politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Fifty shades of grey voters. Corbyn’s punishing polling with o

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Fifty shades of grey voters. Corbyn’s punishing polling with older voters.

if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["jlWdo"]={},window.datawrapper["jlWdo"].embedDeltas={"100":914,"200":682,"300":595,"400":566,"500":537,"600":537,"700":508,"800":508,"900":508,"1000":508},window.datawrapper["jlWdo"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-jlWdo"),window.datawrapper["jlWdo"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["jlWdo"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["jlWdo"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("jlWdo"==b)window.datawrapper["jlWdo"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});

Read the full story here

tlg86

First out the door like the pasty eating goalkeeping coach.

Essexit

Second like Labour in Copeland.

Barnesian

Third like LibDems in Stoke

kle4

FPT:

Stoke Central is set to rank alongside Darlington in 1983 as one of the great by-elections of modern times

That statement may be a hostage to fortune.

Alistair

In preparation of 2020 Some Trump voter conversation anecdotes

http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters

Philip_Thompson

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

david_herdson

One of the joys of PB is working out who's written the thread before getting to the end. I guessed this one correctly off the first two words of the title. :-)

DavidL

These are truly massive leads. Those who voted for Corbyn, like Nick, really should be hanging their heads in shame at what they have done to their party and their country. But they seem remarkably reluctant to admit they made a terrible mistake.

Black_Rook

Labour's figures are absolutely dire amongst pensioners, but they're also a country mile behind amongst the over 50s as well. That's not a quarter of the electorate, it must be close to a half - and certainly a significant majority of all those who will turn out to vote, given that turnout is lower amongst the younger voter cohorts and miserably low amongst the under 25s.

It really is only FPTP that's keeping Labour in place as the dominant Opposition party now, and they seem to have no hope at all of returning to power in the foreseeable future without the help of the SNP - something that a very large fraction of the English electorate would loathe.

Boundary reform will erase a significant number of undersized Labour rotten boroughs in urban England and in Wales, and they're vulnerable to a swing of 5% or less in nearly 40 of their remaining seats under the latest available projections for the revised boundaries (mostly facing the Tories, with a small handful e.g. Cambridge versus other parties.) If Labour does go into a General Election under Corbyn, it will suffer an epoch-making defeat which will take at least two electoral cycles to recover from - even if that's possible, which must be open to question.

And if Scotland either secedes or begins to return Tory MPs again in numbers, then God help them.

rottenborough

Black_Rook said:

Labour's figures are absolutely dire amongst pensioners, but they're also a country mile behind amongst the over 50s as well. That's not a quarter of the electorate, it must be close to a half - and certainly a significant majority of all those who will turn out to vote, given that turnout is lower amongst the younger voter cohorts and miserably low amongst the under 25s.

It really is only FPTP that's keeping Labour in place as the dominant Opposition party now, and they seem to have no hope at all of returning to power in the foreseeable future without the help of the SNP - something that a very large fraction of the English electorate would loathe.

Boundary reform will erase a significant number of undersized Labour rotten boroughs in urban England and in Wales, and they're vulnerable to a swing of 5% or less in nearly 40 of their remaining seats under the latest available projections for the revised boundaries (mostly facing the Tories, with a small handful e.g. Cambridge versus other parties.) If Labour does go into a General Election under Corbyn, it will suffer an epoch-making defeat which will take at least two electoral cycles to recover from - even if that's possible, which must be open to question.

And if Scotland either secedes or begins to return Tory MPs again in numbers, then God help them.

All this is before we have a five week GE campaign!! Corbyn's numbers can only go one way when he's under furious assault from Tories and newspapers over IRA, Hamas, bankrupting the BoE etc

Big_G_NorthWales

Black_Rook said:

Labour's figures are absolutely dire amongst pensioners, but they're also a country mile behind amongst the over 50s as well. That's not a quarter of the electorate, it must be close to a half - and certainly a significant majority of all those who will turn out to vote, given that turnout is lower amongst the younger voter cohorts and miserably low amongst the under 25s.

It really is only FPTP that's keeping Labour in place as the dominant Opposition party now, and they seem to have no hope at all of returning to power in the foreseeable future without the help of the SNP - something that a very large fraction of the English electorate would loathe.

Boundary reform will erase a significant number of undersized Labour rotten boroughs in urban England and in Wales, and they're vulnerable to a swing of 5% or less in nearly 40 of their remaining seats under the latest available projections for the revised boundaries (mostly facing the Tories, with a small handful e.g. Cambridge versus other parties.) If Labour does go into a General Election under Corbyn, it will suffer an epoch-making defeat which will take at least two electoral cycles to recover from - even if that's possible, which must be open to question.

And if Scotland either secedes or begins to return Tory MPs again in numbers, then God help them.

North East Scotland and the borders are turning Tory.

Ruth Davidson will benefit from the Union and not being the labour party vote

Morris_Dancer

Grim graphs for Jezbollah.

Richard_Nabavi

It's all very satisfactory, all things considered.

rottenborough

Morris_Dancer said:

Grim graphs for Jezbollah.

Doubt they will care. After all as one of them said today: "The democratic road to socialism is not the same as the parliamentary road.”

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Borough, who said that?

Alanbrooke

It's been a constant of my adult life that lefties of my age (fiftes ) who grew up in that Thatcher era and who have been a majority in my age group for most of that time promised that their generation would displace the oldies and install a leftie hegemony

Looks like its bollocks and Mrs T was correct, the facts of life are conservative.

Dixie

Jezza leading Labour is good for the country. Labour will never die unless a strong alternative arises. It might be the Libs in England. It would need to be Plaid Cymru in wales. Otherwise, post Corbyn will see the rise of the evil reds again

Black_Rook

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Black_Rook said:

Labour's figures are absolutely dire amongst pensioners, but they're also a country mile behind amongst the over 50s as well. That's not a quarter of the electorate, it must be close to a half - and certainly a significant majority of all those who will turn out to vote, given that turnout is lower amongst the younger voter cohorts and miserably low amongst the under 25s.

It really is only FPTP that's keeping Labour in place as the dominant Opposition party now, and they seem to have no hope at all of returning to power in the foreseeable future without the help of the SNP - something that a very large fraction of the English electorate would loathe.

Boundary reform will erase a significant number of undersized Labour rotten boroughs in urban England and in Wales, and they're vulnerable to a swing of 5% or less in nearly 40 of their remaining seats under the latest available projections for the revised boundaries (mostly facing the Tories, with a small handful e.g. Cambridge versus other parties.) If Labour does go into a General Election under Corbyn, it will suffer an epoch-making defeat which will take at least two electoral cycles to recover from - even if that's possible, which must be open to question.

And if Scotland either secedes or begins to return Tory MPs again in numbers, then God help them.

North East Scotland and the borders are turning Tory.

Ruth Davidson will benefit from the Union and not being the labour party vote

On the revised boundaries only six of what would be the SNP's 52 notional seats (i.e. every one in Scotland, apart from Orkney & Shetland) can be won on a swing of 5% or less to the leading Unionist party in that constituency. The three in the far South, two in Edinburgh, and one in the far North.

One would like to think that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could make more progress than that outside of Greater Glasgow, but the SNP are extremely strong and still appear to have all of the 45% in the bag.

If Scotland stays in the Union then it is possible that it will keep returning solid blocs of SNP MPs ad infinitum, a little bit like what happened with the IPP in late 19th/early 20th century Ireland. But I don't rule out the possibility of more Unionist gains if Labour dwindles further and more anti-SNP electors demonstrate willingness to vote tactically.

DavidL

Will there come a day when Corbyn thinks, you know, maybe I am not very good at this? I suspect all indications to the contrary, there will and that the end will come suddenly. Friday would be a good day if Labour loses either of these bye elections.

williamglenn

Alanbrooke said:

It's been a constant of my adult life that lefties of my age (fiftes ) who grew up in that Thatcher era and who have been a majority in my age group for most of that time promised that their generation would displace the oldies and install a leftie hegemony

Looks like its bollocks and Mrs T was correct, the facts of life are conservative.

I don't know about that Mr Brooke. The people have voted to escape from the fiscally conservative vice-like grip of the European Union. They must long to revert to the stolen socialist system of the 70s.

FrancisUrquhart

Tap mic...sniff sniff... WRONNNNNGG ...... 21st Century Socialism sweeping the nation.

The_Apocalypse

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

FrancisUrquhart

A British IS fighter who died in a suicide bomb attack on Iraqi forces in Mosul is a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, the BBC understands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39045923

Wonder what happened to the million quid we gave this terrorist?

Scott_P

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

TheScreamingEagles

david_herdson said:

One of the joys of PB is working out who's written the thread before getting to the end. I guessed this one correctly off the first two words of the title. :-)

I wasn't my usual subtle self with this thread.

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

Will there come a day when Corbyn thinks, you know, maybe I am not very good at this? I suspect all indications to the contrary, there will and that the end will come suddenly. Friday would be a good day if Labour loses either of these bye elections.

Corbyn has done fine in any sort of real vote that matters, particularly compared to expectations. I think if Copeland or Stoke goes he might reflect on the matter.

Yorkcity

Alanbrooke said:

It's been a constant of my adult life that lefties of my age (fiftes ) who grew up in that Thatcher era and who have been a majority in my age group for most of that time promised that their generation would displace the oldies and install a leftie hegemony

Looks like its bollocks and Mrs T was correct, the facts of life are conservative.

Agreed for England.

TheWhiteRabbit

Dixie said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Rabbit, interesting stats. Damned shame our debt interest payments are so high.

Only if you think that a penny spent on interest is too much. Interest payments are, for the time being, in check.

Today's news has brought forward quite considerably the day when the UK will be running a surplus.

when do you think UK will break even?

2019/20. It does to some extent depend on governmental spending plans, but I suspect we will see a much reduced programme of government in the next two years as far as that is concerned.

FrancisUrquhart

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

In other words, it is in the bag for Labour.

Black_Rook

rottenborough said:

Black_Rook said:

Labour's figures are absolutely dire amongst pensioners, but they're also a country mile behind amongst the over 50s as well. That's not a quarter of the electorate, it must be close to a half - and certainly a significant majority of all those who will turn out to vote, given that turnout is lower amongst the younger voter cohorts and miserably low amongst the under 25s.

It really is only FPTP that's keeping Labour in place as the dominant Opposition party now, and they seem to have no hope at all of returning to power in the foreseeable future without the help of the SNP - something that a very large fraction of the English electorate would loathe.

Boundary reform will erase a significant number of undersized Labour rotten boroughs in urban England and in Wales, and they're vulnerable to a swing of 5% or less in nearly 40 of their remaining seats under the latest available projections for the revised boundaries (mostly facing the Tories, with a small handful e.g. Cambridge versus other parties.) If Labour does go into a General Election under Corbyn, it will suffer an epoch-making defeat which will take at least two electoral cycles to recover from - even if that's possible, which must be open to question.

And if Scotland either secedes or begins to return Tory MPs again in numbers, then God help them.

All this is before we have a five week GE campaign!! Corbyn's numbers can only go one way when he's under furious assault from Tories and newspapers over IRA, Hamas, bankrupting the BoE etc

I imagine that the main reason why the Conservatives haven't been launching an awful lot more personal attacks on Corbyn and his inner circle is that they are keeping their powder dry for the short campaign. A programme of newspaper and billboard adverts featuring photographs of him taking tea with Gerry Adams, one or two of his more choice pro-IRA quotes, and the black and white images of numerous terrorist murder victims, should do extraordinary things to Labour's ratings. And they'll deserve everything that's coming to them.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/833959818079719425

Dixie

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Dixie said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Rabbit, interesting stats. Damned shame our debt interest payments are so high.

Only if you think that a penny spent on interest is too much. Interest payments are, for the time being, in check.

Today's news has brought forward quite considerably the day when the UK will be running a surplus.

when do you think UK will break even?

2019/20. It does to some extent depend on governmental spending plans, but I suspect we will see a much reduced programme of government in the next two years as far as that is concerned.

thank you

Pulpstar

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

I can't believe for a moment this is correct, Labour are looking at a 1931 type result at the next GE if Corbyn is still in charge anyway (If it is)

DavidL

Black_Rook said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Black_Rook said:

Labour's figures are absolutely dire amongst pensioners, but they're also a country mile behind amongst the over 50s as well. That's not a quarter of the electorate, it must be close to a half - and certainly a significant majority of all those who will turn out to vote, given that turnout is lower amongst the younger voter cohorts and miserably low amongst the under 25s.

It really is only FPTP that's keeping Labour in place as the dominant Opposition party now, and they seem to have no hope at all of returning to power in the foreseeable future without the help of the SNP - something that a very large fraction of the English electorate would loathe.

Boundary reform will erase a significant number of undersized Labour rotten boroughs in urban England and in Wales, and they're vulnerable to a swing of 5% or less in nearly 40 of their remaining seats under the latest available projections for the revised boundaries (mostly facing the Tories, with a small handful e.g. Cambridge versus other parties.) If Labour does go into a General Election under Corbyn, it will suffer an epoch-making defeat which will take at least two electoral cycles to recover from - even if that's possible, which must be open to question.

And if Scotland either secedes or begins to return Tory MPs again in numbers, then God help them.

North East Scotland and the borders are turning Tory.

Ruth Davidson will benefit from the Union and not being the labour party vote

On the revised boundaries only six of what would be the SNP's 52 notional seats (i.e. every one in Scotland, apart from Orkney & Shetland) can be won on a swing of 5% or less to the leading Unionist party in that constituency. The three in the far South, two in Edinburgh, and one in the far North.

One would like to think that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could make more progress than that outside of Greater Glasgow, but the SNP are extremely strong and still appear to have all of the 45% in the bag.

If Scotland stays in the Union then it is possible that it will keep returning solid blocs of SNP MPs ad infinitum, a little bit like what happened with the IPP in late 19th/early 20th century Ireland. But I don't rule out the possibility of more Unionist gains if Labour dwindles further and more anti-SNP electors demonstrate willingness to vote tactically.

Perth and north tayside, Kincardine and Deeside, Banff and Buchan, maybe even Moray are looking as vulnerable as the border seats. Look at the swings against the SNP at the Holyrood elections. Of course whilst the SNP sweep up greater Glasgow they won't really mind that much.

Dixie

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

they might fear it. But what are the stats I wonder? Is that why Mrs May went there?

TheWhiteRabbit

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

I can't believe for a moment this is correct, Labour are looking at a 1931 type result at the next GE if Corbyn is still in charge anyway (If it is)

Dixie said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

they might fear it. But what are the stats I wonder? Is that why Mrs May went there?

Risk assessment = likelihood x harm ?

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Black_Rook said:

Labour's figures are absolutely dire amongst pensioners, but they're also a country mile behind amongst the over 50s as well. That's not a quarter of the electorate, it must be close to a half - and certainly a significant majority of all those who will turn out to vote, given that turnout is lower amongst the younger voter cohorts and miserably low amongst the under 25s.

It really is only FPTP that's keeping Labour in place as the dominant Opposition party now, and they seem to have no hope at all of returning to power in the foreseeable future without the help of the SNP - something that a very large fraction of the English electorate would loathe.

Boundary reform will erase a significant number of undersized Labour rotten boroughs in urban England and in Wales, and they're vulnerable to a swing of 5% or less in nearly 40 of their remaining seats under the latest available projections for the revised boundaries (mostly facing the Tories, with a small handful e.g. Cambridge versus other parties.) If Labour does go into a General Election under Corbyn, it will suffer an epoch-making defeat which will take at least two electoral cycles to recover from - even if that's possible, which must be open to question.

And if Scotland either secedes or begins to return Tory MPs again in numbers, then God help them.

North East Scotland and the borders are turning Tory.

Ruth Davidson will benefit from the Union and not being the labour party vote

On the revised boundaries only six of what would be the SNP's 52 notional seats (i.e. every one in Scotland, apart from Orkney & Shetland) can be won on a swing of 5% or less to the leading Unionist party in that constituency. The three in the far South, two in Edinburgh, and one in the far North.

One would like to think that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could make more progress than that outside of Greater Glasgow, but the SNP are extremely strong and still appear to have all of the 45% in the bag.

If Scotland stays in the Union then it is possible that it will keep returning solid blocs of SNP MPs ad infinitum, a little bit like what happened with the IPP in late 19th/early 20th century Ireland. But I don't rule out the possibility of more Unionist gains if Labour dwindles further and more anti-SNP electors demonstrate willingness to vote tactically.

Perth and north tayside, Kincardine and Deeside, Banff and Buchan, maybe even Moray are looking as vulnerable as the border seats. Look at the swings against the SNP at the Holyrood elections. Of course whilst the SNP sweep up greater Glasgow they won't really mind that much.

This May will mark the annihilation of Labour at a local council level in greater Glasgow I'm guessing.

Dixie

If Tories win Stoke I will go all Kevin Keegan versus Man Utd.


http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11678/10259198/kevin-keegans-i-will-love-it-rant-still-so-memorable-20-years-on

The_Apocalypse

The issue for Labour isn't even whether they hated, or even them being 'too leftwing'. It's that simply people don't about the Labour Party. Regardless of whatever stupid things Corbyn believes, because he and those around him radiate incompetence, people aren't giving him a hearing anyway.

Sandpit

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

Ooh, go on. That result would be hilarious, if it wasn't for the fact that it would pile the pressure on Corbyn to go.

Pulpstar

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

I can't believe for a moment this is correct, Labour are looking at a 1931 type result at the next GE if Corbyn is still in charge anyway (If it is)

Dixie said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

they might fear it. But what are the stats I wonder? Is that why Mrs May went there?

Risk assessment = likelihood x harm ?

Losing STOKE in a BE to the TORIES could well forbode an ELE at the next GE.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, you're as subtle as a ferret in custard.

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

One of the joys of PB is working out who's written the thread before getting to the end. I guessed this one correctly off the first two words of the title. :-)

I wasn't my usual subtle self with this thread.

That was about as subtle as your pop music references!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Pulpstar, ELE?

Yorkcity

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

They are when the Conservative are so pragmatic that they take on parts of Ed Millibands agenda.They are always power as they have influence way beyond parliament.

SimonStClare

Gruesome polling for Corbyn, - at least he’s sown up the dead but unburied vote...

Pulpstar

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, ELE?

Extinction level event

isam

The_Apocalypse said:

The issue for Labour isn't even whether they hated, or even them being 'too leftwing'. It's that simply people don't about the Labour Party. Regardless of whatever stupid things Corbyn believes, because he and those around him radiate incompetence, people aren't giving him a hearing anyway.

"Don't care" do you mean?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Pulpstar, not sure I agree. Even with Corbyn in place, I can't see the Lib Dems/UKIP taking sufficient bites out of Labour.

Alistair

DavidL said:

Perth and north tayside, Kincardine and Deeside, Banff and Buchan, maybe even Moray are looking as vulnerable as the border seats. Look at the swings against the SNP at the Holyrood elections. Of course whilst the SNP sweep up greater Glasgow they won't really mind that much.

The Holyrood swings were created by differential turnout where Cons were extremely motivated, a surge of 50% turnout t 55% turnouy where Cons captured almost the entirety of the rise. The actual vote counts saw the SNP static or even rise in most seats. The only falls were piddling sub-thousand figures.

tlg86

FrancisUrquhart said:

A British IS fighter who died in a suicide bomb attack on Iraqi forces in Mosul is a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, the BBC understands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39045923

Wonder what happened to the million quid we gave this terrorist?

Unbelievable.

Dixie

Actually, I am all Kevin Keegan now.

If Tories win, I will go all Norwegian football commentator when they beat England.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqZTP8-8wIs

Roger

I know he's a spiv fantasist borderline racist and all round unpleasant person but I really felt sorry for Paul Nuttall trudging round Stoke this evening.

I once did an ad using a famous snooker player who had been on the front page of the Sun after being photographed sneaking out of a woman's hotel room just before a semi final and I always remember him saying that it was really horrible and he couldn't stop thinking that everyone in the hall was looking at his groin.

It stuck in my head and after Nuttall's humiliation I can't help wondering how he must be feeling.

Pulpstar

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, not sure I agree. Even with Corbyn in place, I can't see the Lib Dems/UKIP taking sufficient bites out of Labour.

Its not UKIP/Labour that would be taking bites out of Labour (Except maybe Cambridge and some other Labour seats), it'll be the Tories romping home to 450/500+ seats.

This clearly implied corollary with by-election swingback still to come is why I can't believe the Tories are about to gain stoke in the first place.

tlg86

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, ELE?

You haven't seen Deep Impact?

TheScreamingEagles

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

One of the joys of PB is working out who's written the thread before getting to the end. I guessed this one correctly off the first two words of the title. :-)

I wasn't my usual subtle self with this thread.

That was about as subtle as your pop music references!

I've decided to go for film and tv show references from now on.

The_Apocalypse

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

They are when the Conservative are so pragmatic that they take on parts of Ed Millibands agenda.They are always power as they have influence way beyond parliament.

That's an interesting analysis, given that we are told by some that the political establishment is not Conservative but a 'liberal elite'.

Re taking on a part of Ed Miliband's agenda - that doesn't make the agenda a 'conservative' one. Socialised medicine hasn't become a part of Conservative ideology because the Conservatives won't get rid of the NHS.

I agree the Conservatives are good at keeping power - but that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative'

Richard_Nabavi

The_Apocalypse said:

Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

What's the difference?

isam

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

A British IS fighter who died in a suicide bomb attack on Iraqi forces in Mosul is a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, the BBC understands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39045923

Wonder what happened to the million quid we gave this terrorist?

Unbelievable.

...and old people are dyng in hospital corridors

Philip_Thompson

Pulpstar said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, not sure I agree. Even with Corbyn in place, I can't see the Lib Dems/UKIP taking sufficient bites out of Labour.

Its not UKIP/Labour that would be taking bites out of Labour (Except maybe Cambridge and some other Labour seats), it'll be the Tories romping home to 450/500+ seats.

This clearly implied corollary with by-election swingback still to come is why I can't believe the Tories are about to gain stoke in the first place.

That's a lot more than Blair got with incredibly favourable boundaries in 1997!

The_Apocalypse

isam said:

The_Apocalypse said:

The issue for Labour isn't even whether they hated, or even them being 'too leftwing'. It's that simply people don't about the Labour Party. Regardless of whatever stupid things Corbyn believes, because he and those around him radiate incompetence, people aren't giving him a hearing anyway.

"Don't care" do you mean?

Yes. It's an accidental word omission.

Pong

Roger said:

I know he's a spiv fantasist borderline racist and all round unpleasant person but I really felt sorry for Paul Nuttall trudging round Stoke this evening.

I once did an ad using a famous snooker player who had been on the front page of the Sun after being photographed sneaking out of a woman's hotel room just before a semi final and I always remember him saying that it was really horrible and he couldn't stop thinking that everyone in the hall was looking at his groin.

It stuck in my head and after Nuttall's humiliation I can't help wondering how he must be feeling.

Yes.

You've captured my own emotions quite well there.

I feel *sorry* for Paul Nuttall.

I detest his politics and really want to hate him. I expected to hate him.

But I don't hate him.

I just feel sorry for him.

Mortimer

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

I can't believe for a moment this is correct, Labour are looking at a 1931 type result at the next GE if Corbyn is still in charge anyway (If it is)

Dixie said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

they might fear it. But what are the stats I wonder? Is that why Mrs May went there?

Risk assessment = likelihood x harm ?

Losing STOKE in a BE to the TORIES could well forbode an ELE at the next GE.

I am very happy to have bought Con (at 4) for 15 quid a point on the SPIN Stoke by election index (25 for a win, 10 for 2nd place)

isam

Roger said:

I know he's a spiv fantasist borderline racist and all round unpleasant person but I really felt sorry for Paul Nuttall trudging round Stoke this evening.

I once did an ad using a famous snooker player who had been on the front page of the Sun after being photographed sneaking out of a woman's hotel room just before a semi final and I always remember him saying that it was really horrible and he couldn't stop thinking that everyone in the hall was looking at his groin.

It stuck in my head and after Nuttall's humiliation I can't help wondering how he must be feeling.

Especially as the story was a smear from the Guardian accusing him of faking being at Hillsborough all along, when it is now accepted he was

DavidL

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Perth and north tayside, Kincardine and Deeside, Banff and Buchan, maybe even Moray are looking as vulnerable as the border seats. Look at the swings against the SNP at the Holyrood elections. Of course whilst the SNP sweep up greater Glasgow they won't really mind that much.

The Holyrood swings were created by differential turnout where Cons were extremely motivated, a surge of 50% turnout t 55% turnouy where Cons captured almost the entirety of the rise. The actual vote counts saw the SNP static or even rise in most seats. The only falls were piddling sub-thousand figures.

It was not just a question of motivated Tories but the collation of the Unionist vote. And that is how the SNP can be defeated, at least in certain parts of the country. As they move left and replace Labour opportunities will arise.

The_Apocalypse

Also, it was great to hear that Macron met Theresa May today. Hopefully he'll get elected as French President this Spring.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 86, no. Not much of a filmgoer.

Mr. Pulpstar, can't see that either, to be honest. Corbyn definitely helps the Conservatives, but 500 seats would be a majority, in a 600 seat Parliament, of 400.

An extinction level event might be an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs. The above result would be more like what Grand Moff Tarkin did to Alderaan.

isam

The_Apocalypse said:

isam said:

The_Apocalypse said:

The issue for Labour isn't even whether they hated, or even them being 'too leftwing'. It's that simply people don't about the Labour Party. Regardless of whatever stupid things Corbyn believes, because he and those around him radiate incompetence, people aren't giving him a hearing anyway.

"Don't care" do you mean?

Yes. It's an accidental word omission.

Yes thought so. Didn't make sense without it, so thought I would check. I tend to agree, Corbyn's Labour aren't really relevant and aren't taken seriously.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/834083980681019392

isam

Pong said:

Roger said:

I know he's a spiv fantasist borderline racist and all round unpleasant person but I really felt sorry for Paul Nuttall trudging round Stoke this evening.

I once did an ad using a famous snooker player who had been on the front page of the Sun after being photographed sneaking out of a woman's hotel room just before a semi final and I always remember him saying that it was really horrible and he couldn't stop thinking that everyone in the hall was looking at his groin.

It stuck in my head and after Nuttall's humiliation I can't help wondering how he must be feeling.

Yes.

You've captured my own emotions quite well there.

I feel *sorry* for Paul Nuttall.

I detest his politics and really want to hate him. I expected to hate him.

But I don't hate him.

I just feel sorry for him.

Hmm that seems like a form of damning with faint praise, that you think seems genuine? Apologies if not so

You should feel sorry for him. He was a Liverpool fan at Hillsborough that everyone is accusing of not having been there, with no evidence, because they disagree with his politics. If he were a regular joe on the street it would be condemned by all and sundry, esp those who promote the deceit.

Sandpit

Mortimer said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

I can't believe for a moment this is correct, Labour are looking at a 1931 type result at the next GE if Corbyn is still in charge anyway (If it is)

Dixie said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

they might fear it. But what are the stats I wonder? Is that why Mrs May went there?

Risk assessment = likelihood x harm ?

Losing STOKE in a BE to the TORIES could well forbode an ELE at the next GE.

I am very happy to have bought Con (at 4) for 15 quid a point on the SPIN Stoke by election index (25 for a win, 10 for 2nd place)

Another three days of Nuttall and Snell trying to outdo each other for the "Who can be the crappest and most unelectable politician in Stoke?" award, and the Tories could well sneak through the middle with their 25-year-old nobody candidate. Which would be absolutely bloody hilarious!

Dixie

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

I can't believe for a moment this is correct, Labour are looking at a 1931 type result at the next GE if Corbyn is still in charge anyway (If it is)

Dixie said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

they might fear it. But what are the stats I wonder? Is that why Mrs May went there?

Risk assessment = likelihood x harm ?

A worry is not a fact though. I can't see it. Stoke has got no form as a Tory area. No previous.

Yorkcity

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

They are when the Conservative are so pragmatic that they take on parts of Ed Millibands agenda.They are always power as they have influence way beyond parliament.

That's an interesting analysis, given that we are told by some that the political establishment is not Conservative but a 'liberal elite'.

Re taking on a part of Ed Miliband's agenda - that doesn't make the agenda a 'conservative' one. Socialised medicine hasn't become a part of Conservative ideology because the Conservatives won't get rid of the NHS.

I agree the Conservatives are good at keeping power - but that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative'

They are because the conservatives are so pragmatic to change without the need to consult the membership which is their great strength. Whatever the leadership says goes and they follow.So for example against minimum wage change, against devolution change.The goal is power and influence and they are the best at it.

rcs1000

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Perth and north tayside, Kincardine and Deeside, Banff and Buchan, maybe even Moray are looking as vulnerable as the border seats. Look at the swings against the SNP at the Holyrood elections. Of course whilst the SNP sweep up greater Glasgow they won't really mind that much.

The Holyrood swings were created by differential turnout where Cons were extremely motivated, a surge of 50% turnout t 55% turnouy where Cons captured almost the entirety of the rise. The actual vote counts saw the SNP static or even rise in most seats. The only falls were piddling sub-thousand figures.

In the Perth seat the LibDems gained they only got 1,000 less than the SNP did in the General Election, and on a slightly smaller constituency, so that looks vulnerable.

The_Apocalypse

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

What's the difference?

Well voting for someone because they are the 'least worst option' is hardly a ringing endorsement of Conservative ideology. Recent data (YouGov) shows that for all the 'facts of life are Conservative argument', the Conservatives are disliked as party, just as all the other parties are. Labour are disliked more, but still. Most voters aren't subscribing to any party's set ideology, they just vote for someone who isn't the other guy. When I voted Labour in 2015, I didn't do so because I thought the facts of life were socialism. I did so because Ed Miliband wasn't David Cameron (and I was concerned about the Tory welfare policy).

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, a year older than Pitt when he became PM. Eight years older than Alexander when he commanded the cavalry at the Battle of Chaeronea. Nine years older than the Black Prince at Crecy.

Pulpstar

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, not sure I agree. Even with Corbyn in place, I can't see the Lib Dems/UKIP taking sufficient bites out of Labour.

Its not UKIP/Labour that would be taking bites out of Labour (Except maybe Cambridge and some other Labour seats), it'll be the Tories romping home to 450/500+ seats.

This clearly implied corollary with by-election swingback still to come is why I can't believe the Tories are about to gain stoke in the first place.

That's a lot more than Blair got with incredibly favourable boundaries in 1997!

The Conservative position improved a fair whack (And they were the Gov't at the time) from an aggregate of the 92-97 by-election results.

An 8.4+% swing from the principle opposition party (For the moment I guess) towards the government to gain the seat in a by-election ?!?
Never remotely like that has ever happened before.

We're into uncharted waters IF that happens, which is why I doubt it will.

Black_Rook

DavidL said:

Perth and north tayside, Kincardine and Deeside, Banff and Buchan, maybe even Moray are looking as vulnerable as the border seats. Look at the swings against the SNP at the Holyrood elections. Of course whilst the SNP sweep up greater Glasgow they won't really mind that much.

I'm cognisant of the progress made by the Conservatives (and the odd one or two Lib Dem constituency wins) at Holyrood last year, but that election is for a very powerful devolved Parliament that actually runs most of the things that matter in day-to-day life in Scotland now. Westminster elections are vulnerable to the "pick somebody to stand up for Scotland in London" argument, which the SNP is best poised to benefit from.

The fact that the SNP MPs achieve practically nothing is entirely incidental. The voters who send them there mostly aren't paying any attention to what happens at Westminster anymore, and the main purpose for the party of having its bloc in the Commons is to hope that they one day control the balance of power in a Hung Parliament - so that they can exploit the situation to try to goad England into telling Scotland to fuck off. Until then they just sit tight and collect the Short Money.

It would be nice to think that Unionist parties could make significant inroads at a General Election in Scotland, but I'll believe it when I see it. Certainly, it's entirely possible that the Westminster electoral map up there may not change for many decades.

Malmesbury

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

They are when the Conservative are so pragmatic that they take on parts of Ed Millibands agenda.They are always power as they have influence way beyond parliament.

That's an interesting analysis, given that we are told by some that the political establishment is not Conservative but a 'liberal elite'.

Re taking on a part of Ed Miliband's agenda - that doesn't make the agenda a 'conservative' one. Socialised medicine hasn't become a part of Conservative ideology because the Conservatives won't get rid of the NHS.

I agree the Conservatives are good at keeping power - but that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative'

From the 1945 Conservative manifesto -

"The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.

We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament."

MarkSenior

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Black_Rook said:

Labour's figures are absolutely dire amongst pensioners, but they're also a country mile behind amongst the over 50s as well. That's not a quarter of the electorate, it must be close to a half - and certainly a significant majority of all those who will turn out to vote, given that turnout is lower amongst the younger voter cohorts and miserably low amongst the under 25s.

It really is only FPTP that's keeping Labour in place as the dominant Opposition party now, and they seem to have no hope at all of returning to power in the foreseeable future without the help of the SNP - something that a very large fraction of the English electorate would loathe.

Boundary reform will erase a significant number of undersized Labour rotten boroughs in urban England and in Wales, and they're vulnerable to a swing of 5% or less in nearly 40 of their remaining seats under the latest available projections for the revised boundaries (mostly facing the Tories, with a small handful e.g. Cambridge versus other parties.) If Labour does go into a General Election under Corbyn, it will suffer an epoch-making defeat which will take at least two electoral cycles to recover from - even if that's possible, which must be open to question.

And if Scotland either secedes or begins to return Tory MPs again in numbers, then God help them.

If Scotland stays in the Union then it is possible that it will keep returning solid blocs of SNP MPs ad infinitum, a little bit like what happened with the IPP in late 19th/early 20th century Ireland. But I don't rule out the possibility of more Unionist gains if Labour dwindles further and more anti-SNP electors demonstrate willingness to vote tactically.

Perth and north tayside, Kincardine and Deeside, Banff and Buchan, maybe even Moray are looking as vulnerable as the border seats. Look at the swings against the SNP at the Holyrood elections. Of course whilst the SNP sweep up greater Glasgow they won't really mind that much.

This May will mark the annihilation of Labour at a local council level in greater Glasgow I'm guessing.

Unfortunately it will not . There is enough residual support to give them 1 seat in virtually all the 3/4 member STV wards . They will lose plenty of seats where they will go down from 2 councillors in a ward to 1 .

Alanbrooke

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

They are when the Conservative are so pragmatic that they take on parts of Ed Millibands agenda.They are always power as they have influence way beyond parliament.

That's an interesting analysis, given that we are told by some that the political establishment is not Conservative but a 'liberal elite'.

Re taking on a part of Ed Miliband's agenda - that doesn't make the agenda a 'conservative' one. Socialised medicine hasn't become a part of Conservative ideology because the Conservatives won't get rid of the NHS.

I agree the Conservatives are good at keeping power - but that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative'

that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative

it's clearly worrying you

just think in 30 years you'll be happily remembering that nice Boris as you coiffe your blue rinse and go off you to your line dancing evening :-)

Alistair

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Perth and north tayside, Kincardine and Deeside, Banff and Buchan, maybe even Moray are looking as vulnerable as the border seats. Look at the swings against the SNP at the Holyrood elections. Of course whilst the SNP sweep up greater Glasgow they won't really mind that much.

The Holyrood swings were created by differential turnout where Cons were extremely motivated, a surge of 50% turnout t 55% turnouy where Cons captured almost the entirety of the rise. The actual vote counts saw the SNP static or even rise in most seats. The only falls were piddling sub-thousand figures.

It was not just a question of motivated Tories but the collation of the Unionist vote. And that is how the SNP can be defeated, at least in certain parts of the country. As they move left and replace Labour opportunities will arise.

Absolutely but there was no significant SNP-to-Con switchers, which was the stuff of breathless fantasy oft talked about post 2016 election. It is Con hoovering up Unionist votes due their excellent positioning as the Unionist party so large Lab/LD-to-Con swings.

The_Apocalypse

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

They are when the Conservative are so pragmatic that they take on parts of Ed Millibands agenda.They are always power as they have influence way beyond parliament.

That's an interesting analysis, given that we are told by some that the political establishment is not Conservative but a 'liberal elite'.

Re taking on a part of Ed Miliband's agenda - that doesn't make the agenda a 'conservative' one. Socialised medicine hasn't become a part of Conservative ideology because the Conservatives won't get rid of the NHS.

I agree the Conservatives are good at keeping power - but that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative'

They are because the conservatives are so pragmatic to change without the need to consult the membership which is their great strength. Whatever the leadership says goes and they follow.So for example against minimum wage change, against devolution change.The goal is power and influence and they are the best at it.

I'm not quite sure how the Conservative leadership after nearly ten years or so of New Labour deciding to become electable again means that the 'facts of life are Conservative'. All it shows is with politics things go in cycles.

Dixie

Sandpit said:

Mortimer said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

I can't believe for a moment this is correct, Labour are looking at a 1931 type result at the next GE if Corbyn is still in charge anyway (If it is)

Dixie said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

they might fear it. But what are the stats I wonder? Is that why Mrs May went there?

Risk assessment = likelihood x harm ?

Losing STOKE in a BE to the TORIES could well forbode an ELE at the next GE.

I am very happy to have bought Con (at 4) for 15 quid a point on the SPIN Stoke by election index (25 for a win, 10 for 2nd place)

Another three days of Nuttall and Snell trying to outdo each other for the "Who can be the crappest and most unelectable politician in Stoke?" award, and the Tories could well sneak through the middle with their 25-year-old nobody candidate. Which would be absolutely bloody hilarious!

Indeed. Laugh, laugh, laugh. Love it

Black_Rook

Sandpit said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

Ooh, go on. That result would be hilarious, if it wasn't for the fact that it would pile the pressure on Corbyn to go.

Indeed. The best possible result for the Tories is an outright win in Copeland, and beating Ukip well for second place in Stoke. The Government will want Jeremy Corbyn to go on being wounded, without ever falling to a fatal blow.

The_Apocalypse

Malmesbury said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

They are when the Conservative are so pragmatic that they take on parts of Ed Millibands agenda.They are always power as they have influence way beyond parliament.

That's an interesting analysis, given that we are told by some that the political establishment is not Conservative but a 'liberal elite'.

Re taking on a part of Ed Miliband's agenda - that doesn't make the agenda a 'conservative' one. Socialised medicine hasn't become a part of Conservative ideology because the Conservatives won't get rid of the NHS.

I agree the Conservatives are good at keeping power - but that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative'

From the 1945 Conservative manifesto -

"The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.

We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament."

I'm not disputing whether the Conservatives agreed with the Beveridge report or not. I'm stating that socialised medicine isn't a part of Conservative ideology - which isn't. The idea of a state-funded public health service is basically socialism, and Conservatives agreeing with that doesn't change that it is socialism.

Morris_Dancer

Ms. Apocalypse, reminds me of something I saw Stig Abell say on the Sky paper review a week or two ago (to the nodding of the others present), that the Conservatives do what they always do, sniff power, unite, be pragmatic etc.

It was just regurgitating a consensus, the orthodox view. It's not so long ago the Conservatives were tearing themselves apart and utterly disunited.

I do agree people tend to shift to the right as they age, but I agree with you (as well) that things happen in cycles. It was only in 2007, before the Conservative Party conference, when people were genuinely questioning whether the Conservatives would survive.

The_Apocalypse

Alanbrooke said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

They are when the Conservative are so pragmatic that they take on parts of Ed Millibands agenda.They are always power as they have influence way beyond parliament.

That's an interesting analysis, given that we are told by some that the political establishment is not Conservative but a 'liberal elite'.

Re taking on a part of Ed Miliband's agenda - that doesn't make the agenda a 'conservative' one. Socialised medicine hasn't become a part of Conservative ideology because the Conservatives won't get rid of the NHS.

I agree the Conservatives are good at keeping power - but that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative'

that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative

it's clearly worrying you

just think in 30 years you'll be happily remembering that nice Boris as you coiffe your blue rinse and go off you to your line dancing evening :-)

Worried? I'm just exchanging views on a political betting site.

Also I plan to avoid line dancing in the future.

Morris_Dancer

Murderer on the run:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39047176

The_Apocalypse

Morris_Dancer said:

Ms. Apocalypse, reminds me of something I saw Stig Abell say on the Sky paper review a week or two ago (to the nodding of the others present), that the Conservatives do what they always do, sniff power, unite, be pragmatic etc.

It was just regurgitating a consensus, the orthodox view. It's not so long ago the Conservatives were tearing themselves apart and utterly disunited.

I do agree people tend to shift to the right as they age, but I agree with you (as well) that things happen in cycles. It was only in 2007, before the Conservative Party conference, when people were genuinely questioning whether the Conservatives would survive.

And then there was the 'election that never was.' The Conservatives had to go through three leaders before eventually getting it right. Labour have so far gone through two.

Alanbrooke

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

What's the difference?

Well voting for someone because they are the 'least worst option' is hardly a ringing endorsement of Conservative ideology. Recent data (YouGov) shows that for all the 'facts of life are Conservative argument', the Conservatives are disliked as party, just as all the other parties are. Labour are disliked more, but still. Most voters aren't subscribing to any party's set ideology, they just vote for someone who isn't the other guy. When I voted Labour in 2015, I didn't do so because I thought the facts of life were socialism. I did so because Ed Miliband wasn't David Cameron (and I was concerned about the Tory welfare policy).

Inceasingly the traditional left right split is becoming irrelevant

I was more interested in something I read here on Democrats versus Republicans

The Democrats are becoming the party of big business, its dependents ( eg lawyers ) and the public sector

The Republicans are more for family owned and the self employed plus the fall out of globalism

I think we're heading the same way

corporatism versus enterprise is the new left right

Wulfrun_Phil

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.

I can't believe for a moment this is correct, Labour are looking at a 1931 type result at the next GE if Corbyn is still in charge anyway (If it is)

Labour requires a 5% or 6% improvement on current polling to get back to the heights of the 30.6% the party achieved in 1931 (excluding the 1.5% of McDonald's National Labour) . If Corbyn is still in charge, we're looking at a result in terms of vote share much worse than 1931.

Alanbrooke

The_Apocalypse said:

Alanbrooke said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

They are when the Conservative are so pragmatic that they take on parts of Ed Millibands agenda.They are always power as they have influence way beyond parliament.

That's an interesting analysis, given that we are told by some that the political establishment is not Conservative but a 'liberal elite'.

Re taking on a part of Ed Miliband's agenda - that doesn't make the agenda a 'conservative' one. Socialised medicine hasn't become a part of Conservative ideology because the Conservatives won't get rid of the NHS.

I agree the Conservatives are good at keeping power - but that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative'

that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative

it's clearly worrying you

just think in 30 years you'll be happily remembering that nice Boris as you coiffe your blue rinse and go off you to your line dancing evening :-)

Worried? I'm just exchanging views on a political betting site.

Also I plan to avoid line dancing in the future.

it's an age thing, you'll see things differently when your fifty

every so often I still have to suppress the desire to buy tartan slippers

Yorkcity

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

They are when the Conservative are so pragmatic that they take on parts of Ed Millibands agenda.They are always power as they have influence way beyond parliament.

That's an interesting analysis, given that we are told by some that the political establishment is not Conservative but a 'liberal elite'.

Re taking on a part of Ed Miliband's agenda - that doesn't make the agenda a 'conservative' one. Socialised medicine hasn't become a part of Conservative ideology because the Conservatives won't get rid of the NHS.

I agree the Conservatives are good at keeping power - but that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative'

They are because the conservatives are so pragmatic to change without the need to consult the membership which is their great strength. Whatever the leadership says goes and they follow.So for example against minimum wage change, against devolution change.The goal is power and influence and they are the best at it.

I'm not quite sure how the Conservative leadership after nearly ten years or so of New Labour deciding to become electable again means that the 'facts of life are Conservative'. All it shows is with politics things go in cycles.

In party politics it might.However New Labour were very influenced by the power of Conservatives outside parliament The press pressure groups countryside alliance farmers hauliers causing chaos by blockading petrol refineries to name just a few.

DavidL

Black_Rook said:

DavidL said:

Perth and north tayside, Kincardine and Deeside, Banff and Buchan, maybe even Moray are looking as vulnerable as the border seats. Look at the swings against the SNP at the Holyrood elections. Of course whilst the SNP sweep up greater Glasgow they won't really mind that much.

I'm cognisant of the progress made by the Conservatives (and the odd one or two Lib Dem constituency wins) at Holyrood last year, but that election is for a very powerful devolved Parliament that actually runs most of the things that matter in day-to-day life in Scotland now. Westminster elections are vulnerable to the "pick somebody to stand up for Scotland in London" argument, which the SNP is best poised to benefit from.

The fact that the SNP MPs achieve practically nothing is entirely incidental. The voters who send them there mostly aren't paying any attention to what happens at Westminster anymore, and the main purpose for the party of having its bloc in the Commons is to hope that they one day control the balance of power in a Hung Parliament - so that they can exploit the situation to try to goad England into telling Scotland to fuck off. Until then they just sit tight and collect the Short Money.

It would be nice to think that Unionist parties could make significant inroads at a General Election in Scotland, but I'll believe it when I see it. Certainly, it's entirely possible that the Westminster electoral map up there may not change for many decades.

The SNP will remain dominant but there is a difference between dominant and universal. I don't think that they will achieve what they achieved in 2015 again. Still win 90% though.

The_Apocalypse

Alanbrooke said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

What's the difference?

Well voting for someone because they are the 'least worst option' is hardly a ringing endorsement of Conservative ideology. Recent data (YouGov) shows that for all the 'facts of life are Conservative argument', the Conservatives are disliked as party, just as all the other parties are. Labour are disliked more, but still. Most voters aren't subscribing to any party's set ideology, they just vote for someone who isn't the other guy. When I voted Labour in 2015, I didn't do so because I thought the facts of life were socialism. I did so because Ed Miliband wasn't David Cameron (and I was concerned about the Tory welfare policy).

Inceasingly the traditional left right split is becoming irrelevant

I was more interested in something I read here on Democrats versus Republicans

The Democrats are becoming the party of big business, its dependents ( eg lawyers ) and the public sector

The Republicans are more for family owned and the self employed plus the fall out of globalism

I think we're heading the same way

corporatism versus enterprise is the new left right

The Republicans are the party of big business as well.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-americas-biggest-corporate-donors-to-republicans-and-democrats-2015-10-27
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/oil-and-gas-industry-has-pumped-millions-into-republican-campaigns
https://www.aol.com/article/2015/10/26/one-chart-shows-exactly-how-much-america-s-biggest-companies-giv/21253905/

kle4

Alanbrooke said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

What's the difference?

Well voting for someone because they are the 'least worst option' is hardly a ringing endorsement of Conservative ideology. Recent data (YouGov) shows that for all the 'facts of life are Conservative argument', the Conservatives are disliked as party, just as all the other parties are. Labour are disliked more, but still. Most voters aren't subscribing to any party's set ideology, they just vote for someone who isn't the other guy. When I voted Labour in 2015, I didn't do so because I thought the facts of life were socialism. I did so because Ed Miliband wasn't David Cameron (and I was concerned about the Tory welfare policy).

Inceasingly the traditional left right split is becoming irrelevant

Maybe I'm still actually young enough, but when wasn't it? The main parties leap about the spectrum as they please, mixing and matching, and even if they are capable of being broadly focused more on one side than the other, they still act like they are absolutely distinct and ideologically consistent, which is nonsense.

Malmesbury

The_Apocalypse said:

Malmesbury said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Yorkcity said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

May even has a lead amongst the snowflakes? Impressive.

Imagine calling young people snowflakes when one of the biggest snowflakes around is a seventy year old man who takes to twitter to have a nervous breakdown everytime someone disagrees with him.

Meanwhile PBers acting like these leads are some kind of shock - really? Also the Conservatives are getting voted in right now because they are the least worst option - not because 'the facts of life are conservative'.

They are when the Conservative are so pragmatic that they take on parts of Ed Millibands agenda.They are always power as they have influence way beyond parliament.

That's an interesting analysis, given that we are told by some that the political establishment is not Conservative but a 'liberal elite'.

Re taking on a part of Ed Miliband's agenda - that doesn't make the agenda a 'conservative' one. Socialised medicine hasn't become a part of Conservative ideology because the Conservatives won't get rid of the NHS.

I agree the Conservatives are good at keeping power - but that doesn't mean that the 'facts of life are Conservative'

From the 1945 Conservative manifesto -

"The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.

We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament."

I'm not disputing whether the Conservatives agreed with the Beveridge report or not. I'm stating that socialised medicine isn't a part of Conservative ideology - which isn't. The idea of a state-funded public health service is basically socialism, and Conservatives agreeing with that doesn't change that it is socialism.

So aside from the fact that a Conservative PM commissioned the report, and it was adopted as party policy? The major difference to OTL is that the NHS would have been universal national insurance (probably).

You are mistaken in your belief that all such state funded services are necessarily socialism - perhaps you should look more into the roots of these ideas, and where they grew.

GIN1138

Jezza needs to forget all these polls and stick to his guns!

RobbieBox

LOL @ the ballot paper in Stoke on Trent Central, candidates are listed in alphabetical order by surname.
4th on the paper is BRICK The Incredible Flying!