Mr. Jessop, my old passport is very empty, with the exception of a visa to the People's Republic of China. Looks rather out of place
Also, the Chinese write the date backwards. Still makes sense, of course, from year to days with months in between. I think the Americans are the only ones with the demented months/days/years approach.
From my purely 'out of touch with real people', metropolitan, bien-pensant perspective, I and most people I know intend to switch from Lab to LD. It's why I think Chestnut(?)'s assertion that Corbyn is going to do well in London is woefully off the mark.
I think you're right and you can include various university towns where the same applies. Anecdotally like Ian Dale I know of no Labour voting Remainer who isn't going to switch.
Do we really expect the Provencal switchers to impact heavily on the Lab/LD vote?
I was speaking to some French people yesterday who thought this election was a referendum on the EU. They had bought Threresa May's line that this was an election about Brexit.
I tried to explain it was nothing of the kind but rather a question of whether we could vote for a PM who was a donkey. It became too complicated and I didn't know the french for donkey but it hasn't yet permeated Provence that Corbyn isn't a possible PM on any known yardstick.
Perhaps when they have less troubles of their own they might glance over the channel and see things for what they are
"donkey"
very civil of you Roger
normally you "progressives" are a lot more fruity in your descriptions of Tory women
From my purely 'out of touch with real people', metropolitan, bien-pensant perspective, I and most people I know intend to switch from Lab to LD. It's why I think Chestnut(?)'s assertion that Corbyn is going to do well in London is woefully off the mark.
I think you're right and you can include various university towns where the same applies. Anecdotally like Ian Dale I know of no Labour voting Remainer who isn't going to switch.
Do we really expect the Provencal switchers to impact heavily on the Lab/LD vote?
I was speaking to some French people yesterday who thought this election was a referendum on the EU. They had bought Threresa May's line that this was an election about Brexit.
I tried to explain it was nothing of the kind but rather a question of whether we could vote for a PM who was a donkey. It became too complicated and I didn't know the french for donkey but it hasn't yet permeated Provence that Corbyn isn't a possible PM on any known yardstick.
Perhaps when they have less troubles of their own they might glance over the channel and see things for what they are
"donkey"
very civil of you Roger
normally you "progressives" are a lot more fruity in your descriptions of Tory women
I absolutely concur with the reasoning that LibDem gains are going to be tougher to find than the current markets imply. But what if Lab totally - and I mean totally - collapses? [The Tories may have something devastating from JC's past, perhaps, or he might have a series of horrendous interviews]. In those circumstances anti-Tory voters might easily vote yellow just because there is no alternative for them.
Alistair, I agree although I would have thought it was going to be much harder than even you are saying, I put it tops at 15, more likely 12 -13. This weeks local elections demonstrate how very limited their appeal is. They are vastly over optimistic.
I think 20 seats for the Lib Dems would be a good result, and should be seen as a win for Farron. They've nailed their colours to the EU mast and there is obviously a place for a party like that, although it clearly puts them off the list of a large chunk of voters. On the subject of tuition fees, I think they've got away with their ridiculous signed pledge fiasco. I've got two lads at Uni now, and neither of them are fussed about their fees- they just moan that they can't borrow more!
From my purely 'out of touch with real people', metropolitan, bien-pensant perspective, I and most people I know intend to switch from Lab to LD. It's why I think Chestnut(?)'s assertion that Corbyn is going to do well in London is woefully off the mark.
I think you're right and you can include various university towns where the same applies. Anecdotally like Ian Dale I know of no Labour voting Remainer who isn't going to switch.
Do we really expect the Provencal switchers to impact heavily on the Lab/LD vote?
I was speaking to some French people yesterday who thought this election was a referendum on the EU. They had bought Threresa May's line that this was an election about Brexit.
I tried to explain it was nothing of the kind but rather a question of whether we could vote for a PM who was a donkey. It became too complicated and I didn't know the french for donkey but it hasn't yet permeated Provence that Corbyn isn't a possible PM on any known yardstick.
Perhaps when they have less troubles of their own they might glance over the channel and see things for what they are
"donkey"
very civil of you Roger
normally you "progressives" are a lot more fruity in your descriptions of Tory women
Mr. Choose, it's a maintenance of the 0.7% promise, but I agree. I also think it's damned foolish.
The Conservatives have a healthy lead but that doesn't mean it's smart politics to promise £13bn overseas aid spending whilst at the same time talking about ending a promise to pensioners, and hinting at increasing taxes.
From my purely 'out of touch with real people', metropolitan, bien-pensant perspective, I and most people I know intend to switch from Lab to LD. It's why I think Chestnut(?)'s assertion that Corbyn is going to do well in London is woefully off the mark.
I think you're right and you can include various university towns where the same applies. Anecdotally like Ian Dale I know of no Labour voting Remainer who isn't going to switch.
Do we really expect the Provencal switchers to impact heavily on the Lab/LD vote?
I was speaking to some French people yesterday who thought this election was a referendum on the EU. They had bought Threresa May's line that this was an election about Brexit.
I tried to explain it was nothing of the kind but rather a question of whether we could vote for a PM who was a donkey. It became too complicated and I didn't know the french for donkey but it hasn't yet permeated Provence that Corbyn isn't a possible PM on any known yardstick.
Perhaps when they have less troubles of their own they might glance over the channel and see things for what they are
"donkey"
very civil of you Roger
normally you "progressives" are a lot more fruity in your descriptions of Tory women
I hope you're joking. It's early but surely it was obvious I was referring to Corbyn?
@BethRigby: Tories took all 15 Lib Dem seats in SW in 2015. May needs to hold them; Foreign Aid pledge helps to counter/neutralise Lib Dem threat (2/2)
Just as a matter of interest - I haven't been paying close attention so it probably passed me by. Has anyone told the Queen about the election yet?
She was phoned by PM the day before Cabinet met apparently. I guess PM will go to see her when Parliament is dissolved, but not sure this is required under the ridiculous FTPA.
My parents fighting helping the lib dem fight for north Oxford. This is a top target and will be hard for tories to keep.
It will be close, but the LibDems have a habit of just missing. I think they’ll just miss.
It is easy for the residents of plush Wolvercote and leafy Summertown (where our own dear Tyson hails from) to talk to each other and convince themselves the seat will fall.
From my purely 'out of touch with real people', metropolitan, bien-pensant perspective, I and most people I know intend to switch from Lab to LD. It's why I think Chestnut(?)'s assertion that Corbyn is going to do well in London is woefully off the mark.
I think you're right and you can include various university towns where the same applies. Anecdotally like Ian Dale I know of no Labour voting Remainer who isn't going to switch.
Do we really expect the Provencal switchers to impact heavily on the Lab/LD vote?
I was speaking to some French people yesterday who thought this election was a referendum on the EU. They had bought Threresa May's line that this was an election about Brexit.
I tried to explain it was nothing of the kind but rather a question of whether we could vote for a PM who was a donkey. It became too complicated and I didn't know the french for donkey but it hasn't yet permeated Provence that Corbyn isn't a possible PM on any known yardstick.
Perhaps when they have less troubles of their own they might glance over the channel and see things for what they are
"donkey"
very civil of you Roger
normally you "progressives" are a lot more fruity in your descriptions of Tory women
Good piece from Alastair to which I would only add 2 points.
Firstly, the Lib Dem strength was localism, based on an active councillor base, Focus leaflets and local issues. During the Coalition years this base was severely eroded in successive elections making them much weaker for any immediate come back.
Secondly, the reason we were all told that the Lib Dems would not be facing wipeout in 2015 was incumbency and that local base. In these target seats they don't have incumbency either anymore. Some familiar faces with local followings, such as Uncle Vince, have decided to retread the boards but that is not the same as having the benefit of surgeries and local press over an extended period, let alone the money that MPs get to support their office and work for constituents. Recovering these seats is not going to be easy.
So what could change this? Basically, the Lib Dems need a significant lift in the polls reversing the adverse swing they currently face with the Tories. In my view this means that they need to go after Labour in a big way. Not necessarily in Labour seats, as Alastair points out there are relatively few Labour/Lib Dem marginal within credible reach, but generally in the media and in campaigning.
They could do worse than reprise Ruth Davidson's tactics in 2016. This country needs an opposition to test and challenge and we are it. Untrammelled power is not good for the country and does not lead to good government. Such a message is focussed at Labour and their ineptitude but will resonate in Tory marginals too. And Labour is such an easy target. You just can't miss at the moment.
Having sat watched labour bastions fall like nine pins at the last election I would suggest it is too early to write off the lib dems. There are a couple of signs of momentum picking up. Large number of new members, a simple message with no competition giving them airtime and confusion amongst their competitors as to how they will fight the election. If the lib dems come up with a plan on cutting tuition fees they are going to be on a roll.
You think people will believe Farron suggesting tuition fees would be cut.. .??. a hell of a mea culpa plus a promise that cannot be materialised. I don't think so. Why would the LD's shoot themselves in the foot by reminding everyone of their about turn on tuition fees?
Good luck with that one!
Not Tim Farron's policy to raise them initially. High risk I agree but the students looking for the lib dems to say sorry.
The youngest students in 2010 are 25 now. Life's moved on.
But the debts could still be very much alive...
I know plenty of students around that age in very well paid jobs who barely notice the payments and have worked out that whilst they technically owe a huge amount they'll either pay it off with their minimal payments or it will get written off.
Yes - they aren't the ones who' ll be thinking of the LD's.
Apologies I mean Oxford west and Abingdon to be precise
Just the nine and a half thousand majority to overcome.....
You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible
It is a simple campaign which is needed given the short time available. The lib dems only need to borrow the Tory remainer vote for the election not convert it.
On topic, I wouldn't like to bet against Antifrank and rcs1000 on this but trying to provide the opposite perspective, what if the baseline we should be looking at is not 2015 but 2010?
The reason for saying that is that the by-elections suggest that the LibDems have largely been detoxified. I know we're not really seeing this in the national polls, and if there was actual *enthusiasm* for the LibDems then we would be, but the LibDems have tended to rise during election campaigns, as people who haven't thought much about them look at the alternatives and think, "yuck". If we've got TV debates between Farron, Corbyn, whoever is doing UKIP nowadays and an empty chair, it's not hard to see Farron coming out ahead.
Labour resources are going to be stretched pretty thin, because they'll need to put up a show of competing in the marginals, while defending a huge wodge of seats that they haven't had to defend before, so in Con-Lib marginals they're going to be pretty much invisible. That should make it easier for the LibDems to come up with good Winning Here stories to put the old progressive band back together.
If you start with a 2010 baseline you still need to knock off a chunk for first-time incumbency, and some more for residual coalition slime. But what I'm suggesting is that you shouldn't be too moved by looking at some of the enormous swings they'd need and saying, "that's ridiculous"; Part of it will be reversion to the mean from the adverse swing in 2015, which was also ridiculous.
I'm on Lib Dem seats for all-round profit between 10-39 seats.
Mr. Choose, it's a maintenance of the 0.7% promise, but I agree. I also think it's damned foolish.
The Conservatives have a healthy lead but that doesn't mean it's smart politics to promise £13bn overseas aid spending whilst at the same time talking about ending a promise to pensioners, and hinting at increasing taxes.
It's sensible: DfID does a heck of a lot of good, and it's a shame you don't see that.
I read last night's discussion of potential tax rises with interest. I actually think it's good politics. Labour's attacked austerity and cuts strongly over the last seven years, to little effect. They've wasted a lot of time on a great deal of hot air and little substance.
But there have been cuts, and some people have been hurt. Generally not as much pain as Labour warned, but pain nonetheless. Cutting doesn't always make sense politically, morally or fiscally, and we've done many of the easy things. Yet we also need to try to reduce our deficit.
So May has several choices: on one hand she could commit to no tax rises in various areas. This would attract the right of her party and repel potential voters from the left; but more importantly it hamstrings them in government if tax rises are needed.
Saying we may raise some taxes repels some of the right of her party, but immediately removes a big negative against the party for many other voters. It also gives her government much more freedom for manoeuvre after the election.
But where are the right-wingers upset at the prospect of increased taxes going to go? UKIP appear a dead force, and they won't shift to Labour or the Lib Dems.
Thanks Mr Meeks for the informative thread and witty intro. – Sub 25 seats seems a fair guess for the Lib Dems on their present VI polling, although it does appear somewhat at odds with their successes at local/by-election level IMO. Gut feeling is however, that they may do better, something in the 25-30 region, obviously the May local elections will provide a far clearer picture of Lib Dem success in June.
Mr Dancer I'm perfectly happy that the UK government doesn't intend to pay for promises to U.K. residents by shafting the worlds poorest people. I also welcome the signs of a belated conversion to intergenerational fairness and also removing a large albatross in the form of the tax lock.
Mr. Jessop, my old passport is very empty, with the exception of a visa to the People's Republic of China. Looks rather out of place
Also, the Chinese write the date backwards. Still makes sense, of course, from year to days with months in between. I think the Americans are the only ones with the demented months/days/years approach.
The Chinese are right. The date format used by God is Yyyy-mm-dd. All others are broken.
Mr. Choose, it's a maintenance of the 0.7% promise, but I agree. I also think it's damned foolish.
The Conservatives have a healthy lead but that doesn't mean it's smart politics to promise £13bn overseas aid spending whilst at the same time talking about ending a promise to pensioners, and hinting at increasing taxes.
It's sensible: DfID does a heck of a lot of good, and it's a shame you don't see that.
I read last night's discussion of potential tax rises with interest. I actually think it's good politics. Labour's attacked austerity and cuts strongly over the last seven years, to little effect. They've wasted a lot of time on a great deal of hot air and little substance.
But there have been cuts, and some people have been hurt. Generally not as much pain as Labour warned, but pain nonetheless. Cutting doesn't always make sense politically, morally or fiscally, and we've done many of the easy things. Yet we also need to try to reduce our deficit.
So May has several choices: on one hand she could commit to no tax rises in various areas. This would attract the right of her party and repel potential voters from the left; but more importantly it hamstrings them in government if tax rises are needed.
Saying we may raise some taxes repels some of the right of her party, but immediately removes a big negative against the party for many other voters. It also gives her government much more freedom for manoeuvre after the election.
But where are the right-wingers upset at the prospect of increased taxes going to go? UKIP appear a dead force, and they won't shift to Labour or the Lib Dems.
Apologies I mean Oxford west and Abingdon to be precise
Just the nine and a half thousand majority to overcome.....
You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible
It is a simple campaign which is needed given the short time available. The lib dems only need to borrow the Tory remainer vote for the election not convert it.
You have missed off the 4k UKIP vote. You need to bung at least half of that on Nicola Blackwood’s total.
The remaining Labour vote in OXWAB is pretty unsqueezable. Look at how it hasn’t changed much, 7k (2015), 6k (2010), 8k (2005), 9k (2001), 12k (1997), 8k (1992). etc. There are some people in OXWAB who want to vote Labour, no matter what, even though their vote is “wasted”.
If the Libdem's USP will as the only truly anti-Brexit party, what will they offer.
Staying in or rejoining the EU?
EEA membership? This is a version of Brexit, surely, and not that much different from Labour.
Or will it just be a fuzzy we don't like May's version.
I think that the manifesto will be for the softest possibe Brexit EEA/EFTA, and a national referendum on the final package, including the option of Remain.
My parents fighting helping the lib dem fight for north Oxford. This is a top target and will be hard for tories to keep.
It will be close, but the LibDems have a habit of just missing. I think they’ll just miss.
It is easy for the residents of plush Wolvercote and leafy Summertown (where our own dear Tyson hails from) to talk to each other and convince themselves the seat will fall.
It was an old lib dem seat that moved Tory as lib dem imploded. Their vote scattered left right and green. Is brexit enough to bring it back? That is what we will see in next 8 weeks but this is not a normal election. That is why it is risky to bet against the lib dems
Mr. Steve, clever chaps, the Chinese. Shame about the medicine bullshit.
Mr. Jim, I was amused to see on the BBC vox pops (about the triple lock) that the younger people were against its removal and the older person they showed supported it ending.
More importantly, has the tory press paid someone to ask the queen about the election yet?
Can't be long until we get a sun exclusive! video with her muttering something about that awful man Corbyn.
Sir Lynton needs to get the 2015 UKIP / Leave / ex-lab / C2DE voters to actually go out and vote tory, which is a pretty difficult task. A not-so-subtle nod from the queen (followed by a manufactured row, bringing it to everyone's attention) might just do the job.
That is surely bonkers? Who are the tory righties who need facing down, if they aren't MPs; and if they are MPs you can't count them as contributing to the majority.
Apologies I mean Oxford west and Abingdon to be precise
Just the nine and a half thousand majority to overcome.....
You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible
Not. Going. To. Happen.
The dog that will not bark in this election is the idea of life-long Tories who voted Remain suddenly voting for the LibDems, in what we all know is a forlorn hope that we will no longer be leaving that wonderful institution, that shining beacon of democracy, the European Union.
Mr. Jessop, my old passport is very empty, with the exception of a visa to the People's Republic of China. Looks rather out of place
Also, the Chinese write the date backwards. Still makes sense, of course, from year to days with months in between. I think the Americans are the only ones with the demented months/days/years approach.
The Chinese are right. The date format used by God is Yyyy-mm-dd. All others are broken.
I've read some patently stupid rubbish in my time on here, but that takes the biscuit. Yes, YYYY-MM-DD can be easily sorted, but it's far from perfect.
God's true calendar would be Julian date, in which case today is 2457865.5 . I'm very much looking forward to the election on 2457912.5
For God sake,the con's should be on the front foot with 20% lead but what have had is theresa running away from tv debates,Theresa running away from pension lock,Theresa running away from tax hikes and the only firm hard stance is on oversea's aid - which is a vote loser in my opinion.
What we have got is corbyn on the front foot,pull your f-king finger out Theresa.
These posts are reminding me of Casino R's reported missives to Matthew Elliot during the referendum....
I.e. Well meaning but entirely unnecessary :-)
Come on morti,even you must admit it's been a sh!t start ;-)
She's probably getting all the bad announcements out the way now and the rest of the campaign will concentrate on Brexit.
Gin,the announcements of today will be brought up all the way through the GE,she can't get away from them unless she backtracks and looks weak.
You cannot spend an entire campaign criticising a handful of pretty minor policies, other announcements and events will demand reaction.
On lab typically underperforming polls, given that us not a universal thing, and given Corbyn is depressing their score, I'm betting they outperform polls this time.
From my purely 'out of touch with real people', metropolitan, bien-pensant perspective, I and most people I know intend to switch from Lab to LD. It's why I think Chestnut(?)'s assertion that Corbyn is going to do well in London is woefully off the mark.
I think Corbyn will particularly collapse in London. The combination of annoyed remainers and antipathy to higher taxes is going to be particularly toxic in West London. The East will see the UKIP switchers to the Tories.
There aren't many UKIP voters in the north east of London. They are in places that sign themselves as Essex (though within Greater London boundaries).
The 'liberal' middle class that exists down Stoke Newington Church Street and in Dulwich Village does not extend into the vast council estates in Tottenham, Edmonton, Hackney, Whitechapel and the dingy bedsitters and private rentals of East Ham, Leyton and Wood Green.
Corbyn's greatest enemy in these places is apathy.
The divide will essentially come down to how wealthy the Labour voter is. The well off ones will look at the Lib Dems. The rest will stay the course with Labour.
It must be remembered - the wwc barely exists in inner North and East London. It does south of the river to some extent.
Labour still have a 9 point lead over the Tories among BAME voters according to one recent poll. The Lib Dems are not at the races with this demographic.
Mr. Choose, it's a maintenance of the 0.7% promise, but I agree. I also think it's damned foolish.
The Conservatives have a healthy lead but that doesn't mean it's smart politics to promise £13bn overseas aid spending whilst at the same time talking about ending a promise to pensioners, and hinting at increasing taxes.
It's sensible: DfID does a heck of a lot of good, and it's a shame you don't see that.
I read last night's discussion of potential tax rises with interest. I actually think it's good politics. Labour's attacked austerity and cuts strongly over the last seven years, to little effect. They've wasted a lot of time on a great deal of hot air and little substance.
But there have been cuts, and some people have been hurt. Generally not as much pain as Labour warned, but pain nonetheless. Cutting doesn't always make sense politically, morally or fiscally, and we've done many of the easy things. Yet we also need to try to reduce our deficit.
So May has several choices: on one hand she could commit to no tax rises in various areas. This would attract the right of her party and repel potential voters from the left; but more importantly it hamstrings them in government if tax rises are needed.
Saying we may raise some taxes repels some of the right of her party, but immediately removes a big negative against the party for many other voters. It also gives her government much more freedom for manoeuvre after the election.
But where are the right-wingers upset at the prospect of increased taxes going to go? UKIP appear a dead force, and they won't shift to Labour or the Lib Dems.
I agree. The next government may well have to raise some taxes to balance the books, and needs the freedom to do so. The demographic challenges of an ageing population, drop in migration and recession is a major financial challenge, and we are due a recession even withouth Brexit.
Any significant tax simplification policy means winners and losers too, so no rigid rules.
May doesn't like opposition, she prefers dictat. I think the novelty will wear off post election.
Apologies I mean Oxford west and Abingdon to be precise
Just the nine and a half thousand majority to overcome.....
You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible
Not. Going. To. Happen.
The dog that will not bark in this election is the idea of life-long Tories who voted Remain suddenly voting for the LibDems, in what we all know is a forlorn hope that we will no longer be leaving that wonderful institution, that shining beacon of democracy, the European Union.
Indeed there are plenty of us Remainers who would not remain Remainers were a second referendum to be held.
Apologies I mean Oxford west and Abingdon to be precise
Just the nine and a half thousand majority to overcome.....
You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible
It is a simple campaign which is needed given the short time available. The lib dems only need to borrow the Tory remainer vote for the election not convert it.
You have missed off the 4k UKIP vote. You need to bung at least half of that on Nicola Blackwood’s total.
The remaining Labour vote in OXWAB is pretty unsqueezable. Look at how it hasn’t changed much, 7k (2015), 6k (2010), 8k (2005), 9k (2001), 12k (1997), 8k (1992). etc. There are some people in OXWAB who want to vote Labour, no matter what, even though their vote is “wasted”.
Close miss, I think.
I think you're too casually assuming:
1. That UKIP voters are basically all borrowed Tories - assuming their vote halves in Oxford (say) a plurality will go Tory, but they won't get a +2K gain.
2. That someone who stuck with Blair and Brown despite the squeeze messages in earlier elections faces the same calculation with Corbyn at the helm. Also, that voting tactically for the Lib Dems in a seat with quite a lot of university voters is as problematic as 2015.
Having said that, I do actually agree it will be tight and my head says narrow miss.
The LDs will end the election with fewer than 10 seats and Westmorland and Lonsdale will not be one of them - ask their own councillors up here.
A bold prediction to say the least given its the only LD seat with a decen majority.
I'm betting on 13-15, but if the Tories surge like the polls suggest it could be less, if the polls are overexagerrating and they are lucky with tactical voting, possibly as many as 20.
That is surely bonkers? Who are the tory righties who need facing down, if they aren't MPs; and if they are MPs you can't count them as contributing to the majority.
The argument is presumably that the "majority" includes the opposition parties.
Apologies I mean Oxford west and Abingdon to be precise
Just the nine and a half thousand majority to overcome.....
You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible
It is a simple campaign which is needed given the short time available. The lib dems only need to borrow the Tory remainer vote for the election not convert it.
You have missed off the 4k UKIP vote. You need to bung at least half of that on Nicola Blackwood’s total.
The remaining Labour vote in OXWAB is pretty unsqueezable. Look at how it hasn’t changed much, 7k (2015), 6k (2010), 8k (2005), 9k (2001), 12k (1997), 8k (1992). etc. There are some people in OXWAB who want to vote Labour, no matter what, even though their vote is “wasted”.
Close miss, I think.
I think you're too casually assuming:
1. That UKIP voters are basically all borrowed Tories - assuming their vote halves in Oxford (say) a plurality will go Tory, but they won't get a +2K gain.
2. That someone who stuck with Blair and Brown despite the squeeze messages in earlier elections faces the same calculation with Corbyn at the helm. Also, that voting tactically for the Lib Dems in a seat with quite a lot of university voters is as problematic as 2015.
Having said that, I do actually agree it will be tight and my head says narrow miss.
So you can safely assume half the Labour vote will go to the Lib Dems but you can't assume half the UKIP vote will go to the Tories?
The LDs will end the election with fewer than 10 seats and Westmorland and Lonsdale will not be one of them - ask their own councillors up here.
I don't think Tim will lose his seat, much as I'd love him to. He'd be the first Party leader to lose a seat since Archibald Sinclair if memory serves. Staggeringly unlikely
The LibDem’s promised ‘second referendum’ would in fact be a vote on the deal struck with the EU.
Such a vote would incentivise the EU to offer Britain a lousy deal in the hope that this would be rejected.
That does not however necessarily equate to our remaining in the EU and could in fact result in leaving without a deal.
Either way, the country could lose out as a consequence of these shenanigans.
The country would gain if the EU offered us a lousy deal, it was put to the people in a referendum (accept this lousy deal as the best on offer or stay in), and the people vote to stay in. That would be a great outcome for the country and we could put this Brexit nonsense behind us. Brexit would be remembered in years to come as a moment of madness, thankfully recovered.
Having sat watched labour bastions fall like nine pins at the last election I would suggest it is too early to write off the lib dems. There are a couple of signs of momentum picking up. Large number of new members, a simple message with no competition giving them airtime and confusion amongst their competitors as to how they will fight the election. If the lib dems come up with a plan on cutting tuition fees they are going to be on a roll.
You think people will believe Farron suggesting tuition fees would be cut.. .??. a hell of a mea culpa plus a promise that cannot be materialised. I don't think so. Why would the LD's shoot themselves in the foot by reminding everyone of their about turn on tuition fees?
Good luck with that one!
Not Tim Farron's policy to raise them initially. High risk I agree but the students looking for the lib dems to say sorry.
The youngest students in 2010 are 25 now. Life's moved on.
But the debts could still be very much alive...
And abolishing fees for future students will help the graduates who've been burdened by Vince Cables fees how?
@BethRigby: Tories took all 15 Lib Dem seats in SW in 2015. May needs to hold them; Foreign Aid pledge helps to counter/neutralise Lib Dem threat (2/2)
The Europhiles will not be placated by this, but the people who the Tories are hoping to sweep up - Labour Doris from Bolton - will look at it and conclude it's poor allocation of funds.
The power of £350m a week was all about "wasting" money abroad when it could be spent in this country.
Apologies I mean Oxford west and Abingdon to be precise
Just the nine and a half thousand majority to overcome.....
You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible
It is a simple campaign which is needed given the short time available. The lib dems only need to borrow the Tory remainer vote for the election not convert it.
You have missed off the 4k UKIP vote. You need to bung at least half of that on Nicola Blackwood’s total.
The remaining Labour vote in OXWAB is pretty unsqueezable. Look at how it hasn’t changed much, 7k (2015), 6k (2010), 8k (2005), 9k (2001), 12k (1997), 8k (1992). etc. There are some people in OXWAB who want to vote Labour, no matter what, even though their vote is “wasted”.
Close miss, I think.
I think you're too casually assuming:
1. That UKIP voters are basically all borrowed Tories - assuming their vote halves in Oxford (say) a plurality will go Tory, but they won't get a +2K gain.
2. That someone who stuck with Blair and Brown despite the squeeze messages in earlier elections faces the same calculation with Corbyn at the helm. Also, that voting tactically for the Lib Dems in a seat with quite a lot of university voters is as problematic as 2015.
Having said that, I do actually agree it will be tight and my head says narrow miss.
I could easily believe Nicola’s majority will be less than 1k. But, we’re in agreement -- the Tories are favourites here.
As regards UKIP, will there be a candidate?
As regards squeezing Labour, I think many people shift voters from Lab to LD columns without really thinking. There are people who are just tribally, loyally Labour (they are largely not represented on pb.com).
Labour’s vote has been about 8k in OXWAB for thirty years -- way back to Foot in 1983. To even get it to down to 6k will be a lot of work for the LDs.
In my opinion (we’ll see in the locals), Cambridge is equally problematic. The LibDems have been in significant retreat on Cambridge Council in recent years, and without wishing to become too Seniorish, I don’t think that bodes well.
Mr. Choose, it's a maintenance of the 0.7% promise, but I agree. I also think it's damned foolish.
The Conservatives have a healthy lead but that doesn't mean it's smart politics to promise £13bn overseas aid spending whilst at the same time talking about ending a promise to pensioners, and hinting at increasing taxes.
The 0.7 pisses people way more than it should, but it insulates to some degree the uncaring Tory attack. Pensioners need to accept they get a good enough deal and all of us need to grow up and either accept massive spending cuts, which we know won't happen as even the Tories pushed welfare as far as they coukd, or accept tax rises.
Tmays lead is the best chance for a leader to be close to honest with the electorate and not be punished for it, and she must take it.
Cont....another seat which I know well is Edinburgh South. I can't find the odds but I'd be very surprised if Labour don't hold it. Clearly a target for Uncle Tom Cobbley and all but a very well known and popular MP should see it bucking the trend and remaining the the last Labour bastion in Scotland
LOL, I doubt your family connection has clouded your judgement Roger.
Morning everyone. BBC Parliament are showing the Election 97 on May by. It will be interesting to show the retreat Lab has made from their high water mark only 20 years ago.
They scrapped that earlier this week. It should be on their twitter feed if you want proper confirmation.
Bugger. I was looking forward to that.
I think they are all on youtube, although not the same as having it on the TV.
He's not totally right in the particulars, but those who'd prefer a soft Brexit have read signs of that being the approach many times and been dashed over and over. Even if May wants it, she obviously doesn't think she can get it, so she's focused on hard.
Mr. Choose, it's a maintenance of the 0.7% promise, but I agree. I also think it's damned foolish.
The Conservatives have a healthy lead but that doesn't mean it's smart politics to promise £13bn overseas aid spending whilst at the same time talking about ending a promise to pensioners, and hinting at increasing taxes.
The 0.7 pisses people way more than it should, but it insulates to some degree the uncaring Tory attack. Pensioners need to accept they get a good enough deal and all of us need to grow up and either accept massive spending cuts, which we know won't happen as even the Tories pushed welfare as far as they coukd, or accept tax rises.
Tmays lead is the best chance for a leader to be close to honest with the electorate and not be punished for it, and she must take it.
High income Brexit voters who don't want tax rises have nowhere else to go. They are - in the final analysis - as much of an insignificant minority as hardcore metropolitan remainers.
May and Hammond must stay on course, I think they are in tune with the quiet majority on this.
I've just had one idle thought about Scotland. What if we are about to see a 2007-2010 result where dramatic Ganges in Holyrood voting are completely not reflected in Westminster voting?
@AndyJS The age for a bus pass will increase to 66 by 2020 in line with the retirement age unless you live in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or London where it will stay at 60.
I have not even bothered getting mine, odd occasion I use the bus I just pay.
Spoke with a few people in the office about the election, all of them assumed Brenda from bristol was in a majority, and did not believe the people were in support of another election (note, support is not the same as will vote in).
I've just had one idle thought about Scotland. What if we are about to see a 2007-2010 result where dramatic Ganges in Holyrood voting are completely not reflected in Westminster voting?
Possible, but I guess it is the incumbency effect. Changes in Holyrood did not percolate through to well dug-in Labour and LibDem seats at Westminster because the MPs had been there for 10, 20 or 30 years.
So, have the SNP had enough time to dig in their MPs so there is a significant incumbency effect? Doubtful. I think the expectation of rather modest SNP losses is right.
I've just had one idle thought about Scotland. What if we are about to see a 2007-2010 result where dramatic Ganges in Holyrood voting are completely not reflected in Westminster voting?
Possible, but I guess it is the incumbency effect. Changes in Holyrood did not percolate through to well dug-in Labour and LibDem seats at Westminster because the MPs had been there for 10, 20 or 30 years.
So, have the SNP had enough time to dig in their MPs so there is a significant incumbency effect? Doubtful. I think the expectation of rather modest SNP losses is right.
I think the snp wave of support is still riding very high. How modest is modest losses? I'm thinking no more than 2-3.
Spoke with a few people in the office about the election, all of them assumed Brenda from bristol was in a majority, and did not believe the people were in support of another election (note, support is not the same as will vote in).
Elections are fun. I can't understand why anyone would moan about this one.
Apologies I mean Oxford west and Abingdon to be precise
Just the nine and a half thousand majority to overcome.....
You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible
It is a simple campaign which is needed given the short time available. The lib dems only need to borrow the Tory remainer vote for the election not convert it.
You have missed off the 4k UKIP vote. You need to bung at least half of that on Nicola Blackwood’s total.
The remaining Labour vote in OXWAB is pretty unsqueezable. Look at how it hasn’t changed much, 7k (2015), 6k (2010), 8k (2005), 9k (2001), 12k (1997), 8k (1992). etc. There are some people in OXWAB who want to vote Labour, no matter what, even though their vote is “wasted”.
Close miss, I think.
I think you're too casually assuming:
1. That UKIP voters are basically all borrowed Tories - assuming their vote halves in Oxford (say) a plurality will go Tory, but they won't get a +2K gain.
2. That someone who stuck with Blair and Brown despite the squeeze messages in earlier elections faces the same calculation with Corbyn at the helm. Also, that voting tactically for the Lib Dems in a seat with quite a lot of university voters is as problematic as 2015.
Having said that, I do actually agree it will be tight and my head says narrow miss.
I could easily believe Nicola’s majority will be less than 1k. But, we’re in agreement -- the Tories are favourites here.
As regards UKIP, will there be a candidate?
As regards squeezing Labour, I think many people shift voters from Lab to LD columns without really thinking. There are people who are just tribally, loyally Labour (they are largely not represented on pb.com).
Labour’s vote has been about 8k in OXWAB for thirty years -- way back to Foot in 1983. To even get it to down to 6k will be a lot of work for the LDs.
In my opinion (we’ll see in the locals), Cambridge is equally problematic. The LibDems have been in significant retreat on Cambridge Council in recent years, and without wishing to become too Seniorish, I don’t think that bodes well.
There haven't been any local elections in Cambridge since Brexit. Brexit is a key contributor to Labour's woes (which is why blaming it all on Corbyn always was missing much of the point) and Labours national poll ratings have been on the slide ever since.
I'm one of those anti-establishment lefties who agrees with much of the Labour platform - green jobs, public health service, more new homes, public railways, - so why am I so irritated by Mr Corbyn? Because actually that platform is just motherhood and apple pie to his supporters. It doesn't challenge anyone or make them think seriously about the difficulties we are facing - be it security, demographic or productive. Worse than that his casting of all our problems onto the 1% does nothing more than create a 'safe space' for the 99% who feel no need to take any responsibility for our country's problems. There is a desperate need to say to many people who have done well over the last 40 years that they were fortunate to buy cheap houses, enjoy good pensions etc and if the drawbridge is pulled up behind them it won't be good for Britain's social stability in the long run.
However to even raise these issues would be to raise the accusation that you are letting the establishment off the hook, muddying the waters and avoiding the real elephant in the room - inequality. And by inequality we mean the 1% (literal or figurative) and no-on else! I might even be sympathetic to Corbyn if I felt he was simply utterly sincere in his worldview and obsessions. Unfortunately I think he' a bit smarter and more politically calculating than that. He doesn't want to offend anyone except the 1%, who's capital (of the political kind) is of no use to him. His main aim so far as I can see is to maintain the human of shield of a quarter of a million activists around him which will surely be needed when the general election result comes in. Nothing must be said that might in the slightest way upset any of them. They were all correct about everything in the first place. Keeping them onside he should then be able to carry on with the vainglorious indian summer to his political career.
But suppose I'm wrong. Suppose I simply think this way because I've been brainwashed by the right wing press - the assumption of many of my Corbyn supporting friends for anyone who is blind to the decent common sense Jezza plainly represents. That isn't impossible but does it also apply to Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee, Zoe Williams et al? Or perhaps they were part of the right wing brainwashing to begin with?
Spoke with a few people in the office about the election, all of them assumed Brenda from bristol was in a majority, and did not believe the people were in support of another election (note, support is not the same as will vote in).
Elections are fun. I can't understand why anyone would moan about this one.
Well, our elections head had been due to retire after the locals, it might be out of sympathy for them!
Good piece from Alastair to which I would only add 2 points.
Firstly, the Lib Dem strength was localism, based on an active councillor base, Focus leaflets and local issues. During the Coalition years this base was severely eroded in successive elections making them much weaker for any immediate come back.
Secondly, the reason we were all told that the Lib Dems would not be facing wipeout in 2015 was incumbency and that local base. In these target seats they don't have incumbency either anymore. Some familiar faces with local followings, such as Uncle Vince, have decided to retread the boards but that is not the same as having the benefit of surgeries and local press over an extended period, let alone the money that MPs get to support their office and work for constituents. Recovering these seats is not going to be easy.
So what could change this? Basically, the Lib Dems need a significant lift in the polls reversing the adverse swing they currently face with the Tories. In my view this means that they need to go after Labour in a big way. Not necessarily in Labour seats, as Alastair points out there are relatively few Labour/Lib Dem marginal within credible reach, but generally in the media and in campaigning.
They could do worse than reprise Ruth Davidson's tactics in 2016. This country needs an opposition to test and challenge and we are it. Untrammelled power is not good for the country and does not lead to good government. Such a message is focussed at Labour and their ineptitude but will resonate in Tory marginals too. And Labour is such an easy target. You just can't miss at the moment.
David , you have to be joking , what do the Conservatives test in Scotland, absolutely nothing. It is the same whine every week.
Mr. Choose, it's a maintenance of the 0.7% promise, but I agree. I also think it's damned foolish.
The Conservatives have a healthy lead but that doesn't mean it's smart politics to promise £13bn overseas aid spending whilst at the same time talking about ending a promise to pensioners, and hinting at increasing taxes.
The 0.7 pisses people way more than it should, but it insulates to some degree the uncaring Tory attack. Pensioners need to accept they get a good enough deal and all of us need to grow up and either accept massive spending cuts, which we know won't happen as even the Tories pushed welfare as far as they coukd, or accept tax rises.
Tmays lead is the best chance for a leader to be close to honest with the electorate and not be punished for it, and she must take it.
Tax rises have gone as far as is politically feasible too. Governments will just have to keep their spending at about 37% of GDP.
Apologies I mean Oxford west and Abingdon to be precise
Just the nine and a half thousand majority to overcome.....
You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible
It is a simple campaign which is needed given the short time available. The lib dems only need to borrow the Tory remainer vote for the election not convert it.
You have missed off the 4k UKIP vote. You need to bung at least half of that on Nicola Blackwood’s total.
The remaining Labour vote in OXWAB is pretty unsqueezable. Look at how it hasn’t changed much, 7k (2015), 6k (2010), 8k (2005), 9k (2001), 12k (1997), 8k (1992). etc. There are some people in OXWAB who want to vote Labour, no matter what, even though their vote is “wasted”.
Close miss, I think.
I think you're too casually assuming:
1. That UKIP voters are basically all borrowed Tories - assuming their vote halves in Oxford (say) a plurality will go Tory, but they won't get a +2K gain.
2. That someone who stuck with Blair and Brown despite the squeeze messages in earlier elections faces the same calculation with Corbyn at the helm. Also, that voting tactically for the Lib Dems in a seat with quite a lot of university voters is as problematic as 2015.
Having said that, I do actually agree it will be tight and my head says narrow miss.
I could easily believe Nicola’s majority will be less than 1k. But, we’re in agreement -- the Tories are favourites here.
As regards UKIP, will there be a candidate?
As regards squeezing Labour, I think many people shift voters from Lab to LD columns without really thinking. There are people who are just tribally, loyally Labour (they are largely not represented on pb.com).
Labour’s vote has been about 8k in OXWAB for thirty years -- way back to Foot in 1983. To even get it to down to 6k will be a lot of work for the LDs.
In my opinion (we’ll see in the locals), Cambridge is equally problematic. The LibDems have been in significant retreat on Cambridge Council in recent years, and without wishing to become too Seniorish, I don’t think that bodes well.
I'd expect Nicola Blackwood to hold it fairly easily. I'd see her majority as being more like 5k.
That is surely bonkers? Who are the tory righties who need facing down, if they aren't MPs; and if they are MPs you can't count them as contributing to the majority.
The argument is presumably that the "majority" includes the opposition parties.
Oh OK thanks dim of me. But I think counting on opponents in that way works better for one off yes/no questions (should we bomb the shit out of Middle Eastern state X?) than for something as complex as Brexit.
And "Brexit at any cost" is an attempt to create a (frothing, swivel-eyed) bogeyman because it means nothing more than "Brexit" cos that's what the country voted for - not "Brexit if it looks to the government or to parliament a good plan, after a detailed cost/benefit analysis."
I'm one of those anti-establishment lefties who agrees with much of the Labour platform - green jobs, public health service, more new homes, public railways, - so why am I so irritated by Mr Corbyn? Because actually that platform is just motherhood and apple pie to his supporters. It doesn't challenge anyone or make them think seriously about the difficulties we are facing - be it security, demographic or productive. Worse than that his casting of all our problems onto the 1% does nothing more than create a 'safe space' for the 99% who feel no need to take any responsibility for our country's problems. There is a desperate need to say to many people who have done well over the last 40 years that they were fortunate to buy cheap houses, enjoy good pensions etc and if the drawbridge is pulled up behind them it won't be good for Britain's social stability in the long run.
However to even raise these issues would be to raise the accusation that you are letting the establishment off the hook, muddying the waters and avoiding the real elephant in the room - inequality. And by inequality we mean the 1% (literal or figurative) and no-on else! I might even be sympathetic to Corbyn if I felt he was simply utterly sincere in his worldview and obsessions. Unfortunately I think he' a bit smarter and more politically calculating than that. He doesn't want to offend anyone except the 1%, who's capital (of the political kind) is of no use to him. His main aim so far as I can see is to maintain the human of shield of a quarter of a million activists around him which will surely be needed when the general election result comes in. Nothing must be said that might in the slightest way upset any of them. They were all correct about everything in the first place. Keeping them onside he should then be able to carry on with the vainglorious indian summer to his political career.
But suppose I'm wrong. Suppose I simply think this way because I've been brainwashed by the right wing press - the assumption of many of my Corbyn supporting friends for anyone who is blind to the decent common sense Jezza plainly represents. That isn't impossible but does it also apply to Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee, Zoe Williams et al? Or perhaps they were part of the right wing brainwashing to begin with?
I think your comparing those broad platforms to motherhood and apple pie is an interesting one. As you say, it's all very well saying nice things about some key areas that, probably, most people agree on anyway, but that's the sort of pablum you get on a leaflet that means little, real life is full of difficult issues. Corbyn is not alone in avoiding complexity or nuance of course, but he is an extreme example of it.
He's not totally right in the particulars, but those who'd prefer a soft Brexit have read signs of that being the approach many times and been dashed over and over. Even if May wants it, she obviously doesn't think she can get it, so she's focused on hard.
The trouble is that soft Brexit is a chimera, it's an invention to avoid reality. It's a bit like the doctrine of purgatory which the more theologians considered it turned out to contain none of the joys of heaven with all of the miseries of hell.
Good article Mr Meeks. Personally I think the LDs will get around 18-20 seats in affluent Remain areas in Southwest London and seats like Lewes and Bristol West, Hampstead and Cambridge as well as a handful in the Southwest they used to hold like Bath, Thornbury and Yate and Truro and 2 from the SNP, Edinburgh West (which they hold at Holyrood) and East Dunbartonshire with Jo Swinson restanding. However I think they could lose Leave voting North Norfolk and Carshalton and Wallington to the Tories. That would take them back above their 2015 total and where the Liberals were from 1945 to 1979 but still below the SDP/LD totals from 1983 to 2010
There haven't been any local elections in Cambridge since Brexit. Brexit is a key contributor to Labour's woes (which is why blaming it all on Corbyn always was missing much of the point) and Labours national poll ratings have been on the slide ever since.
I agree Brexit is a key component of their difficulties.
Of course, in Cambridge, it is the Eastern wards that were for Brexit, and the University wards for Remain. Zeichner is so ultra-Remain that he out-libdems the LibDem.
Can he keep Labour’s strange coalition together?
I doubt if Kings Hedges or Abbey are going to vote for Huppert. So, Huppert has to convert Remainer Labourites to Remainer LibDems in the face of a vociferous Remainer Labour MP.
Or Huppert has to hope that enough of the Leavers in the East of city don’t turn out for ultra-Remainer Zeichner?
Apologies I mean Oxford west and Abingdon to be precise
Just the nine and a half thousand majority to overcome.....
You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible
It is a simple campaign which is needed given the short time available. The lib dems only need to borrow the Tory remainer vote for the election not convert it.
You have missed off the 4k UKIP vote. You need to bung at least half of that on Nicola Blackwood’s total.
The remaining Labour vote in OXWAB is pretty unsqueezable. Look at how it hasn’t changed much, 7k (2015), 6k (2010), 8k (2005), 9k (2001), 12k (1997), 8k (1992). etc. There are some people in OXWAB who want to vote Labour, no matter what, even though their vote is “wasted”.
Close miss, I think.
I think you're too casually assuming:
1. That UKIP voters are basically all borrowed Tories - assuming their vote halves in Oxford (say) a plurality will go Tory, but they won't get a +2K gain.
2. That someone who stuck with Blair and Brown despite the squeeze messages in earlier elections faces the same calculation with Corbyn at the helm. Also, that voting tactically for the Lib Dems in a seat with quite a lot of university voters is as problematic as 2015.
Having said that, I do actually agree it will be tight and my head says narrow miss.
I could easily believe Nicola’s majority will be less than 1k. But, we’re in agreement -- the Tories are favourites here.
As regards UKIP, will there be a candidate?
As regards squeezing Labour, I think many people shift voters from Lab to LD columns without really thinking. There are people who are just tribally, loyally Labour (they are largely not represented on pb.com).
Labour’s vote has been about 8k in OXWAB for thirty years -- way back to Foot in 1983. To even get it to down to 6k will be a lot of work for the LDs.
In my opinion (we’ll see in the locals), Cambridge is equally problematic. The LibDems have been in significant retreat on Cambridge Council in recent years, and without wishing to become too Seniorish, I don’t think that bodes well.
I'd expect Nicola Blackwood to hold it fairly easily. I'd see her majority as being more like 5k.
If the LibDems are putting resources into seats with a near 10k majority, you have to ask some big questions about their strategy for this election....
This election, being of the 'snap' variety means that all parties will be prone to blunder into policy positions which are untested and ill-thought out. There is evidence of this already. For the LibDems they need to give unambiguous answers to these questions:
Do you want to cancel Brexit?
Give clear reasons for your answer.
If no, then:
Which combination of the following will you seek to retain?
Single Market Customs Union.
Again give clear reasons for your answer and explain the consequences of taking or not taking each option.
Farron goes around making a great deal of noise about tthese things, but I wonder if he really understands fully what he is saying, or has the necessary clarity of thinking.
I dont believe that. Unless labour outperform even my prediction of near 200 seats, even he would not hold on in that situation. Staying on would not help recovery, and we all mock the labour moderates, but even they would move to shift him again if they lose, and, finally, would quit if he doesn't. Corbyn could have left labour decades ago, do the brand is clearly important to him, he wo t want it destroyed.
It's sensible: DfID does a heck of a lot of good, and it's a shame you don't see that.
It's idiotic and anti-Conservative. Foreign aid should be a matter of individual conscience, not state compulsion. There are any number of perfectly good charities in this area to give one's money to. I do not see why the state needs to get involved at all.
And that's aside from the question of how much of our aid budget is wasted, and whether the money could be better spent at home.
I was going to go out canvassing for the Conservatives today, but I don't think I'll bother, despite being in a tight Tory/Labour marginal.
I'm one of those anti-establishment lefties who agrees with much of the Labour platform - green jobs, public health service, more new homes, public railways, - so why am I so irritated by Mr Corbyn? Because actually that platform is just motherhood and apple pie to his supporters. It doesn't challenge anyone or make them think seriously about the difficulties we are facing - be it security, demographic or productive. Worse than that his casting of all our problems onto the 1% does nothing more than create a 'safe space' for the 99% who feel no need to take any responsibility for our country's problems. There is a desperate need to say to many people who have done well over the last 40 years that they were fortunate to buy cheap houses, enjoy good pensions etc and if the drawbridge is pulled up behind them it won't be good for Britain's social stability in the long run.
However to even raise these issues would be to raise the accusation that you are letting the establishment off the hook, muddying the waters and avoiding the real elephant in the room - inequality. And by inequality we mean the 1% (literal or figurative) and no-on else! I might even be sympathetic to Corbyn if I felt he was simply utterly sincere in his worldview and obsessions. Unfortunately I think he' a bit smarter and more politically calculating than that. He doesn't want to offend anyone except the 1%, who's capital (of the political kind) is of no use to him. His main aim so far as I can see is to maintain the human of shield of a quarter of a million activists around him which will surely be needed when the general election result comes in. Nothing must be said that might in the slightest way upset any of them. They were all correct about everything in the first place. Keeping them onside he should then be able to carry on with the vainglorious indian summer to his political career.
But suppose I'm wrong. Suppose I simply think this way because I've been brainwashed by the right wing press - the assumption of many of my Corbyn supporting friends for anyone who is blind to the decent common sense Jezza plainly represents. That isn't impossible but does it also apply to Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee, Zoe Williams et al? Or perhaps they were part of the right wing brainwashing to begin with?
There haven't been any local elections in Cambridge since Brexit. Brexit is a key contributor to Labour's woes (which is why blaming it all on Corbyn always was missing much of the point) and Labours national poll ratings have been on the slide ever since.
I agree Brexit is a key component of their difficulties.
Of course, in Cambridge, it is the Eastern wards that were for Brexit, and the University wards for Remain. Zeichner is so ultra-Remain that he out-libdems the LibDem.
Can he keep Labour’s strange coalition together?
I doubt if Kings Hedges or Abbey are going to vote for Huppert. So, Huppert has to convert Remainer Labourites to Remainer LibDems in the face of a vociferous Remainer Labour MP.
Or Huppert has to hope that enough of the Leavers in the East of city don’t turn out for ultra-Remainer Zeichner?
Comments
Also, the Chinese write the date backwards. Still makes sense, of course, from year to days with months in between. I think the Americans are the only ones with the demented months/days/years approach.
Staying in or rejoining the EU?
EEA membership? This is a version of Brexit, surely, and not that much different from Labour.
Or will it just be a fuzzy we don't like May's version.
very civil of you Roger
normally you "progressives" are a lot more fruity in your descriptions of Tory women
On the subject of tuition fees, I think they've got away with their ridiculous signed pledge fiasco. I've got two lads at Uni now, and neither of them are fussed about their fees- they just moan that they can't borrow more!
I'm knifing Roger in the front
The Conservatives have a healthy lead but that doesn't mean it's smart politics to promise £13bn overseas aid spending whilst at the same time talking about ending a promise to pensioners, and hinting at increasing taxes.
It is easy for the residents of plush Wolvercote and leafy Summertown (where our own dear Tyson hails from) to talk to each other and convince themselves the seat will fall.
Firstly, the Lib Dem strength was localism, based on an active councillor base, Focus leaflets and local issues. During the Coalition years this base was severely eroded in successive elections making them much weaker for any immediate come back.
Secondly, the reason we were all told that the Lib Dems would not be facing wipeout in 2015 was incumbency and that local base. In these target seats they don't have incumbency either anymore. Some familiar faces with local followings, such as Uncle Vince, have decided to retread the boards but that is not the same as having the benefit of surgeries and local press over an extended period, let alone the money that MPs get to support their office and work for constituents. Recovering these seats is not going to be easy.
So what could change this? Basically, the Lib Dems need a significant lift in the polls reversing the adverse swing they currently face with the Tories. In my view this means that they need to go after Labour in a big way. Not necessarily in Labour seats, as Alastair points out there are relatively few Labour/Lib Dem marginal within credible reach, but generally in the media and in campaigning.
They could do worse than reprise Ruth Davidson's tactics in 2016. This country needs an opposition to test and challenge and we are it. Untrammelled power is not good for the country and does not lead to good government. Such a message is focussed at Labour and their ineptitude but will resonate in Tory marginals too. And Labour is such an easy target. You just can't miss at the moment.
I'm very comfortable with that.
I read last night's discussion of potential tax rises with interest. I actually think it's good politics. Labour's attacked austerity and cuts strongly over the last seven years, to little effect. They've wasted a lot of time on a great deal of hot air and little substance.
But there have been cuts, and some people have been hurt. Generally not as much pain as Labour warned, but pain nonetheless. Cutting doesn't always make sense politically, morally or fiscally, and we've done many of the easy things. Yet we also need to try to reduce our deficit.
So May has several choices: on one hand she could commit to no tax rises in various areas. This would attract the right of her party and repel potential voters from the left; but more importantly it hamstrings them in government if tax rises are needed.
Saying we may raise some taxes repels some of the right of her party, but immediately removes a big negative against the party for many other voters. It also gives her government much more freedom for manoeuvre after the election.
But where are the right-wingers upset at the prospect of increased taxes going to go? UKIP appear a dead force, and they won't shift to Labour or the Lib Dems.
Thanks Mr Meeks for the informative thread and witty intro. – Sub 25 seats seems a fair guess for the Lib Dems on their present VI polling, although it does appear somewhat at odds with their successes at local/by-election level IMO. Gut feeling is however, that they may do better, something in the 25-30 region, obviously the May local elections will provide a far clearer picture of Lib Dem success in June.
The remaining Labour vote in OXWAB is pretty unsqueezable. Look at how it hasn’t changed much, 7k (2015), 6k (2010), 8k (2005), 9k (2001), 12k (1997), 8k (1992). etc. There are some people in OXWAB who want to vote Labour, no matter what, even though their vote is “wasted”.
Close miss, I think.
Mr. Jim, I was amused to see on the BBC vox pops (about the triple lock) that the younger people were against its removal and the older person they showed supported it ending.
but having seen how Ed shafted Dave over Syria, would any PM really want to leave themselves in the tender hands of the opposition ?
Can't be long until we get a sun exclusive! video with her muttering something about that awful man Corbyn.
Sir Lynton needs to get the 2015 UKIP / Leave / ex-lab / C2DE voters to actually go out and vote tory, which is a pretty difficult task. A not-so-subtle nod from the queen (followed by a manufactured row, bringing it to everyone's attention) might just do the job.
The dog that will not bark in this election is the idea of life-long Tories who voted Remain suddenly voting for the LibDems, in what we all know is a forlorn hope that we will no longer be leaving that wonderful institution, that shining beacon of democracy, the European Union.
God's true calendar would be Julian date, in which case today is 2457865.5 . I'm very much looking forward to the election on 2457912.5
I'm sure everyone will get used to it in time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day
On lab typically underperforming polls, given that us not a universal thing, and given Corbyn is depressing their score, I'm betting they outperform polls this time.
The 'liberal' middle class that exists down Stoke Newington Church Street and in Dulwich Village does not extend into the vast council estates in Tottenham, Edmonton, Hackney, Whitechapel and the dingy bedsitters and private rentals of East Ham, Leyton and Wood Green.
Corbyn's greatest enemy in these places is apathy.
The divide will essentially come down to how wealthy the Labour voter is. The well off ones will look at the Lib Dems. The rest will stay the course with Labour.
It must be remembered - the wwc barely exists in inner North and East London. It does south of the river to some extent.
Labour still have a 9 point lead over the Tories among BAME voters according to one recent poll. The Lib Dems are not at the races with this demographic.
Any significant tax simplification policy means winners and losers too, so no rigid rules.
May doesn't like opposition, she prefers dictat. I think the novelty will wear off post election.
1. That UKIP voters are basically all borrowed Tories - assuming their vote halves in Oxford (say) a plurality will go Tory, but they won't get a +2K gain.
2. That someone who stuck with Blair and Brown despite the squeeze messages in earlier elections faces the same calculation with Corbyn at the helm. Also, that voting tactically for the Lib Dems in a seat with quite a lot of university voters is as problematic as 2015.
Having said that, I do actually agree it will be tight and my head says narrow miss.
I'm betting on 13-15, but if the Tories surge like the polls suggest it could be less, if the polls are overexagerrating and they are lucky with tactical voting, possibly as many as 20.
Or do you think he'll meet a fishy fate?
Mr. Jessop, AUC, ab urbe condita, from the founding of Rome is a nice system.
If think only one of those two is correct.
Anyway, time will tell.
The power of £350m a week was all about "wasting" money abroad when it could be spent in this country.
As regards UKIP, will there be a candidate?
As regards squeezing Labour, I think many people shift voters from Lab to LD columns without really thinking. There are people who are just tribally, loyally Labour (they are largely not represented on pb.com).
Labour’s vote has been about 8k in OXWAB for thirty years -- way back to Foot in 1983. To even get it to down to 6k will be a lot of work for the LDs.
In my opinion (we’ll see in the locals), Cambridge is equally problematic. The LibDems have been in significant retreat on Cambridge Council in recent years, and without wishing to become too Seniorish, I don’t think that bodes well.
Tmays lead is the best chance for a leader to be close to honest with the electorate and not be punished for it, and she must take it.
May and Hammond must stay on course, I think they are in tune with the quiet majority on this.
So, have the SNP had enough time to dig in their MPs so there is a significant incumbency effect? Doubtful. I think the expectation of rather modest SNP losses is right.
However to even raise these issues would be to raise the accusation that you are letting the establishment off the hook, muddying the waters and avoiding the real elephant in the room - inequality. And by inequality we mean the 1% (literal or figurative) and no-on else! I might even be sympathetic to Corbyn if I felt he was simply utterly sincere in his worldview and obsessions. Unfortunately I think he' a bit smarter and more politically calculating than that. He doesn't want to offend anyone except the 1%, who's capital (of the political kind) is of no use to him. His main aim so far as I can see is to maintain the human of shield of a quarter of a million activists around him which will surely be needed when the general election result comes in. Nothing must be said that might in the slightest way upset any of them. They were all correct about everything in the first place. Keeping them onside he should then be able to carry on with the vainglorious indian summer to his political career.
But suppose I'm wrong. Suppose I simply think this way because I've been brainwashed by the right wing press - the assumption of many of my Corbyn supporting friends for anyone who is blind to the decent common sense Jezza plainly represents. That isn't impossible but does it also apply to Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee, Zoe Williams et al? Or perhaps they were part of the right wing brainwashing to begin with?
Awesome.
And "Brexit at any cost" is an attempt to create a (frothing, swivel-eyed) bogeyman because it means nothing more than "Brexit" cos that's what the country voted for - not "Brexit if it looks to the government or to parliament a good plan, after a detailed cost/benefit analysis."
Of course, in Cambridge, it is the Eastern wards that were for Brexit, and the University wards for Remain. Zeichner is so ultra-Remain that he out-libdems the LibDem.
Can he keep Labour’s strange coalition together?
I doubt if Kings Hedges or Abbey are going to vote for Huppert. So, Huppert has to convert Remainer Labourites to Remainer LibDems in the face of a vociferous Remainer Labour MP.
Or Huppert has to hope that enough of the Leavers in the East of city don’t turn out for ultra-Remainer Zeichner?
For the LibDems they need to give unambiguous answers to these questions:
Do you want to cancel Brexit?
Give clear reasons for your answer.
If no, then:
Which combination of the following will you seek to retain?
Single Market
Customs Union.
Again give clear reasons for your answer and explain the consequences of taking or not taking each option.
Farron goes around making a great deal of noise about tthese things, but I wonder if he really understands fully what he is saying, or has the necessary clarity of thinking.
And that's aside from the question of how much of our aid budget is wasted, and whether the money could be better spent at home.
I was going to go out canvassing for the Conservatives today, but I don't think I'll bother, despite being in a tight Tory/Labour marginal.