 and 2015 elections. So are Tories. The challenges is that they are not picking up locally from not being party of Govt. That said, Labour will never die. The Unions and all Govt staff will be red until they die. So, the fight for the yellows will meander. Tories will never win local Govt in big, northern cities. Libs might. Libs can win in countryside where Labour is irrelevant.
My dream scenario is UKIP and Libs win share off Labour in Northern cities - Tories can't. Labour implode in Wales, A Plaid/Tory regional Govt. These two are far more likely than my other dreams that Labour dies in London.
Long live Corbyn, but even he can't kill the reds.
It depends what you mean by "government staff". Certainly the public sector unions and the front line parts of the public sector are firmly attached to labour. The rest of the public sector, from council officers through civil servants, the BBC and teachers etc tend to be people spread across (or prepared to float between) the various non-Tory parties.
BTW and totally off topic, can it really be true that Big Fat Stan is set to receive around £1 million compesation from the F.A. after just two months work (if you can call overseeing one England game "work") and having supposedly resigned in disgrace .... words fail me!
I don't know what sort of contracts are drawn up these days, but in my day 'Gross Misconduct' was 'here's a bin-bag for your stuff (carefully checked) and the door is over there'.......
With gross misconduct don't you still get a payment in lieu of notice (but nothing for loss of position)?
No you don't. If you are guilty of gross misconduct you have repudiated the contract so there is no obligation on the employer to pay you. However, rather than risk the employee suing for unfair dismissal many employers will go for a settlement agreement (used to be called compromise agreement) rather than dismissing for gross misconduct. This involves paying the employee a sum of money in return for the employee agreeing to give up their right to sue the employer.
In some professions you can even lose your already earned pension entitlement, which is the severest penalty available for any worker.
Only in one or two non contributory public sector role.
The days when someone could engineer a dismissal at aged 64 and just refund you your 40 years contributions at an arbitary and derisory rate of interest are long gone in the post maxwell reforms.
Of course if you are dismissed for doing something highly financially damaging your former employer is quite entitled to sue you and force you to liquidate and hand over your assets including house and pension fund if they win, but that is surprisingly rare given that employers often have to pay out eye watering sums due to being vicariously liable for an employees action.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and agree re South West London and SW England!
My only caveat is that if UKIP remains strong in Cornwall/Devon, perhaps because Mrs May negotiates something less than full Brexit, then the Eurosceptic vote is split. In that scenario, the LibDems might sneak through the middle in a seat or two. (Especially if West country Labour voters are unenamoured with Mr Corbyn.)
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
BTW and totally off topic, can it really be true that Big Fat Stan is set to receive around £1 million compesation from the F.A. after just two months work (if you can call overseeing one England game "work") and having supposedly resigned in disgrace .... words fail me!
I don't know what sort of contracts are drawn up these days, but in my day 'Gross Misconduct' was 'here's a bin-bag for your stuff (carefully checked) and the door is over there'.......
With gross misconduct don't you still get a payment in lieu of notice (but nothing for loss of position)?
No you don't. If you are guilty of gross misconduct you have repudiated the contract so there is no obligation on the employer to pay you. However, rather than risk the employee suing for unfair dismissal many employers will go for a settlement agreement (used to be called compromise agreement) rather than dismissing for gross misconduct. This involves paying the employee a sum of money in return for the employee agreeing to give up their right to sue the employer.
In some professions you can even lose your already earned pension entitlement, which is the severest penalty available for any worker.
Only in one or two non contributory public sector role.
The days when someone could engineer a dismissal at aged 64 and just refund you your 40 years contributions at an arbitary and derisory rate of interest are long gone in the post maxwell reforms.
Of course if you are dismissed for doing something highly financially damaging your former employer is quite entitled so sue you and take your assets including house and pension fund, but that is surprisingly rare given that employers often have to pay out eye watering sums due to being vicariously liable for an employees action.
Very interesting piece, and comments. It's received wisdom that a party of national Govt tends to lose council seats throughout their reign. The people like a check and balance, and rage against the machine. What made 2010 to 2015 different is there were two parties of Government. The people decided to rage against the moral yellow crusaders for daring to govern at national level.
So, now the Libs are out of power, local influence seeps back. So, naturally the new party of Govt, the blues lose a bit.
Labour in opinion pools are still at MOE of 2010 and 2015 elections. So are Tories. The challenges is that they are not picking up locally from not being party of Govt. That said, Labour will never die. The Unions and all Govt staff will be red until they die. So, the fight for the yellows will meander. Tories will never win local Govt in big, northern cities. Libs might. Libs can win in countryside where Labour is irrelevant.
My dream scenario is UKIP and Libs win share off Labour in Northern cities - Tories can't. Labour implode in Wales, A Plaid/Tory regional Govt. These two are far more likely than my other dreams that Labour dies in London.
Long live Corbyn, but even he can't kill the reds.
It depends what you mean by "government staff". Certainly the public sector unions and the front line parts of the public sector are firmly attached to labour. The rest of the public sector, from council officers through civil servants, the BBC and teachers etc tend to be people spread across (or prepared to float between) the various non-Tory parties.
Certainly I have never met a Tory civil servant. They do float a bit but they have a red core. And a sense of entitlement. I was told that contracting out services is less about better services and more about stopping local govt employing Labour voters!
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - s.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
The key to the sW is tactical voting - the non-Tory element of the local electorate simply needs to realise (remember) that in their part of the world it is LibDem or Tory. As the government becomes more unpopular and as Brexit fails to deliver apples for all, that isn't so unrealistic?
Or we misunderstood tactical voting - few non political types are strongly non- anything: tactical voting is a proxy for centrism. Mayism stays close to the centre because there be electoral gold there.
Having spent a lifetime canvassing for the LibDems, I struggle to see anything in my experience that would paint tactical voting in the way you describe. Are you an armchair analyst or is your suggestion based on your own experience?
15 years canvassing in a LD Tory marginal.
2005 - didn't want Howard 2010 - split between fear of change (voted LD) and desire for change (voted Tory) 2015 - happy with status quo and real fears expressed of Sturgeon and Miliband
If that isn't mere centrism, I don't know what is. It was a strong maj in 05, smallest LD maj Over Tory in 2010 and now has a romping 10k Tory maj.
Errr: your description of 2005 sounds very much like tactical voting to me.
Tricky one that - also suggests centrism doesn't it. Could be a mix of the two I suppose...
Looking back over our exchange, we clearly agree that they key for the Tories is the extent to which May can remain positioned in the centre, as per her Downing Street speech. But disagree on the underlying rationale.
That sounds like a fair summary - fall back for the Tories is that, as Labour used to, we have a large and widespread base. 30% is our floor. What is LD base do we think?
You shouldn't need to ask since we are looking at it already.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
The key to the sW is tactical voting - the non-Tory element of the local electorate simply needs to realise (remember) that in their part of the world it is LibDem or Tory. As the government becomes more unpopular and as Brexit fails to deliver apples for all, that isn't so unrealistic?
Or we misunderstood tactical voting - few non political types are strongly non- anything: tactical voting is a proxy for centrism. Mayism stays close to the centre because there be electoral gold there.
Having spent a lifetime canvassing for the LibDems, I struggle to see anything in my experience that would paint tactical voting in the way you describe. Are you an armchair analyst or is your suggestion based on your own experience?
15 years canvassing in a LD Tory marginal.
2005 - didn't want Howard 2010 - split between fear of change (voted LD) and desire for change (voted Tory) 2015 - happy with status quo and real fears expressed of Sturgeon and Miliband
If that isn't mere centrism, I don't know what is. It was a strong maj in 05, smallest LD maj Over Tory in 2010 and now has a romping 10k Tory maj.
Errr: your description of 2005 sounds very much like tactical voting to me.
Tricky one that - also suggests centrism doesn't it. Could be a mix of the two I suppose...
Looking back over our exchange, we clearly agree that they key for the Tories is the extent to which May can remain positioned in the centre, as per her Downing Street speech. But disagree on the underlying rationale.
That sounds like a fair summary - fall back for the Tories is that, as Labour used to, we have a large and widespread base. 30% is our floor. What is LD base do we think?
They got 8% in 2015, I'd say that was the base. I also think that the polls are currently underestimating their support, not by the 20% to 30% swings that they are getting in by-elections, but somewhat. I also think that the polls are overestimating UKIP, since they are almost universally down in the by-elections.
Very interesting piece, and comments. It's received wisdom that a party of national Govt tends to lose council seats throughout their reign. The people like a check and balance, and rage against the machine. What made 2010 to 2015 different is there were two parties of Government. The people decided to rage against the moral yellow crusaders for daring to govern at national level.
So, now the Libs are out of power, local influence seeps back. So, naturally the new party of Govt, the blues lose a bit.
Labour in opinion pools are still at MOE of 2010 and 2015 elections. So are Tories. The challenges is that they are not picking up locally from not being party of Govt. That said, Labour will never die. The Unions and all Govt staff will be red until they die. So, the fight for the yellows will meander. Tories will never win local Govt in big, northern cities. Libs might. Libs can win in countryside where Labour is irrelevant.
My dream scenario is UKIP and Libs win share off Labour in Northern cities - Tories can't. Labour implode in Wales, A Plaid/Tory regional Govt. These two are far more likely than my other dreams that Labour dies in London.
Long live Corbyn, but even he can't kill the reds.
It depends what you mean by "government staff". Certainly the public sector unions and the front line parts of the public sector are firmly attached to labour. The rest of the public sector, from council officers through civil servants, the BBC and teachers etc tend to be people spread across (or prepared to float between) the various non-Tory parties.
Certainly I have never met a Tory civil servant. They do float a bit but they have a red core. And a sense of entitlement. I was told that contracting out services is less about better services and more about stopping local govt employing Labour voters!
When you get the chance to talk to Tory politicians behind the scenes, that is certainly how many of them think. Hence the abject lack of social housing.
Very interesting piece, and comments. It's received wisdom that a party of national Govt tends to lose council seats throughout their reign. The people like a check and balance, and rage against the machine. What made 2010 to 2015 different is there were two parties of Government. The people decided to rage against the moral yellow crusaders for daring to govern at national level.
So, now the Libs are out of power, local influence seeps back. So, naturally the new party of Govt, the blues lose a bit.
Labour in opinion pools are still at MOE of 2010 and 2015 elections. So are Tories. The challenges is that they are not picking up locally from not being party of Govt. That said, Labour will never die. The Unions and all Govt staff will be red until they die. So, the fight for the yellows will meander. Tories will never win local Govt in big, northern cities. Libs might. Libs can win in countryside where Labour is irrelevant.
My dream scenario is UKIP and Libs win share off Labour in Northern cities - Tories can't. Labour implode in Wales, A Plaid/Tory regional Govt. These two are far more likely than my other dreams that Labour dies in London.
Long live Corbyn, but even he can't kill the reds.
It depends what you mean by "government staff". Certainly the public sector unions and the front line parts of the public sector are firmly attached to labour. The rest of the public sector, from council officers through civil servants, the BBC and teachers etc tend to contain a lot of non-Tory people spread across (or prepared to float between) the various non-Tory parties.
Not to mention the Police and Armed Forces, not noted bastions of Corbynism in government employment.
The biggest threat to the Tories is the 30 somethings that are stuck in the economic doldrums with half the wealth of those that were a decade ahead of them. The twenty somethings too, as fox jr will agree.
Even if they are outvoted (and they will be by us baby-boomers) it is not a stable situation for the country.
The only 20 and 30 somethings that are significantly better off than their parents generation are the East European immigrants, even if less wealthy than their British counterparts.
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
Trump is not fit to be president, So, he likely to win!
Very interesting piece, and comments. It's received wisdom that a party of national Govt tends to lose council seats throughout their reign. The people like a check and balance, and rage against the machine. What made 2010 to 2015 different is there were two parties of Government. The people decided to rage against the moral yellow crusaders for daring to govern at national level.
So, now the Libs are out of power, local influence seeps back. So, naturally the new party of Govt, the blues lose a bit.
Labour in opinion pools are still at MOE of 2010 and 2015 elections. So are Tories. The challenges is that they are not picking up locally from not being party of Govt. That said, Labour will never die. The Unions and all Govt staff will be red until they die. So, the fight for the yellows will meander. Tories will never win local Govt in big, northern cities. Libs might. Libs can win in countryside where Labour is irrelevant.
My dream scenario is UKIP and Libs win share off Labour in Northern cities - Tories can't. Labour implode in Wales, A Plaid/Tory regional Govt. These two are far more likely than my other dreams that Labour dies in London.
Long live Corbyn, but even he can't kill the reds.
It depends what you mean by "government staff". Certainly the public sector unions and the front line parts of the public sector are firmly attached to labour. The rest of the public sector, from council officers through civil servants, the BBC and teachers etc tend to contain a lot of non-Tory people spread across (or prepared to float between) the various non-Tory parties.
Not to mention the Police and Armed Forces, not noted bastions of Corbynism in government employment.
The biggest threat to the Tories is the 30 somethings that are stuck in the economic doldrums with half the wealth of those that were a decade ahead of them. The twenty somethings too, as fox jr will agree.
Even if they are outvoted (and they will be by us baby-boomers) it is not a stable situation for the country.
The only 20 and 30 somethings that are significantly better off than their parents generation are the East European immigrants, even if less wealthy than their British counterparts.
IME police are very Tory, certainly at junior and mid ranking levels. The army, I am not so sure - people predominantly from WWC backgrounds but in a right-leaning environment. Because they are often away or in barracks I don't have much experience of canvassing them. Seats like aldershot suggest a strong bias towards Tory.
So basically the opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Hardly surprising as voting patterns will cut across usual demographic voting trends which makes baselining as easy as it was on the Brexit referendum.
Where is the early declaring equivalent of Sunderland I wonder.
It may be that, as with Brexit, the best value betting will be after the first results have been declared.
Not really.
Both these trackers are outliers IMO. The Fox poll seems on the money - Clinton around +4. Most of the national and state polls indicate a solid 2-3 point post debate bounce.
Early voting gives some useful indicators and presently seem to show a solid Clinton ground game with higher Dem registration turnout and poorer GOP enthusiasm. On the night New Hampshire will be the first swing state to give us a steer.
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Theresa May has brought in Tony Blair's former policy chief to carry out a review of employment practices aimed at improving job security and rights for "ordinary working people".
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the RSA, will look at whether regulations are keeping pace with the "radically" changing labour market in a shake-up that will "prioritise the interests of the growing army of people working in new ways".
The focus on protections for workers is in stark contrast to predecessor David Cameron, who oversaw reforms of employment law to ensure that they would no longer be seen as a "barrier to growth".
Dont think she will be inviting Beecroft around any time soon.
When she was talking about the nasty party all those years ago she was talking about Osborne type flat tax, cut welfare for the terminally ill beecroftism.
Dave and Gideon foolishly thought that if they were outwarly nice to monirities who suffered from isms and phobias that the Guardian et al obsess over, no one would notice if they abolished welfare and employment rights.
No wonder she booted out Osborne so humiliatingly. Rarely are just desserts served up so brutally.
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Yes, I'd hate to be a voter in the election.
its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do...
BTW and totally off topic, can it really be true that Big Fat Stan is set to receive around £1 million compesation from the F.A. after just two months work (if you can call overseeing one England game "work") and having supposedly resigned in disgrace .... words fail me!
I don't know what sort of contracts are drawn up these days, but in my day 'Gross Misconduct' was 'here's a bin-bag for your stuff (carefully checked) and the door is over there'.......
With gross misconduct don't you still get a payment in lieu of notice (but nothing for loss of position)?
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Yes, I'd hate to be a voter in the election.
its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do...
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Yes, I'd hate to be a voter in the election.
its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do...
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Yes, I'd hate to be a voter in the election.
its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do...
Clinton stands for everything I'm against. Curtailing freedoms, warmongering, positive discrimination and, of course, safe spaces. I would vote for any other republican candidate in this cycle and were Trump not such a terrible idea I'd vote for Johnson even if he is a bit clueless. I loathe everything Clinton stands for, Trump being an all round awful person doesn't change that fact.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and agree re South West London and SW England!
My only caveat is that if UKIP remains strong in Cornwall/Devon, perhaps because Mrs May negotiates something less than full Brexit, then the Eurosceptic vote is split. In that scenario, the LibDems might sneak through the middle in a seat or two. (Especially if West country Labour voters are unenamoured with Mr Corbyn.)
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
Trump's plan to focus in the next debate on Clinton's actions in relation to her husband's infidelities before he left the White House 16 years ago - it's a feint, right? Right?
I am wondering whether Trump is only capable of seeing a woman in terms of one thing.
She has held public office; he hasn't. Surely he could find something to criticise about her discharge of her responsibilities when she was in office?
We all know Trump is mentally ill. Is he trying to lose?
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and agree re South West London and SW England!
My only caveat is that if UKIP remains strong in Cornwall/Devon, perhaps because Mrs May negotiates something less than full Brexit, then the Eurosceptic vote is split. In that scenario, the LibDems might sneak through the middle in a seat or two. (Especially if West country Labour voters are unenamoured with Mr Corbyn.)
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boindaries.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and agree re South West London and SW England!
My only caveat is that if UKIP remains strong in Cornwall/Devon, perhaps because Mrs May negotiates something less than full Brexit, then the Eurosceptic vote is split. In that scenario, the LibDems might sneak through the middle in a seat or two. (Especially if West country Labour voters are unenamoured with Mr Corbyn.)
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boindaries.
Right up to polling day, I thought the Lib Dems would hang on to 25 or so seats.
Theresa May has brought in Tony Blair's former policy chief to carry out a review of employment practices aimed at improving job security and rights for "ordinary working people".
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the RSA, will look at whether regulations are keeping pace with the "radically" changing labour market in a shake-up that will "prioritise the interests of the growing army of people working in new ways".
The focus on protections for workers is in stark contrast to predecessor David Cameron, who oversaw reforms of employment law to ensure that they would no longer be seen as a "barrier to growth".
Dont think she will be inviting Beecroft around any time soon.
When she was talking about the nasty party all those years ago she was talking about Osborne type flat tax, cut welfare for the terminally ill beecroftism.
Dave and Gideon foolishly thought that if they were outwarly nice to monirities who suffered from isms and phobias that the Guardian et al obsess over, no one would notice if they abolished welfare and employment rights.
No wonder she booted out Osborne so humiliatingly. Rarely are just desserts served up so brutally.
Which employment rights were you thinking of?
Remember the Beecroft Report. Proposed legalisation of non fault sacking. Employer could fire you at will without reason so long as they gave you sum equivalent to statutory redundancy. Libdems veteoed it.
Trump's plan to focus in the next debate on Clinton's actions in relation to her husband's infidelities before he left the White House 16 years ago - it's a feint, right? Right?
I am wondering whether Trump is only capable of seeing a woman in terms of one thing.
She has held public office; he hasn't. Surely he could find something to criticise about her discharge of her responsibilities when she was in office?
We all know Trump is mentally ill. Is he trying to lose?
I don't think that he is mentally ill, just bonkers in the lay understanding.
I think he is torn between his ego and his knowledge that he cannot deliver what he has promised. If he thinks about it at all (and he doesn't strike me as the introspective type) he probably wants to lose by a narrow margin. Both victory or a Clinton landslide could break him.
The risk of this is an accidental victory, rather like Boris, and being left holding the baby.
Theresa May has brought in Tony Blair's former policy chief to carry out a review of employment practices aimed at improving job security and rights for "ordinary working people".
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the RSA, will look at whether regulations are keeping pace with the "radically" changing labour market in a shake-up that will "prioritise the interests of the growing army of people working in new ways".
The focus on protections for workers is in stark contrast to predecessor David Cameron, who oversaw reforms of employment law to ensure that they would no longer be seen as a "barrier to growth".
Dont think she will be inviting Beecroft around any time soon.
When she was talking about the nasty party all those years ago she was talking about Osborne type flat tax, cut welfare for the terminally ill beecroftism.
Dave and Gideon foolishly thought that if they were outwarly nice to monirities who suffered from isms and phobias that the Guardian et al obsess over, no one would notice if they abolished welfare and employment rights.
No wonder she booted out Osborne so humiliatingly. Rarely are just desserts served up so brutally.
Which employment rights were you thinking of?
Remember the Beecroft Report. Proposed legalisation of non fault sacking. Employer could fire you at will without reason so long as they gave you sum equivalent to statutory redundancy. Libdems veteoed it.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
Yes, except that from the last six years there appear to be very few Con/Lab voters. What we don't know - but what is crucial - is of the Con- and Lab-potentials, how many are Con or Lab no matter what. In terms of the tactical game, the key will be for each larger party to persuade those voters who would considerthem but are also tempted by third parties, to stick with the big team. In that, the tactical argument to 'keep X out' will be uppermost and hence, which outcome is most feared (and believed credible).
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Hillary has reasonably well-documented form for complicity with her husband in behaviour as unpleasant as trump's.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boindaries.
Right up to polling day, I thought the Lib Dems would hang on to 25 or so seats.
I was very bearish on the Libdems and some of my best 2015 bets were in the constituency bets backing the leading challenger in LD seats. I also did well backing the incumbent in kipper targets. Nonetheless I was expecting the LDs to have seats in the low teens.
One thing about the 2015 GE polling (and perhaps relavent to the header) is that the polling error was purely in the Lab/Con split. The polls were pretty much spot on for LD,UKIP, Green, SNP etc. I think that the difference in the Lab/Con share was mostly because of the leadership ratings as only those 2 leaders could be PM. The implication of this is that Corbyn will cause Lab to significantly underperform the national polls, I would guess about 22% at present.
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Theresa May has brought in Tony Blair's former policy chief to carry out a review of employment practices aimed at improving job security and rights for "ordinary working people".
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the RSA, will look at whether regulations are keeping pace with the "radically" changing labour market in a shake-up that will "prioritise the interests of the growing army of people working in new ways".
The focus on protections for workers is in stark contrast to predecessor David Cameron, who oversaw reforms of employment law to ensure that they would no longer be seen as a "barrier to growth".
Dont think she will be inviting Beecroft around any time soon.
When she was talking about the nasty party all those years ago she was talking about Osborne type flat tax, cut welfare for the terminally ill beecroftism.
Dave and Gideon foolishly thought that if they were outwarly nice to monirities who suffered from isms and phobias that the Guardian et al obsess over, no one would notice if they abolished welfare and employment rights.
No wonder she booted out Osborne so humiliatingly. Rarely are just desserts served up so brutally.
Which employment rights were you thinking of?
Remember the Beecroft Report. Proposed legalisation of non fault sacking. Employer could fire you at will without reason so long as they gave you sum equivalent to statutory redundancy. Libdems veteoed it.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
Yes, except that from the last six years there appear to be very few Con/Lab voters. What we don't know - but what is crucial - is of the Con- and Lab-potentials, how many are Con or Lab no matter what. In terms of the tactical game, the key will be for each larger party to persuade those voters who would considerthem but are also tempted by third parties, to stick with the big team. In that, the tactical argument to 'keep X out' will be uppermost and hence, which outcome is most feared (and believed credible).
But, as downthread, the point is that fear of a Labour win drives many Tory/LD swing voters back to the Tories.
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Yes, I'd hate to be a voter in the election.
its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do...
Vote Gary Johnson!
Which is what I'd do unless I were in a swing state with the electionin the balance, in which case it'd have to be Clinton and GOP for congress to stop her doing much.
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boindaries.
Right up to polling day, I thought the Lib Dems would hang on to 25 or so seats.
I was very bearish on the Libdems and some of my best 2015 bets were in the constituency bets backing the leading challenger in LD seats. I also did well backing the incumbent in kipper targets. Nonetheless I was expecting the LDs to have seats in the low teens.
One thing about the 2015 GE polling (and perhaps relavent to the header) is that the polling error was purely in the Lab/Con split. The polls were pretty much spot on for LD,UKIP, Green, SNP etc. I think that the difference in the Lab/Con share was mostly because of the leadership ratings as only those 2 leaders could be PM. The implication of this is that Corbyn will cause Lab to significantly underperform the national polls, I would guess about 22% at present.
good analysis. Labour won't die, but Corbyn will lose them an election
Theresa May has brought in Tony Blair's former policy chief to carry out a review of employment practices aimed at improving job security and rights for "ordinary working people".
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the RSA, will look at whether regulations are keeping pace with the "radically" changing labour market in a shake-up that will "prioritise the interests of the growing army of people working in new ways".
The focus on protections for workers is in stark contrast to predecessor David Cameron, who oversaw reforms of employment law to ensure that they would no longer be seen as a "barrier to growth".
Dont think she will be inviting Beecroft around any time soon.
When she was talking about the nasty party all those years ago she was talking about Osborne type flat tax, cut welfare for the terminally ill beecroftism.
Dave and Gideon foolishly thought that if they were outwarly nice to monirities who suffered from isms and phobias that the Guardian et al obsess over, no one would notice if they abolished welfare and employment rights.
No wonder she booted out Osborne so humiliatingly. Rarely are just desserts served up so brutally.
Which employment rights were you thinking of?
Remember the Beecroft Report. Proposed legalisation of non fault sacking. Employer could fire you at will without reason so long as they gave you sum equivalent to statutory redundancy. Libdems veteoed it.
You can always tell an employee to clear their desk and leave - provided you compensate them accordingly.
The problem lies with employers who think they can fire people at will and pay them nothing.
By and large, easy dismissal/high employment is a model that works better than making it very hard to dismiss, combined with low employment.
Er no you cant. However if you stuff their mouth with enough gold they may not take you to a tribunal for wongful dismissal.
For most employees, the stress of an Empoyment Tribunal, plus the big deposit, is a major deterrent. It's not expensive to fire someone on an average salary. The big payouts are very rare, and only go the big fish.
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Yes, I'd hate to be a voter in the election.
its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do...
Vote Gary Johnson!
Which is what I'd do unless I were in a swing state with the electionin the balance, in which case it'd have to be Clinton and GOP for congress to stop her doing much.
Which is what I would do unless I had seen any of his recent car crash interviews
Very interesting piece, and comments. It's received wisdom that a party of national Govt tends to lose council seats throughout their reign. The people like a check and balance, and rage against the machine. What made 2010 to 2015 different is there were two parties of Government. The people decided to rage against the moral yellow crusaders for daring to govern at national level.
So, now the Libs are out of power, local influence seeps back. So, naturally the new party of Govt, the blues lose a bit.
Labour in opinion pools are still at MOE of 2010 and 2015 elections. So are Tories. The challenges is that they are not picking up locally from not being party of Govt. That said, Labour will never die. The Unions and all Govt staff will be red until they die. So, the fight for the yellows will meander. Tories will never win local Govt in big, northern cities. Libs might. Libs can win in countryside where Labour is irrelevant.
My dream scenario is UKIP and Libs win share off Labour in Northern cities - Tories can't. Labour implode in Wales, A Plaid/Tory regional Govt. These two are far more likely than my other dreams that Labour dies in London.
Long live Corbyn, but even he can't kill the reds.
It depends what you mean by "government staff". Certainly the public sector unions and the front line parts of the public sector are firmly attached to labour. The rest of the public sector, from council officers through civil servants, the BBC and teachers etc tend to be people spread across (or prepared to float between) the various non-Tory parties.
Certainly I have never met a Tory civil servant. They do float a bit but they have a red core. And a sense of entitlement. I was told that contracting out services is less about better services and more about stopping local govt employing Labour voters!
When you get the chance to talk to Tory politicians behind the scenes, that is certainly how many of them think. Hence the abject lack of social housing.
House buyers vote Tory. Many Labour councils don't build social housing either and when they do, the unwritten rule is 'don't give it to WWC.'
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boindaries.
Right up to polling day, I thought the Lib Dems would hang on to 25 or so seats.
I was very bearish on the Libdems and some of my best 2015 bets were in the constituency bets backing the leading challenger in LD seats. I also did well backing the incumbent in kipper targets. Nonetheless I was expecting the LDs to have seats in the low teens.
One thing about the 2015 GE polling (and perhaps relavent to the header) is that the polling error was purely in the Lab/Con split. The polls were pretty much spot on for LD,UKIP, Green, SNP etc. I think that the difference in the Lab/Con share was mostly because of the leadership ratings as only those 2 leaders could be PM. The implication of this is that Corbyn will cause Lab to significantly underperform the national polls, I would guess about 22% at present.
Labour at 22% in a general election could lead to a loss of 100+ seats:
It might be worse as their loss of votes might be reduced in inner cities where they could afford to lose more and because in some areas because they are already at minimal levels.
Trump's plan to focus in the next debate on Clinton's actions in relation to her husband's infidelities before he left the White House 16 years ago - it's a feint, right? Right?
I am wondering whether Trump is only capable of seeing a woman in terms of one thing.
She has held public office; he hasn't. Surely he could find something to criticise about her discharge of her responsibilities when she was in office?
We all know Trump is mentally ill. Is he trying to lose?
I don't think that he is mentally ill, just bonkers in the lay understanding.
I think he is torn between his ego and his knowledge that he cannot deliver what he has promised. If he thinks about it at all (and he doesn't strike me as the introspective type) he probably wants to lose by a narrow margin. Both victory or a Clinton landslide could break him.
The risk of this is an accidental victory, rather like Boris, and being left holding the baby.
He would hate to lose to a girl. He's already preparing his alibi. I can see him pulling out - "This is a rigged game and I'm not going to play it". If he does pull out, who replaces him and what are their chances against Clinton?
Very interesting piece, and comments. It's received wisdom that a party of national Govt tends to lose council seats throughout their reign. The people like a check and balance, and rage against the machine. What made 2010 to 2015 different is there were two parties of Government. The people decided to rage against the moral yellow crusaders for daring to govern at national level.
So, now the Libs are out of power, local influence seeps back. So, naturally the new party of Govt, the blues lose a bit.
Labour in opinion pools are still at MOE of 2010 and 2015 elections. So are Tories. The challenges is that they are not picking up locally from not being party of Govt. That said, Labour will never die. The Unions and all Govt staff will be red until they die. So, the fight for the yellows will meander. Tories will never win local Govt in big, northern cities. Libs might. Libs can win in countryside where Labour is irrelevant.
My dream scenario is UKIP and Libs win share off Labour in Northern cities - Tories can't. Labour implode in Wales, A Plaid/Tory regional Govt. These two are far more likely than my other dreams that Labour dies in London.
Long live Corbyn, but even he can't kill the reds.
It depends what you mean by "government staff". Certainly the public sector unions and the front line parts of the public sector are firmly attached to labour. The rest of the public sector, from council officers through civil servants, the BBC and teachers etc tend to be people spread across (or prepared to float between) the various non-Tory parties.
Certainly I have never met a Tory civil servant. They do float a bit but they have a red core. And a sense of entitlement. I was told that contracting out services is less about better services and more about stopping local govt employing Labour voters!
When you get the chance to talk to Tory politicians behind the scenes, that is certainly how many of them think. Hence the abject lack of social housing.
House buyers vote Tory. Many Labour councils don't build social housing either and when they do, the unwritten rule is 'don't give it to WWC.'
The tories will be screwed then as the young realise they've been scammed by the rentier society. Didn't you see yesterday's news. The trickle to the young has slowed to a drip.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boindaries.
Right up to polling day, I thought the Lib Dems would hang on to 25 or so seats.
I was very bearish on the Libdems and some of my best 2015 bets were in the constituency bets backing the leading challenger in LD seats. I also did well backing the incumbent in kipper targets. Nonetheless I was expecting the LDs to have seats in the low teens.
One thing about the 2015 GE polling (and perhaps relavent to the header) is that the polling error was purely in the Lab/Con split. The polls were pretty much spot on for LD,UKIP, Green, SNP etc. I think that the difference in the Lab/Con share was mostly because of the leadership ratings as only those 2 leaders could be PM. The implication of this is that Corbyn will cause Lab to significantly underperform the national polls, I would guess about 22% at present.
Labour at 22% in a general election could lead to a loss of 100+ seats:
It might be worse as their loss of votes might be reduced in inner cities where they could afford to lose more and because in some areas because they are already at minimal levels.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boindaries.
Right up to polling day, I thought the Lib Dems would hang on to 25 or so seats.
I was very bearish on the Libdems and some of my best 2015 bets were in the constituency bets backing the leading challenger in LD seats. I also did well backing the incumbent in kipper targets. Nonetheless I was expecting the LDs to have seats in the low teens.
One thing about the 2015 GE polling (and perhaps relavent to the header) is that the polling error was purely in the Lab/Con split. The polls were pretty much spot on for LD,UKIP, Green, SNP etc. I think that the difference in the Lab/Con share was mostly because of the leadership ratings as only those 2 leaders could be PM. The implication of this is that Corbyn will cause Lab to significantly underperform the national polls, I would guess about 22% at present.
Labour at 22% in a general election could lead to a loss of 100+ seats:
It might be worse as their loss of votes might be reduced in inner cities where they could afford to lose more and because in some areas because they are already at minimal levels.
Labour should be grateful we don't have AV, as that would be worth about 20 seats to the Tories, and one or two to UKIP.
Trump's plan to focus in the next debate on Clinton's actions in relation to her husband's infidelities before he left the White House 16 years ago - it's a feint, right? Right?
I am wondering whether Trump is only capable of seeing a woman in terms of one thing.
She has held public office; he hasn't. Surely he could find something to criticise about her discharge of her responsibilities when she was in office?
We all know Trump is mentally ill. Is he trying to lose?
I don't think that he is mentally ill, just bonkers in the lay understanding.
I think he is torn between his ego and his knowledge that he cannot deliver what he has promised. If he thinks about it at all (and he doesn't strike me as the introspective type) he probably wants to lose by a narrow margin. Both victory or a Clinton landslide could break him.
The risk of this is an accidental victory, rather like Boris, and being left holding the baby.
He would hate to lose to a girl. He's already preparing his alibi. I can see him pulling out - "This is a rigged game and I'm not going to play it". If he does pull out, who replaces him and what are their chances against Clinton?
"its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do... "
Certainly a tough one. It would have to be the crazy fascist. If you can wrestle the phone off him, it shows he can be controlled.
Yes, better a crazy fascist than a low cold calculating fascist.
I don't think either candidate is a fascist, but if they were I would prefer the rational to the irrational one.
Cold cunning and calculating isnt necessarily rational and will get further before everyone takes exception and gangs up on them.
I don't accept your characterisation, but irrationality in the Commander of the worlds most powerful military is a significant concern.
Clinton may or may not have views on the "safe spaces" on campus, but that is not an issue for the POTUS. America has much more protection of free speech and expression via the Constitution than we do. Safe Spacers are tiresome bores but nothing more.
Very interesting piece, and comments. It's received wisdom that a party of national Govt tends to lose council seats throughout their reign. The people like a check and balance, and rage against the machine. What made 2010 to 2015 different is there were two parties of Government. The people decided to rage against the moral yellow crusaders for daring to govern at national level.
So, now the Libs are out of power, local influence seeps back. So, naturally the new party of Govt, the blues lose a bit.
Labour in opinion pools are still at MOE of 2010 and 2015 elections. So are Tories. The challenges is that they are not picking up locally from not being party of Govt. That said, Labour will never die. The Unions and all Govt staff will be red until they die. So, the fight for the yellows will meander. Tories will never win local Govt in big, northern cities. Libs might. Libs can win in countryside where Labour is irrelevant.
My dream scenario is UKIP and Libs win share off Labour in Northern cities - Tories can't. Labour implode in Wales, A Plaid/Tory regional Govt. These two are far more likely than my other dreams that Labour dies in London.
Long live Corbyn, but even he can't kill the reds.
It depends what you mean by "government staff". Certainly the public sector unions and the front line parts of the public sector are firmly attached to labour. The rest of the public sector, from council officers through civil servants, the BBC and teachers etc tend to contain a lot of non-Tory people spread across (or prepared to float between) the various non-Tory parties.
Not to mention the Police and Armed Forces, not noted bastions of Corbynism in government employment.
The biggest threat to the Tories is the 30 somethings that are stuck in the economic doldrums with half the wealth of those that were a decade ahead of them. The twenty somethings too, as fox jr will agree.
Even if they are outvoted (and they will be by us baby-boomers) it is not a stable situation for the country.
The only 20 and 30 somethings that are significantly better off than their parents generation are the East European immigrants, even if less wealthy than their British counterparts.
IME police are very Tory, certainly at junior and mid ranking levels. The army, I am not so sure - people predominantly from WWC backgrounds but in a right-leaning environment. Because they are often away or in barracks I don't have much experience of canvassing them. Seats like aldershot suggest a strong bias towards Tory.
I've never understood the police and the tories, especially after austerity. It may be something to do with the demographics of where they recruit.
Trump's plan to focus in the next debate on Clinton's actions in relation to her husband's infidelities before he left the White House 16 years ago - it's a feint, right? Right?
I am wondering whether Trump is only capable of seeing a woman in terms of one thing.
She has held public office; he hasn't. Surely he could find something to criticise about her discharge of her responsibilities when she was in office?
We all know Trump is mentally ill. Is he trying to lose?
I don't think that he is mentally ill, just bonkers in the lay understanding.
I think he is torn between his ego and his knowledge that he cannot deliver what he has promised. If he thinks about it at all (and he doesn't strike me as the introspective type) he probably wants to lose by a narrow margin. Both victory or a Clinton landslide could break him.
The risk of this is an accidental victory, rather like Boris, and being left holding the baby.
He would hate to lose to a girl. He's already preparing his alibi. I can see him pulling out - "This is a rigged game and I'm not going to play it". If he does pull out, who replaces him and what are their chances against Clinton?
There is no replacement, ballots are set.
He won't cry "foul" until after he loses (if, indeed, he does) - then he surely will with a vengeance.
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
Those predictions were coming the week AFTER the vote when A50 was clearly not going to be activated for several months at the earliest.
Yet that didn't stop widespread claims that economic chaos was already starting with some spurious anecdotes supposedly backing that up.
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Yes, I'd hate to be a voter in the election.
its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do...
Clinton stands for everything I'm against. Curtailing freedoms, warmongering, positive discrimination and, of course, safe spaces. I would vote for any other republican candidate in this cycle and were Trump not such a terrible idea I'd vote for Johnson even if he is a bit clueless. I loathe everything Clinton stands for, Trump being an all round awful person doesn't change that fact.
Pretty much agree with every word of that. Also to add that if Trump wins, his mad ideas will be moderated by those around him, whereas if Hillary wins her mad ideas will be encouraged by those around her.
It truly is the Alien vs Predator election though. Can't the poor Americans have a RON option on the ballot?
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and agree re South West London and SW England!
My only caveat is that if UKIP remains strong in Cornwall/Devon, perhaps because Mrs May negotiates something less than full Brexit, then the Eurosceptic vote is split. In that scenario, the LibDems might sneak through the middle in a seat or two. (Especially if West country Labour voters are unenamoured with Mr Corbyn.)
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boindaries.
Right up to polling day, I thought the Lib Dems would hang on to 25 or so seats.
It seems I was the most pessimistic on LibDem prospects in 2015, and am the most optimistic now!
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Yes, I'd hate to be a voter in the election.
its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do...
Clinton stands for everything I'm against. Curtailing freedoms, warmongering, positive discrimination and, of course, safe spaces. I would vote for any other republican candidate in this cycle and were Trump not such a terrible idea I'd vote for Johnson even if he is a bit clueless. I loathe everything Clinton stands for, Trump being an all round awful person doesn't change that fact.
Pretty much agree with every word of that. Also to add that if Trump wins, his mad ideas will be moderated by those around him, whereas if Hillary wins her mad ideas will be encouraged by those around her.
It truly is the Alien vs Predator election though. Can't the poor Americans have a RON option on the ballot?
trump will be moderated???
this last weeks breakdown by him shows how that wpuld go
"its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do... "
Certainly a tough one. It would have to be the crazy fascist. If you can wrestle the phone off him, it shows he can be controlled.
Yes, better a crazy fascist than a low cold calculating fascist.
I don't think either candidate is a fascist, but if they were I would prefer the rational to the irrational one.
Cold cunning and calculating isnt necessarily rational and will get further before everyone takes exception and gangs up on them.
I don't accept your characterisation, but irrationality in the Commander of the worlds most powerful military is a significant concern.
Clinton may or may not have views on the "safe spaces" on campus, but that is not an issue for the POTUS. America has much more protection of free speech and expression via the Constitution than we do. Safe Spacers are tiresome bores but nothing more.
I can't find anything on Clinton saying anything about safe spaces and trigger points on campuses, or suggesting the restriction of free speech.
She has said that it is useful for professional women to have fora (safe spaces) where they can meet and discuss without being patronised and browbeaten by men. Fair enough I think.
He would hate to lose to a girl. He's already preparing his alibi. I can see him pulling out - "This is a rigged game and I'm not going to play it". If he does pull out, who replaces him and what are their chances against Clinton?
The right and far right have been shouting about how badly Clinton performed in office for years: not just the email server, but Benghazi - and if Trump mentions the latter, she won't be able to say "sorry, my bad" as she did with the emails. Instead, Trump says he's planning to focus on how she responded to her husband's infidelities 20-odd years ago. That could be a feint, but his tweets about Alicia Machado suggest that he has a very serious problem with women which could bring him down.
Trump sneers "Miss Housekeeping" at a Spanish-speaking former beauty contestant. Does he wish to forget that his own mother, Mary Macleod, worked for a time as a domestic servant? English was her second language - Scots Gaelic was her first - and she crossed the Atlantic in flight from poverty on her native Isle of Lewis.
The most likely person to replace him would be Mike Pence, I reckon. Many of the state courts would be less likely to try to stand on the rulebook when Pence stepping up would widely be viewed as fair. (Regardless of who the Republicans choose, if any state tries to say "no, sorry, too late", there would be the strong possibility of a federal court action to get relevant state laws declared unconstitutional.) The next most likely replacement would be Paul Ryan, whose "A Better Way" platform could be fashioned quite quickly into something presidential.
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
Those predictions were coming the week AFTER the vote when A50 was clearly not going to be activated for several months at the earliest.
Yet that didn't stop widespread claims that economic chaos was already starting with some spurious anecdotes supposedly backing that up.
Although most of the anecdotes and panic came from SeanT!
I wonder who is the biggest misogynist on this site.
I'm looking for someone who has an unreasonable prejudice against powerful women, - not only against Hillary Clinton but Theresa May and Angela Merkel as well. Any volunteers?
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
Those predictions were coming the week AFTER the vote when A50 was clearly not going to be activated for several months at the earliest.
Yet that didn't stop widespread claims that economic chaos was already starting with some spurious anecdotes supposedly backing that up.
Although most of the anecdotes and panic came from SeanT!
SeanT does always tend to the extreme:
" We have to be in the single market, to save the economy, to save the union. And if we have to be in the single market, we may as well be in the EEA. We're just gonna have to suck it up, re Free Movement, and try and do something on benefits as a pull-factor. And the EEA model is there, it can be taken down from the shelf and used almost at once. And we NEED to act fast as trust and confidence are ebbing away.
People on here might not believe it but I have friends who already losing lots of money, businesses wobbling etc
That's it. That's the choice, if we are going to LEAVE it's EEA. Once you grasp this it gets a lot easier.
The only alternatives are rerunning the referendum, or ignoring the result. "
I wonder how his money losing, business wobbling friends are doing now ?
I am though rather curious as to how MaxPB's share options turned out in the end:
" Well it's pretty glum in the office since a lot of us get paid our bonuses in options, the company share price isn't looking too hot at the moment. I don't think it's anything more than a temporary blip if we stay in the single market, without it we are looking at the break up of the Union and between 3 and 7 years of hard work to get us back on an even keel. "
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
snip
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Yes, I'd hate to be a voter in the election.
its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do...
Clinton stands for everything I'm against. Curtailing freedoms, warmongering, positive discrimination and, of course, safe spaces. I would vote for any other republican candidate in this cycle and were Trump not such a terrible idea I'd vote for Johnson even if he is a bit clueless. I loathe everything Clinton stands for, Trump being an all round awful person doesn't change that fact.
Pretty much agree with every word of that. Also to add that if Trump wins, his mad ideas will be moderated by those around him, whereas if Hillary wins her mad ideas will be encouraged by those around her.
It truly is the Alien vs Predator election though. Can't the poor Americans have a RON option on the ballot?
trump will be moderated???
this last weeks breakdown by him shows how that wpuld go
It all shows how easily he is baited. The Clinton operation during the debate was a masterclass. Imagine if an Iranian official calls him a rude name when he is POTUS: the military would be at DefCon 2 within minutes.
Trump is clearly, as a person, fundamentally unfit for high office.
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
Those predictions were coming the week AFTER the vote when A50 was clearly not going to be activated for several months at the earliest.
Yet that didn't stop widespread claims that economic chaos was already starting with some spurious anecdotes supposedly backing that up.
Although most of the anecdotes and panic came from SeanT!
IIRC SeanT's constistent prediction for the result was 58% Remain 42% Leave.
Voters vote for electors, not candidates. I wouldn't be so sure about what would happen if Trump pulls out before the vote.
It would be complete chaos if someone pulls out now, their opponent would probably win by default as the various court cases ensue.
We had this a few weeks ago when Hillary went sick, and the consensus was that not only would it be a constitutional nightmare, but that Betfair's market rules are way too ambiguous!
He would hate to lose to a girl. He's already preparing his alibi. I can see him pulling out - "This is a rigged game and I'm not going to play it". If he does pull out, who replaces him and what are their chances against Clinton?
The right and far right have been shouting about how badly Clinton performed in office for years: not just the email server, but Benghazi - and if Trump mentions the latter, she won't be able to say "sorry, my bad" as she did with the emails. Instead, Trump says he's planning to focus on how she responded to her husband's infidelities 20-odd years ago. That could be a feint, but his tweets about Alicia Machado suggest that he has a very serious problem with women which could bring him down.
Trump sneers "Miss Housekeeping" at a Spanish-speaking former beauty contestant. Does he wish to forget that his own mother, Mary Macleod, worked for a time as a domestic servant? English was her second language - Scots Gaelic was her first - and she crossed the Atlantic in flight from poverty on her native Isle of Lewis.
The most likely person to replace him would be Mike Pence, I reckon. Many of the state courts would be less likely to try to stand on the rulebook when Pence stepping up would widely be viewed as fair. (Regardless of who the Republicans choose, if any state tries to say "no, sorry, too late", there would be the strong possibility of a federal court action to get relevant state laws declared unconstitutional.) The next most likely replacement would be Paul Ryan, whose "A Better Way" platform could be fashioned quite quickly into something presidential.
It's almost impossible imagining Trump standing aside of his own volition, and if he doesn't then there's no way to shift him. Even if he did agree to go he'd still be on the ballot in a lot of places and the voters couldn't be sure they wouldn't get him anyhow, which would make the Republican side of the ticket a very unattractive prospect.
Hillary could pull out for ill health, but the Republicans are stuck with Trump.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and agree re South West London and SW England!
My only caveat is that if UKIP remains strong in Cornwall/Devon, perhaps because Mrs May negotiates something less than full Brexit, then the Eurosceptic vote is split. In that scenario, the LibDems might sneak through the middle in a seat or two. (Especially if West country Labour voters are unenamoured with Mr Corbyn.)
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boundaries.
A bit early to predict Lib Dem seats due to how the boundaries may work out and the anti-Corbyn effects, but FWIW my range is 1-20 on the new boundaries. My GE2015 forecast was under 25 for the Lib Dems so I was far too optimistic for them a year ago. Although way below most of the forecasts from Lib Dems on PB!
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
Those predictions were coming the week AFTER the vote when A50 was clearly not going to be activated for several months at the earliest.
Yet that didn't stop widespread claims that economic chaos was already starting with some spurious anecdotes supposedly backing that up.
Although most of the anecdotes and panic came from SeanT!
SeanT does always tend to the extreme:
" We have to be in the single market, to save the economy, to save the union. And if we have to be in the single market, we may as well be in the EEA. We're just gonna have to suck it up, re Free Movement, and try and do something on benefits as a pull-factor. And the EEA model is there, it can be taken down from the shelf and used almost at once. And we NEED to act fast as trust and confidence are ebbing away.
People on here might not believe it but I have friends who already losing lots of money, businesses wobbling etc
That's it. That's the choice, if we are going to LEAVE it's EEA. Once you grasp this it gets a lot easier.
The only alternatives are rerunning the referendum, or ignoring the result. "
I wonder how his money losing, business wobbling friends are doing now ?
I am though rather curious as to how MaxPB's share options turned out in the end:
" Well it's pretty glum in the office since a lot of us get paid our bonuses in options, the company share price isn't looking too hot at the moment. I don't think it's anything more than a temporary blip if we stay in the single market, without it we are looking at the break up of the Union and between 3 and 7 years of hard work to get us back on an even keel. "
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and agree re South West London and SW England!
My only caveat is that if UKIP remains strong in Cornwall/Devon, perhaps because Mrs May negotiates something less than full Brexit, then the Eurosceptic vote is split. In that scenario, the LibDems might sneak through the middle in a seat or two. (Especially if West country Labour voters are unenamoured with Mr Corbyn.)
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boundaries.
A bit early to predict Lib Dem seats due to how the boundaries may work out and the anti-Corbyn effects, but FWIW my range is 1-20 on the new boundaries. My GE2015 forecast was under 25 for the Lib Dems so I was far too optimistic for them a year ago. Although way below most of the forecasts from Lib Dems on PB!
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
David Herdson wrote (about LDs) "if they can’t take advantage in the next two years, they never will."
In the two previous councillor electoral cycles of 2013 and 2009, the Lib Dems lost several hundred cllr seats. Is there anything unique in those cycles that would mean that the aim for the LDs in 2017 should be for a net gain of 200 cllrs+ to recover some of the ground they have lost?
Comments
Edited extra bit: unsure if anyone follows this (and if you do you probably know already) but it seems there's no UK race in Formula E in the forthcoming season.
Surely that’s incoherent for International Socialists? We take the young, fit population from the country of origin leaving them with a proportionately larger cohort of elderly and unfit. Our only slight disadvantage is that demographic tends to be include more criminals.
But a true Trotskyite would insist on flying over the unproductive too to make up for that. Otherwise we are acting like Imperialists robbing the countries of their riches. I sense a large dose of hypocrisy here.
Ukip’s attitude is at least honest. They want the useful immigrant rather than the criminal or insane. You can, at least, maintain overseas aid to ease your conscience.
At the moment, Jezza is showing his true colours … he’s a Red Tory. Burn him.
As that bastion of communism, the Statue of Liberty says ….
Give me Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
To the barricades, brothers, send us your old gits too.
Come on, Mr McDonnell, Mr Tyson, Dr Palmer, defend your boys.
So, now the Libs are out of power, local influence seeps back. So, naturally the new party of Govt, the blues lose a bit.
Labour in opinion pools are still at MOE of 2010 and 2015 elections. So are Tories. The challenges is that they are not picking up locally from not being party of Govt. That said, Labour will never die. The Unions and all Govt staff will be red until they die. So, the fight for the yellows will meander. Tories will never win local Govt in big, northern cities. Libs might. Libs can win in countryside where Labour is irrelevant.
My dream scenario is UKIP and Libs win share off Labour in Northern cities - Tories can't. Labour implode in Wales, A Plaid/Tory regional Govt. These two are far more likely than my other dreams that Labour dies in London.
Long live Corbyn, but even he can't kill the reds.
What hard evidence have the Telegraph actually provided of Premiership managers behaving illicitly? All they have is a bunch of flaky agents who are now rowing back.
Meanwhile the Prem brand has taken a battering.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Telegraph was looking at a giant lawsuit here.
No one in their right mind should take the England Manager job. It is a hospital pass.
as Labour used to, we have a large and widespread base. 30% is our floor. What is LD base do we think?
Mr. Bedfordshire, lucky I didn't wolf-whistle anyone or the Sheriffs of Nottingham would come-a-calling.
The days when someone could engineer a dismissal at aged 64 and just refund you your 40 years contributions at an arbitary and derisory rate of interest are long gone in the post maxwell reforms.
Of course if you are dismissed for doing something highly financially damaging your former employer is quite entitled to sue you and force you to liquidate and hand over your assets including house and pension fund if they win, but that is surprisingly rare given that employers often have to pay out eye watering sums due to being vicariously liable for an employees action.
Whatever you think of his politics, there is no doubting the man's influence.
The biggest threat to the Tories is the 30 somethings that are stuck in the economic doldrums with half the wealth of those that were a decade ahead of them. The twenty somethings too, as fox jr will agree.
Even if they are outvoted (and they will be by us baby-boomers) it is not a stable situation for the country.
The only 20 and 30 somethings that are significantly better off than their parents generation are the East European immigrants, even if less wealthy than their British counterparts.
Does give credence to the theory that Friday is the day Trump is allowed to go off message.
Both these trackers are outliers IMO. The Fox poll seems on the money - Clinton around +4. Most of the national and state polls indicate a solid 2-3 point post debate bounce.
Early voting gives some useful indicators and presently seem to show a solid Clinton ground game with higher Dem registration turnout and poorer GOP enthusiasm. On the night New Hampshire will be the first swing state to give us a steer.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
"its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do... "
Certainly a tough one. It would have to be the crazy fascist. If you can wrestle the phone off him, it shows he can be controlled.
It's bizarre how so many genuinely want censorship over free speech.
What Merkel did last year with her open door policy was a huge mistake. This is now @HillaryClinton's model! https://t.co/SUZz6RAekU
https://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewtucker/colourised-photos-of-ellis-island-immigrants-from-the-ear?utm_term=.sm6MjP8PE#.jj9DgW1W4
Now presumably all voting for Trump or Clinton - or at least their descendants will be.
The Ellis Island museum was one of my favourite things in NYC.
I am wondering whether Trump is only capable of seeing a woman in terms of one thing.
She has held public office; he hasn't. Surely he could find something to criticise about her discharge of her responsibilities when she was in office?
We all know Trump is mentally ill. Is he trying to lose?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-law-review-report-beecroft
I think he is torn between his ego and his knowledge that he cannot deliver what he has promised. If he thinks about it at all (and he doesn't strike me as the introspective type) he probably wants to lose by a narrow margin. Both victory or a Clinton landslide could break him.
The risk of this is an accidental victory, rather like Boris, and being left holding the baby.
The problem lies with employers who think they can fire people at will and pay them nothing.
By and large, easy dismissal/high employment is a model that works better than making it very hard to dismiss, combined with low employment.
One thing about the 2015 GE polling (and perhaps relavent to the header) is that the polling error was purely in the Lab/Con split. The polls were pretty much spot on for LD,UKIP, Green, SNP etc. I think that the difference in the Lab/Con share was mostly because of the leadership ratings as only those 2 leaders could be PM. The implication of this is that Corbyn will cause Lab to significantly underperform the national polls, I would guess about 22% at present.
Immediate economic turmoil
The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy
Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labour-defence/
It might be worse as their loss of votes might be reduced in inner cities where they could afford to lose more and because in some areas because they are already at minimal levels.
He's already preparing his alibi.
I can see him pulling out - "This is a rigged game and I'm not going to play it".
If he does pull out, who replaces him and what are their chances against Clinton?
Does give credence to the theory that Friday is the day Trump is allowed to go off message. There is no replacement, ballots are set.
Clinton may or may not have views on the "safe spaces" on campus, but that is not an issue for the POTUS. America has much more protection of free speech and expression via the Constitution than we do. Safe Spacers are tiresome bores but nothing more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3816674/Can-t-shake-cough-Clinton-chokes-rally-minutes-s-aided-set-stairs.html
Yet that didn't stop widespread claims that economic chaos was already starting with some spurious anecdotes supposedly backing that up.
It truly is the Alien vs Predator election though. Can't the poor Americans have a RON option on the ballot?
https://twitter.com/awb58
Adam Watson Brown
" Someone in that party gets it."
(Anna Soubry brands Liam Fox's free trade speech 'delusional' )
"Things we never knew @BrexitBlogs"
UK ‘consistently waters down’ reforms of EU farming subsidies http://bit.ly/2dJases
this last weeks breakdown by him shows how that wpuld go
She has said that it is useful for professional women to have fora (safe spaces) where they can meet and discuss without being patronised and browbeaten by men. Fair enough I think.
Trump sneers "Miss Housekeeping" at a Spanish-speaking former beauty contestant. Does he wish to forget that his own mother, Mary Macleod, worked for a time as a domestic servant? English was her second language - Scots Gaelic was her first - and she crossed the Atlantic in flight from poverty on her native Isle of Lewis.
Will Trump - perhaps in the second debate - have a James Forrestal ("the Russians are coming") moment? Except it won't be the Russians; it will be the women.
The most likely person to replace him would be Mike Pence, I reckon. Many of the state courts would be less likely to try to stand on the rulebook when Pence stepping up would widely be viewed as fair. (Regardless of who the Republicans choose, if any state tries to say "no, sorry, too late", there would be the strong possibility of a federal court action to get relevant state laws declared unconstitutional.) The next most likely replacement would be Paul Ryan, whose "A Better Way" platform could be fashioned quite quickly into something presidential.
I'm looking for someone who has an unreasonable prejudice against powerful women, - not only against Hillary Clinton but Theresa May and Angela Merkel as well. Any volunteers?
" We have to be in the single market, to save the economy, to save the union. And if we have to be in the single market, we may as well be in the EEA. We're just gonna have to suck it up, re Free Movement, and try and do something on benefits as a pull-factor. And the EEA model is there, it can be taken down from the shelf and used almost at once. And we NEED to act fast as trust and confidence are ebbing away.
People on here might not believe it but I have friends who already losing lots of money, businesses wobbling etc
That's it. That's the choice, if we are going to LEAVE it's EEA. Once you grasp this it gets a lot easier.
The only alternatives are rerunning the referendum, or ignoring the result. "
I wonder how his money losing, business wobbling friends are doing now ?
I am though rather curious as to how MaxPB's share options turned out in the end:
" Well it's pretty glum in the office since a lot of us get paid our bonuses in options, the company share price isn't looking too hot at the moment. I don't think it's anything more than a temporary blip if we stay in the single market, without it we are looking at the break up of the Union and between 3 and 7 years of hard work to get us back on an even keel. "
Trump is clearly, as a person, fundamentally unfit for high office.
We had this a few weeks ago when Hillary went sick, and the consensus was that not only would it be a constitutional nightmare, but that Betfair's market rules are way too ambiguous!
Hillary could pull out for ill health, but the Republicans are stuck with Trump.
Fox is still out there Unicorn watching as far as I can see. Idiot.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3816822/Send-Nigel-Trump-flies-Farage-help-sharpen-debating-skills-clash-Hillary-Clinton.html
In the two previous councillor electoral cycles of 2013 and 2009, the Lib Dems lost several hundred cllr seats. Is there anything unique in those cycles that would mean that the aim for the LDs in 2017 should be for a net gain of 200 cllrs+ to recover some of the ground they have lost?