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
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.
pre 1989 there was a definite clarity in left right, you new where you stood
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
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.
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!
Arf - Far too sensible a name to be the OMRLP candidate.
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
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.
There is far more... interesting stuff than just photos. Some of the sentiments expressed by those currently at the top of the Labour party are quite interesting. For example, those on Airey Neave, Anthony Berry, Ian Gow and Robert Nairac...
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.
I am not mistaken.
Socialised medicine is basically a socialist idea. The Conservatives agreeing with it doesn't suddenly make it a Conservative idea, which is my point. Your argument that the Conservatives commissioned the Beveridge Report and adopted it as party policy is essentially the same argument you made in the previous post - that Conservatives agreeing with the notion of socialised medicine makes it a Conservative idea. It doesn't - Tony Blair agreeing with neoconservatism doesn't suddenly make it socialism, or even social liberalism because he was the leader of the Labour party during the Iraq war.
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.
To be fair if he hadn't had several misleading statements on his website for years, the charge would not have stuck.
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.
Three.
Don't forget the unelected Gordon.
I was thinking about the parties during periods of where they were in opposition.
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
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
No, fair enough., The police saying he met the criteria (or words to that effect) was good enough for me, but I have no reason to disbelieve him
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.
Up to now, I've had the tories down as about a 4% chance.
Allowing for my own error, I've been backing them above 2% (50/1) and laying below 8% (12.5)
But I'm questioning that after Theresa May's visit.
Perhaps they do have real (~20%) chance?
hmm. I have a £7k green on them and need to figure out whether or not to (attempt to) lay off ~£600 at current odds.
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
It was reported in the press but not sure which one. I had no reason to believe it was fake news
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.
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.
Interesting crossbreaks in the ICM and Opinium polls re - Scotland. ICM had SNP 38 Con 31 Lab 20. Too low for SNP probably and too high for the Tories. Opinium had SNP 48 Con 24 Lab 18. That sounds more likely - with SNP possibly a bit high for a Westminster election.
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.
I am not mistaken.
Socialised medicine is basically a socialist idea. The Conservatives agreeing with it doesn't suddenly make it a Conservative idea, which is my point. Your argument that the Conservatives commissioned the Beveridge Report and adopted it as party policy is essentially the same argument you made in the previous post - that Conservatives agreeing with the notion of socialised medicine makes it a Conservative idea. It doesn't - Tony Blair agreeing with neoconservatism doesn't suddenly make it socialism, or even liberal because he was the leader of the Labour party during the Iraq war.
I do agree with the basic premise - that an idea can be conservative or socialist in its basis no matter which party advances and no matter its otherwise general ideological positioning - although it is made complicated by it being harder than one would think to establish objectively what is one or the other, since people will interpret an idea as belonging, fundamentally, to their side as a means of adopting it, rather than admit the ideology of the other has some sound points, so while I am sure people can come up with an objective definition of conservatism, liberalism, socialism or, say, natural law as exemplified by yogic flyers, good luck getting people to agree with that en masse, that's why we have so many Liberal parties in the world which are in fact conservative, and conservative parties that in days gone by would have been seen as, in part, socialist, while they are unlikely to ever consider that as likely.
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.
Swingback only occurs if there has been a swing away in the first place!
Hmm. I happened to be watching the Schmoyoho video of the presidential debate, as one does, when I recalled the Charlie Sheen video. It has something of Trump about it. Bit less consistent and more surreal, but still.
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
It was reported in the press but not sure which one. I had no reason to believe it was fake news
Ah. The nearest I can find is the following, which as I read it does not say what was in the statement, or that it has been accepted as it being true that he was there:
An Operation Resolve spokesman said: "Our role is to investigate the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and to establish whether any individual or organisation is criminally culpable and, in that context, Mr Nuttall met criteria for taking a statement."
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.
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.
Interesting crossbreaks in the ICM and Opinium polls re - Scotland. ICM had SNP 38 Con 31 Lab 20. Too low for SNP probably and too high for the Tories. Opinium had SNP 48 Con 24 Lab 18. That sounds more likely - with SNP possibly a bit high for a Westminster election.
Agree one and two but I wouldn't want to hold my breath until Labour get 20% in Scotland again.
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.
You are correct NHS is Marxist ideology .The conservative party goes along with it to maintain power.
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
It was reported in the press but not sure which one. I had no reason to believe it was fake news
Ah. The nearest I can find is the following, which as I read it does not say what was in the statement, or that it has been accepted as it being true that he was there:
An Operation Resolve spokesman said: "Our role is to investigate the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and to establish whether any individual or organisation is criminally culpable and, in that context, Mr Nuttall met criteria for taking a statement."
@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.
That is not really comparable though - because Labour was faced with a single National Govt candidate plus a few New Party candidates supporting Oswald Moseley. Most polls are now giving Labour 26/27% in the context of at least four or five candidates.
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.
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.
Interesting crossbreaks in the ICM and Opinium polls re - Scotland. ICM had SNP 38 Con 31 Lab 20. Too low for SNP probably and too high for the Tories. Opinium had SNP 48 Con 24 Lab 18. That sounds more likely - with SNP possibly a bit high for a Westminster election.
Agree one and two but I wouldn't want to hold my breath until Labour get 20% in Scotland again.
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
It was reported in the press but not sure which one. I had no reason to believe it was fake news
Ah. The nearest I can find is the following, which as I read it does not say what was in the statement, or that it has been accepted as it being true that he was there:
An Operation Resolve spokesman said: "Our role is to investigate the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and to establish whether any individual or organisation is criminally culpable and, in that context, Mr Nuttall met criteria for taking a statement."
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
It was reported in the press but not sure which one. I had no reason to believe it was fake news
Ah. The nearest I can find is the following, which as I read it does not say what was in the statement, or that it has been accepted as it being true that he was there:
An Operation Resolve spokesman said: "Our role is to investigate the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and to establish whether any individual or organisation is criminally culpable and, in that context, Mr Nuttall met criteria for taking a statement."
It's a shame that his previous mistakes on this matter (and others) tend to muddy the waters for him having been there.
I do not like Nuttall at all but on this he should be given the benefit of the doubt, if there is any
Ordinarily, yes. But he has already had to apologise for false statements about Hillsborough that were made in his name. The benefit of the doubt is therefore stretched.
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.
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.
Interesting crossbreaks in the ICM and Opinium polls re - Scotland. ICM had SNP 38 Con 31 Lab 20. Too low for SNP probably and too high for the Tories. Opinium had SNP 48 Con 24 Lab 18. That sounds more likely - with SNP possibly a bit high for a Westminster election.
Agree one and two but I wouldn't want to hold my breath until Labour get 20% in Scotland again.
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
It was reported in the press but not sure which one. I had no reason to believe it was fake news
Ah. The nearest I can find is the following, which as I read it does not say what was in the statement, or that it has been accepted as it being true that he was there:
An Operation Resolve spokesman said: "Our role is to investigate the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and to establish whether any individual or organisation is criminally culpable and, in that context, Mr Nuttall met criteria for taking a statement."
It's a shame that his previous mistakes on this matter (and others) tend to muddy the waters for him having been there.
I do not like Nuttall at all but on this he should be given the benefit of the doubt, if there is any
Ordinarily, yes. But he has already had to apologise for false statements about Hillsborough that were made in his name. The benefit of the doubt is therefore stretched.
To be honest both labour and Nuttall in Stoke are not fit to be elected. Hope Stoke voters come to their senses
@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.
Don't get that, losing to UKIP would be a disaster but they could always blame the Brexit fallout, populism, the rise of Trump etc. and hope that after we leave the EU, UKIP gradually fades away. But for the main opposition party to lose one of it's safe seats to the government in mid term would be an absolute unmitigated disaster. It would be like the Gordon Brown led Labour party winning say Surrey Heath, unthinkable, but if the Lib/Dems won, only a mere disaster.
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
It was reported in the press but not sure which one. I had no reason to believe it was fake news
Ah. The nearest I can find is the following, which as I read it does not say what was in the statement, or that it has been accepted as it being true that he was there:
An Operation Resolve spokesman said: "Our role is to investigate the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and to establish whether any individual or organisation is criminally culpable and, in that context, Mr Nuttall met criteria for taking a statement."
It's a shame that his previous mistakes on this matter (and others) tend to muddy the waters for him having been there.
I do not like Nuttall at all but on this he should be given the benefit of the doubt, if there is any
Agreed. I'm not keen on him at all but unless the Guardian can prove without doubt he's lying they should shut up. What they've done is pretty distasteful, it's a character assassination by smear and innuendo. Very Red Rag.
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.
Swingback only occurs if there has been a swing away in the first place!
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
It was reported in the press but not sure which one. I had no reason to believe it was fake news
Ah. The nearest I can find is the following, which as I read it does not say what was in the statement, or that it has been accepted as it being true that he was there:
An Operation Resolve spokesman said: "Our role is to investigate the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and to establish whether any individual or organisation is criminally culpable and, in that context, Mr Nuttall met criteria for taking a statement."
It's a shame that his previous mistakes on this matter (and others) tend to muddy the waters for him having been there.
Maybe we can get him for wasting police time?!
Not my place, or yours, to say. He might be telling the truth. He might not. Given his recent apology over Hillsborough there has to be some doubt. However given the sensitivities over Hillsborough the police will be taking care not to reject information out of hand, and rightly so.
However your statement above: "when it is now accepted he was" (at Hillsborough) seems unsupported by the facts.
I'd perfectly willing to change my mind if/when more information comes in. It'd be interesting if one of the legal eagles on here could suggest what the statement from Operation Resolve may mean.
Slumming it in Leeds this week Yesterday, did Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley and Castleford northbound, and via Barnsley avoiding Castleford southbound. Today, did Leeds to Ilkley, Ilkley to Bradford Forster Square and from there to Saltaire. Spent a while in Saltaire, a UNESCO world heritage site. Then late in the afternoon, did Leeds to Selby fast (already did Doncaster to Selby to Hull a few days into the New Year).
Shit, now I see that Richard Spencer has stuck the boot into Milo.
My natural instinct is to support things Nazis hate so I'd just like to announce to PB.com that I am now a strong supporter of Milo the loveable cheeky scamp.
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.
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.
Interesting crossbreaks in the ICM and Opinium polls re - Scotland. ICM had SNP 38 Con 31 Lab 20. Too low for SNP probably and too high for the Tories. Opinium had SNP 48 Con 24 Lab 18. That sounds more likely - with SNP possibly a bit high for a Westminster election.
Agree one and two but I wouldn't want to hold my breath until Labour get 20% in Scotland again.
Well Labour managed over 22% last May!
The key word was "again".
What has changed so much in 9 months? I would have thought that when Labour do dump Corbyn sometime within the next 18 months that any national boost to Labour fortunes following that would percolate through to Scotland . I actually beblieve it to be still realistic for Labour to poll circa 35% GB wide in 2020 - and perhaps 25% in Scotland.
@chrisshipitv: Labour source says the party now fears losing Stoke by-election to Conservatives more than it does losing to UKIP.
Don't get that, losing to UKIP would be a disaster but they could always blame the Brexit fallout, populism, the rise of Trump etc. and hope that after we leave the EU, UKIP gradually fades away. But for the main opposition party to lose one of it's safe seats to the government in mid term would be an absolute unmitigated disaster. It would be like the Gordon Brown led Labour party winning say Surrey Heath, unthinkable, but if the Lib/Dems won, only a mere disaster.
Oh sorry, I get it now, they fear it MORE, yes that makes sense.
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.
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
.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
It was reported in the press but not sure which one. I had no reason to believe it was fake news
Ah. The nearest I can find is the following, which as I read it does not say what was in the statement, or that it has been accepted as it being true that he was there:
An Operation Resolve spokesman said: "Our role is to investigate the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and to establish whether any individual or organisation is criminally culpable and, in that context, Mr Nuttall met criteria for taking a statement."
It's a shame that his previous mistakes on this matter (and others) tend to muddy the waters for him having been there.
Maybe we can get him for wasting police time?!
Not my place, or yours, to say. He might be telling the truth. He might not. Given his recent apology over Hillsborough there has to be some doubt. However given the sensitivities over Hillsborough the police will be taking care not to reject information out of hand, and rightly so.
However your statement above: "when it is now accepted he was" (at Hillsborough) seems unsupported by the facts.
I'd perfectly willing to change my mind if/when more information comes in. It'd be interesting if one of the legal eagles on here could suggest what the statement from Operation Resolve may mean.
Fair enough I don't really care if you believe him or not, in the nicest possible way. I will withdraw the statement, it hasn't been accepted, plenty of people dont believe him, he may well be making it all up, I don't want this to drag on and on.
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.
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 Scotllly.
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.
Interesting crossbreaks in the ICM and Opinium polls re - Scotland. ICM had SNP 38 Con 31 Lab 20. Too low for SNP probably and too high for the Tories. Opinium had SNP 48 Con 24 Lab 18. That sounds more likely - with SNP possibly a bit high for a Westminster election.
Agree one and two but I wouldn't want to hold my breath until Labour get 20% in Scotland again.
Well Labour managed over 22% last May!
The key word was "again".
What has changed so much in 9 months? I would have thought that when Labour do dump Corbyn sometime within the next 18 months that any national boost to Labour fortunes following that would percolate through to Scotland . I actually beblieve it to be still realistic for Labour to poll circa 35% in 2020 - and perhaps 25% in Scotland.
The Tories will make much of the Corbyn period when it is done, and that may have an effect, but if he really is so uniquely bad, he must be depressing a natural level of support that anyone not him can restore, at least to a respectable level.
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.
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
.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
It was reported in the press but not sure which one. I had no reason to believe it was fake news
Ah. The nearest I can find is the following, which as I read it does not say what was in the statement, or that it has been accepted as it being true that he was there:
An Operation Resolve spokesman said: "Our role is to investigate the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and to establish whether any individual or organisation is criminally culpable and, in that context, Mr Nuttall met criteria for taking a statement."
It's a shame that his previous mistakes on this matter (and others) tend to muddy the waters for him having been there.
Maybe we can get him for wasting police time?!
Not my place, or yours, to say. He might be telling the truth. He might not. Given his recent apology over Hillsborough there has to be some doubt. However given the sensitivities over Hillsborough the police will be taking care not to reject information out of hand, and rightly so.
However your statement above: "when it is now accepted he was" (at Hillsborough) seems unsupported by the facts.
I'd perfectly willing to change my mind if/when more information comes in. It'd be interesting if one of the legal eagles on here could suggest what the statement from Operation Resolve may mean.
Fair enough I don't really care if you believe him or not, in the nicest possible way. I will withdraw the statement, it hasn't been accepted, plenty of people dont believe him, he may well be making it all up, I don't want this to drag on and on.
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.
Swingback only occurs if there has been a swing away in the first place!
We have a great opportunity to test that!!
Indeed so - but there is no precedent for a major party lagging by a big margin at this stage of a Parliament - whether in Government or Opposition - not to improve its position by the following election.
I would no longer be knocked off my perch by a Con Gain in Stoke, although I would be (pleasantly) surprised by it.
Why?
Theresa May has massive leads as best PM, whopping leads over Labour, absolutely knocks it out of the park with those who vote, and both the Labour and UKIP candidates are utter prats.
Stokies are very keen for Brexit (across all both Labour, UKIP and Tory party divides) May is respected, and the Tories got almost exactly the same vote share as UKIP in GE2015, a decent 22.5%, and there's plenty of votes to borrow there from both Labour/UKIP. If May's strategy is working.
Let's say 10% of Labour voters and 35% of UKIP'ers switch to the Tories. A further 10-15% of Labour voters go Green/Lib Dem. And a large chunk stay at home. I could see the Tories getting it on a 35% turnout and bagging it - perhaps even getting close to 10,000 votes or higher.
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.
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
I might well have missed something else, but how is it 'accepted' he was at Hillsborough? Making a statement to police does not necessarily mean the statement is true.
The Police seem to accept it as true
Do you have a link to their statement saying such?
It was reported in the press but not sure which one. I had no reason to believe it was fake news
Ah. T
It's a shame that his previous mistakes on this matter (and others) tend to muddy the waters for him having been there.
Maybe we can get him for wasting police time?!
Not m I'd perfectly willing to change my mind if/when more information comes in. It'd be interesting if one of the legal eagles on here could suggest what the statement from Operation Resolve may mean.
When I first joined PB I was a just-recovering heroin addict, living in a rented hovel, with an annual income of about £15k.
I seriously hope no one on PB has done the reverse journey.
Mr. T, ha, hard to resist a "send some luck my way" type of post.
Congratulations. It's a much tinier scale, but Bane of Souls has sold the most of all my books. It's the first I wrote, the others are better (it's not bad by any stretch), I did no publicity whatsoever and have no idea why it sold more. Luck does play a role, but having a good book helps a lot [although occasionally certain books do get a media bandwagon and then sell a lot even though most readers stop after 50 pages...].
How big a gap do you have between books? About 12-18 months?
Come on non-Corbynistas, you may be right in the event that happens, but its still very unlikely to win both, and you're making it easier for him to seem like he's done ok.
Hard to disagree with that. A loss to the Tories in Stoke however would be worse, far worse than a loss to UKIP there (Horrendous as that would be for Labour). As Morris alluded to earlier, UKIP would be the equivalent of the meteor near Mexico dinosaur extinction; the Tories would be Death Star/Alderaan levels of badness.
I'm feeling quite good about my 150-1 bet on Monaco for the Champions League.
They are looking very good
They're not great at the back but they are lethal going forward. Steve McManaman is doing that usual English arrogance of assuming that it's the English team defending badly. Maybe they are, but Monaco are brilliant going forward.
Agree one and two but I wouldn't want to hold my breath until Labour get 20% in Scotland again.
Well Labour managed over 22% last May!
The key word was "again".
What has changed so much in 9 months? I would have thought that when Labour do dump Corbyn sometime within the next 18 months that any national boost to Labour fortunes following that would percolate through to Scotland . I actually beblieve it to be still realistic for Labour to poll circa 35% GB wide in 2020 - and perhaps 25% in Scotland.
What has changed is the loss of incumbency, combined with the loss of a raison d'etre for SLAB and that has nothing to do with Corbyn (it predates him even). In 2015 Labour were still the incumbents in the vast majority of Westminster constituencies and will have benefited accordingly, their share in 2015 flattered their true position believe it or not. Once they lost that incumbency effect they lost the last leg they were standing on.
Now what is Scottish Labour's purpose? For years it was "not the Tories" but the SNP tick that box. Unionist or not the SNP? The Tories tick that box.
Scottish Labour isn't dead because of Corbyn, the strange death of Scottish Labour predates him and the collapse of SLAB following the loss of their old incumbency would have happened under a Burnham-led Labour Party too.
Not much to say on Copeland other than it will be close but the Tory vote is reasonably solid. PM came down to give a pep talk and made a handful of calls and I got a quick selfie with Boris while phoning
I have a worry the pineapple on pizza division may end up more toxic on PB than Leaver vs Remainer. For what it's worth, those who defame the greatest foodstuff ever with pineapple should be pariahs in my view.
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.
If Scotllly.
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.
Interesting crossbreaks in the ICM and Opinium polls re - Scotland. ICM had SNP 38 Con 31 Lab 20. Too low for SNP probably and too high for the Tories. Opinium had SNP 48 Con 24 Lab 18. That sounds more likely - with SNP possibly a bit high for a Westminster election.
Agree one and two but I wouldn't want to hold my breath until Labour get 20% in Scotland again.
Well Labour managed over 22% last May!
The key word was "again".
What has changed so much in 9 months? I would have thought that when Labour do dump Corbyn sometime within the next 18 months that any national boost to Labour fortunes following that would percolate through to Scotland . I actually beblieve it to be still realistic for Labour to poll circa 35% in 2020 - and perhaps 25% in Scotland.
The Tories will make much of the Corbyn period when it is done, and that may have an effect, but if he really is so uniquely bad, he must be depressing a natural level of support that anyone not him can restore, at least to a respectable level.
That is a fair comment. I also suspect that the pollsters are making a serious error re- adjustments to their findings following their 2015 debacle - particularly in their treatment of Don't Knows and Total Refusers. Post 2015 they concluded that such voters had voted strongly Tory in the end , and are making the assumption that that pattern will continue next time. I have serious doubts about that, and feel that many of the current Don't Knows /Refusers are unhappy Labour voters who are not prepared to declare there support for a party led by Corbyn. I see no obvious reason why a vaguely Tory doubtful voter would wish at this time to withold support from Theresa May. If I am correct , the pollsters may have misdirected their adjustments.
Comments
Don't forget the unelected Gordon.
Socialised medicine is basically a socialist idea. The Conservatives agreeing with it doesn't suddenly make it a Conservative idea, which is my point. Your argument that the Conservatives commissioned the Beveridge Report and adopted it as party policy is essentially the same argument you made in the previous post - that Conservatives agreeing with the notion of socialised medicine makes it a Conservative idea. It doesn't - Tony Blair agreeing with neoconservatism doesn't suddenly make it socialism, or even social liberalism because he was the leader of the Labour party during the Iraq war.
Allowing for my own error, I've been backing them above 2% (50/1) and laying below 8% (12.5)
But I'm questioning that after Theresa May's visit.
Perhaps they do have real (~20%) chance?
hmm. I have a £7k green on them and need to figure out whether or not to (attempt to) lay off ~£600 at current odds.
It's a dilemma that's ruining my evening.
I can use the dominatrices for the weekend though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg
Coincidence, or inspiration for Trump?
An Operation Resolve spokesman said: "Our role is to investigate the causes of the Hillsborough disaster and to establish whether any individual or organisation is criminally culpable and, in that context, Mr Nuttall met criteria for taking a statement."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39038307
It's a shame that his previous mistakes on this matter (and others) tend to muddy the waters for him having been there.
https://twitter.com/albertonardelli/status/834130046117933057
But I agree it's not really a matter for Presidents.
What den of villainy have I exposed myself to?
But for the main opposition party to lose one of it's safe seats to the government in mid term would be an absolute unmitigated disaster.
It would be like the Gordon Brown led Labour party winning say Surrey Heath, unthinkable, but if the Lib/Dems won, only a mere disaster.
However your statement above: "when it is now accepted he was" (at Hillsborough) seems unsupported by the facts.
I'd perfectly willing to change my mind if/when more information comes in. It'd be interesting if one of the legal eagles on here could suggest what the statement from Operation Resolve may mean.
Slumming it in Leeds this week
Yesterday, did Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley and Castleford northbound, and via Barnsley avoiding Castleford southbound. Today, did Leeds to Ilkley, Ilkley to Bradford Forster Square and from there to Saltaire. Spent a while in Saltaire, a UNESCO world heritage site. Then late in the afternoon, did Leeds to Selby fast (already did Doncaster to Selby to Hull a few days into the New Year).
My natural instinct is to support things Nazis hate so I'd just like to announce to PB.com that I am now a strong supporter of Milo the loveable cheeky scamp.
But if they do, we're looking at a 1935 type result in 2020.
Why?
Theresa May has massive leads as best PM, whopping leads over Labour, absolutely knocks it out of the park with those who vote, and both the Labour and UKIP candidates are utter prats.
Stokies are very keen for Brexit (across all both Labour, UKIP and Tory party divides) May is respected, and the Tories got almost exactly the same vote share as UKIP in GE2015, a decent 22.5%, and there's plenty of votes to borrow there from both Labour/UKIP. If May's strategy is working.
Let's say 10% of Labour voters and 35% of UKIP'ers switch to the Tories. A further 10-15% of Labour voters go Green/Lib Dem. And a large chunk stay at home. I could see the Tories getting it on a 35% turnout and bagging it - perhaps even getting close to 10,000 votes or higher.
Something like..
Labour: 28%
Tories: 32%
UKIP: 16%
LD: 13%
Others: 11%
Brexit is a political epochal event and it may well throw out all sorts of longstanding assumptions we've had about politics in this country.
It leads me to think the 12/1 for the Tories to win is serious value. I might put them at 5/1 or 6/1 now.
https://twitter.com/wyattd/status/834132064299532289
Congratulations. It's a much tinier scale, but Bane of Souls has sold the most of all my books. It's the first I wrote, the others are better (it's not bad by any stretch), I did no publicity whatsoever and have no idea why it sold more. Luck does play a role, but having a good book helps a lot [although occasionally certain books do get a media bandwagon and then sell a lot even though most readers stop after 50 pages...].
How big a gap do you have between books? About 12-18 months?
WTF
As Morris alluded to earlier, UKIP would be the equivalent of the meteor near Mexico dinosaur extinction; the Tories would be Death Star/Alderaan levels of badness.
Now what is Scottish Labour's purpose? For years it was "not the Tories" but the SNP tick that box. Unionist or not the SNP? The Tories tick that box.
Scottish Labour isn't dead because of Corbyn, the strange death of Scottish Labour predates him and the collapse of SLAB following the loss of their old incumbency would have happened under a Burnham-led Labour Party too.
TWENTY-SIX PERCENT.