All the polls are showing similar leads, got to go with the trend surely?
Done all-nighters watching the election coverage of last 3 GE's, I might not have bother this time around.
I was thinking as this could be a big one, I might not do election night counting - that way I can follow the results and see if my long shots pay off!
Except via differential turnout could people tell me how Cons take Moray?
They can probably squeeze another 2-3K from the other Unionists but there has to be a significant swing from the SNP. There were some big swings that way in 2016 in the Holyrood elections and there is some evidence that the Tartan Tories are finally returning home but.... As I said earlier, it's hard.
I don't think the Holyrood election showed SNP to Con switching - for me it was differential turnout. Any constituency that had a big increase in turnout had a big increase in Con vote.
Another rich seam of criticism to be mined against him there, with his prognostications on their success still ongoing until relatively recently. Then silence when he finally realised what they were actually doing.
If the polls are accurate, Labour's going to play the part of Alderaan to the Conservatives' Death Star.
It's already bad for democracy to have such an inept opposition. If Labour are this badly harmed, they have to axe Corbyn or split. The alternative is a risk of the worst result for Labour since WWII, to be followed five years later by an even worse result.
Still a long way to go, though. I wonder if May's regretting making the campaign period so long.
She had no choice - under the terms of the FTPA there have to be 5 weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day. What I still cannot get my head around is why Corbyn meekly bowed to her wishes. Had he got Labour to abstain and denied fer the required 434 , he could be PM by now if May had continued with her election plans by tabling a No Confidence Vote in her own Government. The guy is thoroughly imbecilic.
I agree with your last sentence but it's not really clear that the no-confidence route would have made Corbyn temporary PM. There was a thread on this a while back - the precedents are a bit mixed but it seems unlikely.
Well - RodCrosby and I are in full agreement on this. If A PM loses the Confidence of the Commons , precedent would require him or her to resign. I seem to remember that David Herdson tended to a similar view. Rod Crosby rather doubted that had she failed to get the required 434 votes last week that she would have continued with her election plans . Instead she would have carried on , and relied on labelling Corbyn as 'frit'. He thought she would not have risked having Corbyn installed at No 10.
Except via differential turnout could people tell me how Cons take Moray?
They can probably squeeze another 2-3K from the other Unionists but there has to be a significant swing from the SNP. There were some big swings that way in 2016 in the Holyrood elections and there is some evidence that the Tartan Tories are finally returning home but.... As I said earlier, it's hard.
I don't think the Holyrood election showed SNP to Con switching - for me it was differential turnout. Any constituency that had a big increase in turnout had a big increase in Con vote.
Really hard to judge. Anecdotally, I am aware of former Tories that voted SNP as a better alternative than SLAB who are increasingly concerned that the SNP have morphed into SLAB and never really thought independence was a goer. The irony is that without Indryref2 they would probably still think that way.
But your underlying point is sound. If the SNP vote is solid Robertson wins. It's as simple as that.
If the polls are accurate, Labour's going to play the part of Alderaan to the Conservatives' Death Star.
It's already bad for democracy to have such an inept opposition. If Labour are this badly harmed, they have to axe Corbyn or split. The alternative is a risk of the worst result for Labour since WWII, to be followed five years later by an even worse result.
Still a long way to go, though. I wonder if May's regretting making the campaign period so long.
She had no choice - under the terms of the FTPA there have to be 5 weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day. What I still cannot get my head around is why Corbyn meekly bowed to her wishes. Had he got Labour to abstain and denied fer the required 434 , he could be PM by now if May had continued with her election plans by tabling a No Confidence Vote in her own Government. The guy is thoroughly imbecilic.
He was boxed in, by announcing she wanted an election because of potential opposition game playing she had checkmated him. Had he done what you suggest she would have been able to point at him and say "see what I mean, gameplaying".
Yes - but that would not have had he effect of facilitating the election!
Well - RodCrosby and I are in full agreement on this. If A PM loses the Confidence of the Commons , precedent would require him or her to resign. I seem to remember that David Herdson tended to a similar view. Rod Crosby rather doubted that had she failed to get the required 434 votes last week that she would have continued with her election plans . Instead she would have carried on , and relied on labelling Corbyn as 'frit'. He thought she would not have risked having Corbyn installed at No 10.
I agree, she would have had the added bonus of every time anyone from Labour tried to oppose her program, she could claim with justification that they had voted for her to continue it, and if they would like to have another chance to call an election she would be pleased to furnish them with it. A few rounds of that and they would be a bigger laughing stock than they are already.
That Corbyn-Marr stuff was a little weird - Marr presents a scenario where Corbyn is told we know where the ISIS leader is and would he authorise a strike, he waffles about how what he wants is a political solution in Syria and the question is would this help, so Marr presses him if he thinks killing the leader of ISIS would be helpful for a political solution, and Corbyn responds that he thinks the leader of ISIS 'not being around' would be helpful, before going back on civilian casualties.
I'm not sure his focusing on the general worth, or not, of the bombing campaign when the question is specifically 'we know for certain where he is, would you do it?' is particularly helpful. He's trying to present as cautious, which many people back, but on a hypothetical which is much simpler. And if he thinks the leader 'not being around' would be helpful, how does he think that might happen?
That Corbyn-Marr stuff was a little weird - Marr presents a scenario where Corbyn is told we know where the ISIS leader is and would he authorise a strike, he waffles about how what he wants is a political solution in Syria and the question is would this help, so Marr presses him if he thinks killing the leader of ISIS would be helpful for a political solution, and Corbyn responds that he thinks the leader of ISIS 'not being around' would be helpful, before going back on civilian casualties.
I'm not sure his focusing on the general worth, or not, of the bombing campaign when the question is specifically 'we know for certain where he is, would you do it?' is particularly helpful. He's trying to present as cautious, which many people back, but on a hypothetical which is much simpler. And if he thinks the leader 'not being around' would be helpful, how does he think that might happen?
kle4, you just have to have a line. Corbyn does not have a line.
Except via differential turnout could people tell me how Cons take Moray?
Tactical voting, on the same scale as that which got Michael Portillo two decades ago.
Dream on, more chane of Shergar winning the Derby this year
The SNP slobs were just settling in to five fat years of boozing and binging on the UK public purse but now the day of reckoning has arrived early They'll get just what they deserve.
If the polls are accurate, Labour's going to play the part of Alderaan to the Conservatives' Death Star.
It's already bad for democracy to have such an inept opposition. If Labour are this badly harmed, they have to axe Corbyn or split. The alternative is a risk of the worst result for Labour since WWII, to be followed five years later by an even worse result.
Still a long way to go, though. I wonder if May's regretting making the campaign period so long.
She had no choice - under the terms of the FTPA there have to be 5 weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day. What I still cannot get my head around is why Corbyn meekly bowed to her wishes. Had he got Labour to abstain and denied fer the required 434 , he could be PM by now if May had continued with her election plans by tabling a No Confidence Vote in her own Government. The guy is thoroughly imbecilic.
He was boxed in, by announcing she wanted an election because of potential opposition game playing she had checkmated him. Had he done what you suggest she would have been able to point at him and say "see what I mean, gameplaying".
Yes - but that would not have had he effect of facilitating the election!
No but the fact was she completely outplayed him. By keeping the news media unaware she ensured they were excitable when she announced her intention. By tabling the motion the next day she ensured sufficient head of steam built up that there would be an election. Corbyn had no real choice, the PM had ensured that and so it shows that she has enormous political acumen.
It does indeed - Lab's floor is 25% with MOE. No lower.
We're about a week into the campaign so the polls are showng that current levels of support for Lab are 25% and for Con ~48%, so I see no particular reason to declare that anyone has hit a ceiling or a floor yet.
Labour seem to be averaging 26% at the moment with the Tories on 46%.
It does indeed - Lab's floor is 25% with MOE. No lower.
We're about a week into the campaign so the polls are showng that current levels of support for Lab are 25% and for Con ~48%, so I see no particular reason to declare that anyone has hit a ceiling or a floor yet.
Labour seem to be averaging 26% at the moment with the Tories on 46%.
The pre GE polls generally overstate Labour. They'll get around 20 %, hopefully less.
I'm not sure his focusing on the general worth, or not, of the bombing campaign when the question is specifically 'we know for certain where he is, would you do it?' is particularly helpful. He's trying to present as cautious, which many people back, but on a hypothetical which is much simpler. And if he thinks the leader 'not being around' would be helpful, how does he think that might happen?
I am sure he would much rather we put a special ops team (presumeably with truncheons and handcuffs instead of guns) in harms way to attempt to arrest him and bring him to trial in The Hague, because that sort of mission has never turned into a fiasco before. Some people just like to salve their consciences with other people's blood.
Another one that could be added to TSE's list is the return of anti-Tory tactical voting in Scotland, rather than anti-SNP. That might make the wilder seat gain projections there a tad optimistic?
Won't tactical voting in Scotland be on unionist/nationalist lines?
One would hope so - any allegedly patriotic Labour voter who votes SNP to keep the Tories out should take a long hard look at themselves. SNP -> Labour tactical voting is an interesting possibility, but moot given the lack of Labour/Tory contests in Scotland.
Bollox, any Labour voter who votes Tory should be ashamed of themselves
Morning Malc - seems my predictions of the rise of the conservatives and unionist support is crystalising in the Scots polls. I have concern over polls but the direction of travel, not only in Scotland but here in Wales, does point to a good conservative result in GE2017 and also in Scotland
G, hold off on the champagne , it is a chimera
Malc - neither my wife or I like or drink champagne and I do not count the polls as proof of a Scots conservative boost but it does look like they will achieve a good result - which my wife and I would celebrate with a cup of tea and a macaroon bar
LOL, if they do I will toast you and your wife's good health with a nice malt G.
Malc - thank you for that lovely comment - all the best
To play devils advocate in defence of Corbyn's bank holiday plans: yes they don't make sense economically, and the timing of the dates is not ideal, but it could be seen as a good way of trying to foster British unionism. If we all celebrate each other's patron saint day it may go a little way towards fostering better relations between the constituent parts of the UK. No idea if that is why Corbyn has chosen this though.
I'm sure it is. As policies go I can see it being reasonably popular and well meaning.
Bank holidays are a relic from the late 19th century, before the days of annual leave entitlements. If I were dictator (and the country could do a lot worse) I'd abolish them and add the number of days to annual leave entitlements. Then people could take their holiday when they chose, not when the government thinks they should.
And I'd shoot anybody who said that this increased freedom was a bad idea.
No need to be a dictator that's already the law, although companies are allowed to shutdown and make you use one of your 28 day entitlement if they've shut down on that day.
Some larger engineering works still do a summer shutdown where everyone has to take 5 or 10 of their statutory days off as compulsory holiday whilst the machines are overhauled.
I have never had any choice at all about when my holidays are. Given how long they are, I'm not about to start complaining though.
If the polls are accurate, Labour's going to play the part of Alderaan to the Conservatives' Death Star.
It's already bad for democracy to have such an inept opposition. If Labour are this badly harmed, they have to axe Corbyn or split. The alternative is a risk of the worst result for Labour since WWII, to be followed five years later by an even worse result.
Still a long way to go, though. I wonder if May's regretting making the campaign period so long.
She had no choice - under the terms of the FTPA there have to be 5 weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day. What I still cannot get my head around is why Corbyn meekly bowed to her wishes. Had he got Labour to abstain and denied fer the required 434 , he could be PM by now if May had continued with her election plans by tabling a No Confidence Vote in her own Government. The guy is thoroughly imbecilic.
I agree with your last sentence but it's not really clear that the no-confidence route would have made Corbyn temporary PM. There was a thread on this a while back - the precedents are a bit mixed but it seems unlikely.
Well - RodCrosby and I are in full agreement on this. If A PM loses the Confidence of the Commons , precedent would require him or her to resign.
No it wouldn't. There is no precedent: the FTPA rewrote the rules.
It does indeed - Lab's floor is 25% with MOE. No lower.
We're about a week into the campaign so the polls are showng that current levels of support for Lab are 25% and for Con ~48%, so I see no particular reason to declare that anyone has hit a ceiling or a floor yet.
Labour seem to be averaging 26% at the moment with the Tories on 46%.
The pre GE polls generally overstate Labour. They'll get around 20 %, hopefully less.
You really want a one-party state don't you? Whatever the reasons, this is not healthy for democracy.
Another rich seam of criticism to be mined against him there, with his prognostications on their success still ongoing until relatively recently. Then silence when he finally realised what they were actually doing.
Is there much video footage of Corbyn talking up Venezuela?
If I was running the Tory Campaign*, I would have focused on all the nice things he has sead about it in the past, looking at the protests in that country over the last week, there could well be a popular uprising and removal of the government, in the next month, if that happens it will taint all those who talked kindly of that government, in the same way that the fall of the Berlin wall, tainted all the Communists in the west for a generation.
* looking at the opinion poles they show no singe of needing my help or advise, admittedly
Well - RodCrosby and I are in full agreement on this. If A PM loses the Confidence of the Commons , precedent would require him or her to resign. I seem to remember that David Herdson tended to a similar view. Rod Crosby rather doubted that had she failed to get the required 434 votes last week that she would have continued with her election plans . Instead she would have carried on , and relied on labelling Corbyn as 'frit'. He thought she would not have risked having Corbyn installed at No 10.
I agree, she would have had the added bonus of every time anyone from Labour tried to oppose her program, she could claim with justification that they had voted for her to continue it, and if they would like to have another chance to call an election she would be pleased to furnish them with it. A few rounds of that and they would be a bigger laughing stock than they are already.
But Labour would have ditched Corbyn in 2018 anyway , and at that point might well have welcomed the election!
Another rich seam of criticism to be mined against him there, with his prognostications on their success still ongoing until relatively recently. Then silence when he finally realised what they were actually doing.
Is there much video footage of Corbyn talking up Venezuela?
If I was running the Tory Campaign*, I would have focused on all the nice things he has sead about it in the past, looking at the protests in that country over the last week, there could well be a popular uprising and removal of the government, in the next month, if that happens it will taint all those who talked kindly of that government, in the same way that the fall of the Berlin wall, tainted all the Communists in the west for a generation.
* looking at the opinion poles they show no singe of needing my help or advise, admittedly
I imagine most of this stuff is being saved up for the last couple of weeks, when the security message comes to the fore.
That Corbyn-Marr stuff was a little weird - Marr presents a scenario where Corbyn is told we know where the ISIS leader is and would he authorise a strike, he waffles about how what he wants is a political solution in Syria and the question is would this help, so Marr presses him if he thinks killing the leader of ISIS would be helpful for a political solution, and Corbyn responds that he thinks the leader of ISIS 'not being around' would be helpful, before going back on civilian casualties.
I'm not sure his focusing on the general worth, or not, of the bombing campaign when the question is specifically 'we know for certain where he is, would you do it?' is particularly helpful. He's trying to present as cautious, which many people back, but on a hypothetical which is much simpler. And if he thinks the leader 'not being around' would be helpful, how does he think that might happen?
kle4, you just have to have a line. Corbyn does not have a line.
And now all his candidates are going to have to try and defend the lack of a line! Any policy is better than no policy at all, from the point of view of those others who have to try and speak for Labour.
If the polls are accurate, Labour's going to play the part of Alderaan to the Conservatives' Death Star.
It's already bad for democracy to have such an inept opposition. If Labour are this badly harmed, they have to axe Corbyn or split. The alternative is a risk of the worst result for Labour since WWII, to be followed five years later by an even worse result.
Still a long way to go, though. I wonder if May's regretting making the campaign period so long.
She had no choice - under the terms of the FTPA there have to be 5 weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day. What I still cannot get my head around is why Corbyn meekly bowed to her wishes. Had he got Labour to abstain and denied fer the required 434 , he could be PM by now if May had continued with her election plans by tabling a No Confidence Vote in her own Government. The guy is thoroughly imbecilic.
He was boxed in, by announcing she wanted an election because of potential opposition game playing she had checkmated him. Had he done what you suggest she would have been able to point at him and say "see what I mean, gameplaying".
Yes - but that would not have had he effect of facilitating the election!
No but the fact was she completely outplayed him. By keeping the news media unaware she ensured they were excitable when she announced her intention. By tabling the motion the next day she ensured sufficient head of steam built up that there would be an election. Corbyn had no real choice, the PM had ensured that and so it shows that she has enormous political acumen.
Of course he had a choice - and there many Labour MPs who argued against voting for the Dissolution Motion . Indeed nearly a quarter declined to do so. Had they followed the example of the SNP Corbyn would be better placed now - with May having been humiliated by being denied the 434 votes. The guy is just thick.
Another rich seam of criticism to be mined against him there, with his prognostications on their success still ongoing until relatively recently. Then silence when he finally realised what they were actually doing.
Is there much video footage of Corbyn talking up Venezuela?
If I was running the Tory Campaign*, I would have focused on all the nice things he has sead about it in the past, looking at the protests in that country over the last week, there could well be a popular uprising and removal of the government, in the next month, if that happens it will taint all those who talked kindly of that government, in the same way that the fall of the Berlin wall, tainted all the Communists in the west for a generation.
* looking at the opinion poles they show no singe of needing my help or advise, admittedly
It does indeed - Lab's floor is 25% with MOE. No lower.
We're about a week into the campaign so the polls are showng that current levels of support for Lab are 25% and for Con ~48%, so I see no particular reason to declare that anyone has hit a ceiling or a floor yet.
Labour seem to be averaging 26% at the moment with the Tories on 46%.
The pre GE polls generally overstate Labour. They'll get around 20 %, hopefully less.
Probably less relevant in the case of an election called 'out of the blue' because people have not focussed on it at all. There is also a clear tendency for massive leads not to fully materialise in the polling booth. I cite the examples of - 2001 - 1997 - 1983 - and 1966. Some might add October 1974 to that list.
It does indeed - Lab's floor is 25% with MOE. No lower.
We're about a week into the campaign so the polls are showng that current levels of support for Lab are 25% and for Con ~48%, so I see no particular reason to declare that anyone has hit a ceiling or a floor yet.
Labour seem to be averaging 26% at the moment with the Tories on 46%.
The pre GE polls generally overstate Labour. They'll get around 20 %, hopefully less.
You really want a one-party state don't you? Whatever the reasons, this is not healthy for democracy.
If the polls are accurate, Labour's going to play the part of Alderaan to the Conservatives' Death Star.
It's already bad for democracy to have such an inept opposition. If Labour are this badly harmed, they have to axe Corbyn or split. The alternative is a risk of the worst result for Labour since WWII, to be followed five years later by an even worse result.
Still a long way to go, though. I wonder if May's regretting making the campaign period so long.
She had no choice - under the terms of the FTPA there have to be 5 weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day. What I still cannot get my head around is why Corbyn meekly bowed to her wishes. Had he got Labour to abstain and denied fer the required 434 , he could be PM by now if May had continued with her election plans by tabling a No Confidence Vote in her own Government. The guy is thoroughly imbecilic.
I agree with your last sentence but it's not really clear that the no-confidence route would have made Corbyn temporary PM. There was a thread on this a while back - the precedents are a bit mixed but it seems unlikely.
Well - RodCrosby and I are in full agreement on this. If A PM loses the Confidence of the Commons , precedent would require him or her to resign.
No it wouldn't. There is no precedent: the FTPA rewrote the rules.
Only to the extent that a PM could no longer seek a Dissolution automatically in the event of Defeat on a Confidence Motion. May could not have followed the example of Callaghan in March 1979 - so would have had to have resigned.Callaghan could have resigned and handed over to Thatcher but chose to call an election instead. May would not have had that option.
I didn't realise until reading this article that "dominatrices" was the plural of "dominatrix". I'd been using "dominatrixes". I feel kind of stupid now.
To be fair it isn't a word you need to use in the plural very often.
What a quiet life you lead.
TMI, Alistair, TMI...
Blame, I was the one who wrote about hiring 400 dominatrixes in one night, concurrently.
Information overload, Mr Eagles.
(And shouldn't it be 'dominatrices?')
Blinking auto correct
Off topic - saw an open top Mercedes with number plate TSE 1 last Monday. Just wondering.
I do have a private number plate, but not that one.
I do find private number plates a bit gauche but my parents bought it for me years ago.
These are one thing for which the American name is unquestionably better.
They call them "vanity plates".
I agree, were it not that it was a gift from my parents I'd have ditched it.
Rather sums up my parents, I had just passed my driving test, and for the first time in his life, my father bought a brand new car, and it was for me.
Replete with private number plate.
I'm already enough of a bad son, without throwing the number plates back at them.
Hah!
I passed my driving test and my parents bought me a 10 year old third hand VW Polo for about £500...
You were very lucky; I came home after passing and my father told me not to think about borrowing his car; he had, he sadi, no reason to think I was competent.
Their argument was the time saved not driving me around made it a worthwhile investment...
Another rich seam of criticism to be mined against him there, with his prognostications on their success still ongoing until relatively recently. Then silence when he finally realised what they were actually doing.
Is there much video footage of Corbyn talking up Venezuela?
If I was running the Tory Campaign*, I would have focused on all the nice things he has sead about it in the past, looking at the protests in that country over the last week, there could well be a popular uprising and removal of the government, in the next month, if that happens it will taint all those who talked kindly of that government, in the same way that the fall of the Berlin wall, tainted all the Communists in the west for a generation.
* looking at the opinion poles they show no singe of needing my help or advise, admittedly
I imagine that the reward will not be having a vastly increased majority, so much as not having to worry about an election for the next 5 years. Given that it's a decade since the last stock market collapse, I'd want to notch up those years ahead of time too if I could.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Place_Beauvau/status/856085528999071744
Headline: Corbyn wants 'very different' country
Answer: Venezuela
But your underlying point is sound. If the SNP vote is solid Robertson wins. It's as simple as that.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.131158521
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moray_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
What odds can you get on Con, 20/1?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/23/jeremy-corbyn-might-not-authorise-strike-against-isil-leader/
Wonder what the papers will say tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE
I'm not sure his focusing on the general worth, or not, of the bombing campaign when the question is specifically 'we know for certain where he is, would you do it?' is particularly helpful. He's trying to present as cautious, which many people back, but on a hypothetical which is much simpler. And if he thinks the leader 'not being around' would be helpful, how does he think that might happen?
If there normally are 2 sides to an argument, he can find a position, and articulate it in a way that alienates all 3 sides!
If I was running the Tory Campaign*, I would have focused on all the nice things he has sead about it in the past, looking at the protests in that country over the last week, there could well be a popular uprising and removal of the government, in the next month, if that happens it will taint all those who talked kindly of that government, in the same way that the fall of the Berlin wall, tainted all the Communists in the west for a generation.
* looking at the opinion poles they show no singe of needing my help or advise, admittedly
Hills only let me have £35 @14-1 on last night's Tory seats in Scotland fun and games mind you...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HDaUHEP4wdI
Sadly Mrs May appears to be cut from the same cloth with endless snooping nonsense
My cartoon on the week
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GoLcuEhcZo
https://medium.com/@26left/predicting-the-uk-2017-general-election-3acc7db27f15