Something like that, Blair suggested voting for LD, Labour or even Tory candidates if they had the most soft Brexit position of the leading candidates, although he said he himself would vote Labour
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
A new turnout figure in France will be out within the hour, at 5pm, French time.
For the true nerds here, you can get turnout figures by department already, for noon. It might be interesting to look at whether there's a turnout skew to or against the most Catholic departments.
To what extent would the dynamics of the campaign be changed if disastrous Local election results on May 4th forced Corbyn to step down?
I think Labour are stuck with Corbyn now. They would find it exceptionally difficult to change a leader or PM candidate in the middle of a campaign. I'm not sure it's even possible.
But it would not be the middle of the campaign ! We would still be over a month from Polling Day - and both 1974 election campaigns were just three weeks in duration. I am thinking of the Australian example when at beginning of 1983 Malcolm Fraser called a snap election and Labor immediately changed its leader to Bob Hawke who went on to win an easy victory. I just find it interesting to speculate what impact such a development might have on the campaign dynamics.
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
To what extent would the dynamics of the campaign be changed if disastrous Local election results on May 4th forced Corbyn to step down?
God alone knows. But ditching your Prime Ministerial candidate in the middle of a General Election campaign isn't a good look, now is it?
On the one hand, Labour would be rid of Corbyn. On the other, they would have no replacement leader - just a caretaker. The party would appear to the electorate, and would be, entirely chaotic - and they wouldn't be able to ask the question of who the Prime Minister or any of the key members of a prospective Labour cabinet would be. How could they? The chances of the other key shadow ministers - McDonnell, Abbott and Thornberry - surviving the election of a more moderate leader would be nil, there wouldn't be the time available to elect a replacement, and the public would have no guarantee that they wouldn't end up with a similarly repulsive Far Leftist at the end of the process. Again, how could they? The PLP chose Corbyn in the first place, and the mass party membership voted for him. Twice.
Labour MP's position would move from "We think Jeremy Corbyn would make a shite Prime Minister. Vote Labour" to "We have no idea who we want to be the Prime Minister. Vote Labour." It's hard to know what's worse. At least about 15% of the population seems to rate Corbyn. Nobody can vote for an empty chair.
Tom Watson would take over wouldn't he? I don't think there is anyway even somebody as stupid and stubborn as Jezlamic State can weather seven weeks of this.
Yes, but the point is that even if Corbyn quits (he won't) Watson would be a caretaker leader and, if Labour were somehow miraculously to win, a caretaker Prime Minister. Voters would head to the polls with not the faintest idea who the permanent replacement or their top team would be, and with no guarantee that the Labour Party - which self-evidently cannot be trusted to make sane decisions - wouldn't simply swap Corbyn for another nut. That's not sustainable.
A new turnout figure in France will be out within the hour, at 5pm, French time.
For the true nerds here, you can get turnout figures by department already, for noon. It might be interesting to look at whether there's a turnout skew to or against the most Catholic departments.
I had a quick look but there doesn't seem to be much of a pattern.
To what extent would the dynamics of the campaign be changed if disastrous Local election results on May 4th forced Corbyn to step down?
God alone knows. But ditching your Prime Ministerial candidate in the middle of a General Election campaign isn't a good look, now is it?
On the one hand, Labour would be rid of Corbyn. On the other, they would have no replacement leader - just a caretaker. The party would appear to the electorate, and would be, entirely chaotic - and they wouldn't be able to ask the question of who the Prime Minister or any of the key members of a prospective Labour cabinet would be. How could they? The chances of the other key shadow ministers - McDonnell, Abbott and Thornberry - surviving the election of a more moderate leader would be nil, there wouldn't be the time available to elect a replacement, and the public would have no guarantee that they wouldn't end up with a similarly repulsive Far Leftist at the end of the process. Again, how could they? The PLP chose Corbyn in the first place, and the mass party membership voted for him. Twice.
Labour MP's position would move from "We think Jeremy Corbyn would make a shite Prime Minister. Vote Labour" to "We have no idea who we want to be the Prime Minister. Vote Labour." It's hard to know what's worse. At least about 15% of the population seems to rate Corbyn. Nobody can vote for an empty chair.
Tom Watson would take over wouldn't he? I don't think there is anyway even somebody as stupid and stubborn as Jezlamic State can weather seven weeks of this.
Yes, but the point is that even if Corbyn quits (he won't) Watson would be a caretaker leader and, if Labour were somehow miraculously to win, a caretaker Prime Minister. Voters would head to the polls with not the faintest idea who the permanent replacement or their top team would be, and with no guarantee that the Labour Party - which self-evidently cannot be trusted to make sane decisions - wouldn't simply swap Corbyn for another nut. That's not sustainable.
I don't think it would have to be a caretaker leader. Pretty sure that in some circumstances a new leader can be appointed.
A few snippets from the Survation polls on Scotland:
Age Results
18-34: SNP 46 Tory 12 - 10/10 likelihood to vote 54% 35-54: SNP 37 Tory 24 - 10/10 likelihood to vote 68% 55 up: SNP 31 Tory 30 - 10/10 likelihood to vote 87%
10/10 Likelihood to Vote by 2015 Vote (suggested 71% turnout)
91.2% Liberal Democrat 87.4% Conservative 83.3% SNP 81.2% Labour
The Tories lead the SNP in South Scotland by 42-39 and the Highlands and Islands at 44-30. They are also ahead of Labour in Glasgow according to the subsample. The SNP lead in the majority of regions.
However, the under 35 and usually 'can't be bothered' vote seems to be sitting in the SNP's column.
Turnout is one of the great unknowables for Scotland. It was obviously enormous for the independence vote, but below the UK average for the EU referendum, IIRC. If some of the enthusiasm of the younger SNP voters has worn off a bit, this could provide a little help to their opponents. However, I expect that the weighting in the poll has already taken account of that...
Edit: I wouldn't read anything into those regional subsets. They are minuscule.
Yes, they always try to factor it in.
For Holyrood 2016 Survation polled the SNP 2.5% higher than the end result and the Tories 3% lower.
If that error margin recurs then a 15 point gap shrinks to 9.5.
To what extent would the dynamics of the campaign be changed if disastrous Local election results on May 4th forced Corbyn to step down?
I cant see him stepping down, it just does not seem to be in his personality, but hay we have all been surprised my so much in the last 12 mouths that hay who knows.
more likely I think is we get an avalanche of Lab MPs saying if reelected they will not vote for Corbyn and instead will vote for ......
But I think they will wait till nominations have closed so they do not get some Momentum 'last ditchers' standing as Continuity labour or whatever
Something like that, Blair suggested voting for LD, Labour or even Tory candidates if they had the most soft Brexit position of the leading candidates, although he said he himself would vote Labour
I'd like to see him swear on a Bible about that.
Blair's UK properties are in Buckingham and City of London and Westminster anyway both of which have comfortable Tory majorities so he could say he voted Labour without any concerns about the Labour candidate actually winning (indeed as the former is Bercow's seat he could even vote for Bercow without saying he failed to vote for the Labour candidate as there will be no Labour candidate)
To what extent would the dynamics of the campaign be changed if disastrous Local election results on May 4th forced Corbyn to step down?
I cant see him stepping down, it just does not seem to be in his personality, but hay we have all been surprised my so much in the last 12 mouths that hay who knows.
more likely I think is we get an avalanche of Lab MPs saying if reelected they will not vote for Corbyn and instead will vote for ......
But I think they will wait till nominations have closed so they do not get some Momentum 'last ditchers' standing as Continuity labour or whatever
Ah, so (some) Labour MP's new position will be as follows:
"We think our leader would make a shite Prime Minister, so if elected we will vote for person X/person Y/person Z/we don't have a clue (delete as applicable) to be our Prime Minister. This person will then form a Government (perhaps, depending on whether our faction of the Labour Party can build a majority,) whilst the leader of our Party sits on the back benches with his supporters, destabilising our Government and plotting revenge.
"Vote Labour."
Meanwhile, Corbyn's supporters will continue to insist that he will make an excellent Prime Minister, with the support of the demented pseudo-Trotskyite majority of the party membership, if not most of his own Parliamentarians.
I think what we get at about 8 o'clock are sample counts from specially chosen polling stations which are usually able to predict the final result accurately to within about 1%.
To what extent would the dynamics of the campaign be changed if disastrous Local election results on May 4th forced Corbyn to step down?
I cant see him stepping down, it just does not seem to be in his personality, but hay we have all been surprised my so much in the last 12 mouths that hay who knows.
more likely I think is we get an avalanche of Lab MPs saying if reelected they will not vote for Corbyn and instead will vote for ......
But I think they will wait till nominations have closed so they do not get some Momentum 'last ditchers' standing as Continuity labour or whatever
That had also occurred to me.
Who do you think could/would be the Lab MP that they might all suggest?
Maybe Tom Watson? He has the advantage of being sort of in the middle of the party, have been voted in as deputy leader my the membership (back in 2015) and as the deputy is unaskable by Corbyn.
How rich are Martinique, Guadeloupe and the other French territories ?
Went to Martinique a few years ago, expecting a tropical paradise. It's a hostile dump, with high unemployment, and a very sullen, self-hating population, who resent the fact they are simultaneously subsidised by the French even as they are too cowardly to seek independence.
I'm on a Max Hastings kick, having plowed thru ~nine of his books over the past year. But I'm running out: I've got about two or three of his military histories left. When I run out I was figuring Slim's account of the Burma campaign from the Pan Military Classics series for next, as I don't really like Beevoir that much. But I'm willing to be tempted in another direction. This "NAM Rodger" of which you speak: got any recommendations? Paperbacks only.
Why did she make the comment "I'm just completing on the purchase of a house in the constituency"?
Very very odd remark. Unless it's pre-emptive rebuttal?
No idea. She was a councillor in Reading, and as far as I know was moving to Yeovil to be the parliamentary candidate there, a job she has been after for some time, with a lot of backing from leading people in the party. Very strange.
Something like that, Blair suggested voting for LD, Labour or even Tory candidates if they had the most soft Brexit position of the leading candidates, although he said he himself would vote Labour
I'd like to see him swear on a Bible about that.
Blair's UK properties are in Buckingham and City of London and Westminster anyway both of which have comfortable Tory majorities so he could say he voted Labour without any concerns about the Labour candidate actually winning (indeed as the former is Bercow's seat he could even vote for Bercow without saying he failed to vote for the Labour candidate as there will be no Labour candidate)
I thought they were floating the idea of standing?
A new turnout figure in France will be out within the hour, at 5pm, French time.
For the true nerds here, you can get turnout figures by department already, for noon. It might be interesting to look at whether there's a turnout skew to or against the most Catholic departments.
I had a quick look but there doesn't seem to be much of a pattern.
Relative to the mean (28.54%), turnout by noon was high in Bouches-du-Rhône (35.10%) (includes Marseilles) and Alpes-de-Haute-Provence (34.57%) (top FN area in the 2015 regionals) and low in Paris (24.24%). I've no idea how these figures compare to 2012. For Nord and the Pas-de-Calais (MLP's turf), figures were 28.38% and 23.35%
To what extent would the dynamics of the campaign be changed if disastrous Local election results on May 4th forced Corbyn to step down?
God alone knows. But ditching your Prime Ministerial candidate in the middle of a General Election campaign isn't a good look, now is it?
On the one hand, Labour would be rid of Corbyn. On the other, they would have no replacement leader - just a caretaker. The party would appear to the electorate, and would be, entirely chaotic - and they wouldn't be able to ask the question of who the Prime Minister or any of the key members of a prospective Labour cabinet would be. How could they? The chances of the other key shadow ministers - McDonnell, Abbott and Thornberry - surviving the election of a more moderate leader would be nil, there wouldn't be the time available to elect a replacement, and the public would have no guarantee that they wouldn't end up with a similarly repulsive Far Leftist at the end of the process. Again, how could they? The PLP chose Corbyn in the first place, and the mass party membership voted for him. Twice.
Labour MP's position would move from "We think Jeremy Corbyn would make a shite Prime Minister. Vote Labour" to "We have no idea who we want to be the Prime Minister. Vote Labour." It's hard to know what's worse. At least about 15% of the population seems to rate Corbyn. Nobody can vote for an empty chair.
Tom Watson would take over wouldn't he? I don't think there is anyway even somebody as stupid and stubborn as Jezlamic State can weather seven weeks of this.
Yes, but the point is that even if Corbyn quits (he won't) Watson would be a caretaker leader and, if Labour were somehow miraculously to win, a caretaker Prime Minister. Voters would head to the polls with not the faintest idea who the permanent replacement or their top team would be, and with no guarantee that the Labour Party - which self-evidently cannot be trusted to make sane decisions - wouldn't simply swap Corbyn for another nut. That's not sustainable.
I don't think it would have to be a caretaker leader. Pretty sure that in some circumstances a new leader can be appointed.
Hmmm, I wonder if the PLP could get together, agree to crown a single candidate, and then put them forward - assuming that the Corbyn faction can't gather the votes to put up a rival?
That would be less disastrous than going forward with no incumbent leader at all.
It would still look terrible though.
"Hi, I'm a Labour MP. I thought our last leader was shite, so I decided to help to depose him and install this new one. You'll now have to trust my colleagues and I not to have made a catastrophic fuck-up twice, instead of just the once.
To what extent would the dynamics of the campaign be changed if disastrous Local election results on May 4th forced Corbyn to step down?
I cant see him stepping down, it just does not seem to be in his personality, but hay we have all been surprised my so much in the last 12 mouths that hay who knows.
more likely I think is we get an avalanche of Lab MPs saying if reelected they will not vote for Corbyn and instead will vote for ......
But I think they will wait till nominations have closed so they do not get some Momentum 'last ditchers' standing as Continuity labour or whatever
Ah, so (some) Labour MP's new position will be as follows:
"We think our leader would make a shite Prime Minister, so if elected we will vote for person X/person Y/person Z/we don't have a clue (delete as applicable) to be our Prime Minister. This person will then form a Government (perhaps, depending on whether our faction of the Labour Party can build a majority,) whilst the leader of our Party sits on the back benches with his supporters, destabilising our Government and plotting revenge.
"Vote Labour."
Meanwhile, Corbyn's supporters will continue to insist that he will make an excellent Prime Minister, with the support of the demented pseudo-Trotskyite majority of the party membership, if not most of his own Parliamentarians.
Yeah, that's a really inspiring pitch.
It will be amusing to watch, but its still got to be a better pitch that vote for me and Ill make Corbyn PM.
Something like that, Blair suggested voting for LD, Labour or even Tory candidates if they had the most soft Brexit position of the leading candidates, although he said he himself would vote Labour
I'd like to see him swear on a Bible about that.
Blair's UK properties are in Buckingham and City of London and Westminster anyway both of which have comfortable Tory majorities so he could say he voted Labour without any concerns about the Labour candidate actually winning (indeed as the former is Bercow's seat he could even vote for Bercow without saying he failed to vote for the Labour candidate as there will be no Labour candidate)
I thought they were floating the idea of standing?
To what extent would the dynamics of the campaign be changed if disastrous Local election results on May 4th forced Corbyn to step down?
I cant see him stepping down, it just does not seem to be in his personality, but hay we have all been surprised my so much in the last 12 mouths that hay who knows.
more likely I think is we get an avalanche of Lab MPs saying if reelected they will not vote for Corbyn and instead will vote for ......
But I think they will wait till nominations have closed so they do not get some Momentum 'last ditchers' standing as Continuity labour or whatever
That had also occurred to me.
Who do you think could/would be the Lab MP that they might all suggest?
Maybe Tom Watson? He has the advantage of being sort of in the middle of the party, have been voted in as deputy leader my the membership (back in 2015) and as the deputy is unaskable by Corbyn.
I have absolutely no idea. Doubt that it would be Tom Watson - who probably would not want to do it anyway. If Labour lost the Liverpool Mayoral election people like Sam McCluskey - who has just had quite a fright himself - might suddenly become more amenable to Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper taking over. My understanding though is that Benn does not want the position either. Whether he could be persuaded to step in in an emergency I really have no idea.
Those of you over 25 will know that the "Jeremy Ashdown" referred to is more usually known as Paddy.
Has he ever commonly gone by Jeremy? I'm surprised he would be referred to as anything other than Paddy or Lord Ashdown.
I believe he got the nickname when he was in the army. Jeremy doesn't sound very soldierly, and he was in the special forces.
Sure, but everyone calls him Paddy, and in a story about his former seat, with links to old stories that call him Paddy in the headline, I'm just surprised it would refer to him by his real name.
What is all this nonsense about a pro-remain pact?
It is literally as much use as a pro corn laws pact.
A50 has been triggered. We are all leavers now and the only issue is how to get the best possible deal.
If the EU think there are a cabal of denialists in the HoC plotting Canute-like to try and somehow (how?) stop Brexit, they will use it against us.
WE ARE LEAVING!
So you're absolutely sure there will be an EU to leave in two years' time? Depending on how things go in France, Brexit could stop being an issue well before the British election. Discussing British strategy in negotiations with EU27 would then be a bit like talking about fighting the British National Front in 1977. Except that some people actually did fight the NF in the 1970s, whereas Brit-EU27 negotiations may not even open.
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Maybe I am missing something here. Are the National Front expected to pick up a lot of votes in north London this time around?
The rumour is that Corbyn is being sent to seats that Labour knows it can't win or that are so safe not even he can put them in peril. On that basis, keeping track of where he campaigns will be an intetesting insight into what internal Labour polling is saying
Why is UKIP 1/200 in several Scottish constituencies at Paddy Power?
They've been having some technical glitches with PaddyPower/Betfair on constituency markets, including at one point offering Tories at 100-1 in a variety of safe Conservative seats... bets they will not be honouring.
This incorporates latest evidence from Scotland, though obviously not the new Welsh data, which has not yet been published.
Two questions:
1. Are the latest Scottish surveys a blip, or will we start to see a trend as (presumably) a lot more Scotland-only surveys are published? 2. Baxter still has Ukip at 8.5%. If they collapse to 5% or lower, this ought primarily to benefit the Conservatives. What might the effect be then? 3. How much capacity is there left for further leakage of the Labour vote, especially (one would've thought) to the Liberal Democrats? This is the greatest unknowable factor: what is Labour's absolute floor?
Mr. Pulpstar, scared Blair's going to be a Weasel of Mutinous Defection?
His message on Europe is fine, but for him to seek public office in the UK again would be completely beyond the pale. So I wouldn't want him to run for us.
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Maybe I am missing something here. Are the National Front expected to pick up a lot of votes in north London this time around?
The rumour is that Corbyn is being sent to seats that Labour knows it can't win or that are so safe not even he can put them in peril. On that basis, keeping track of where he campaigns will be an intetesting insight into what internal Labour polling is saying
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Maybe I am missing something here. Are the National Front expected to pick up a lot of votes in north London this time around?
The rumour is that Corbyn is being sent to seats that Labour knows it can't win or that are so safe not even he can put them in peril. On that basis, keeping track of where he campaigns will be an intetesting insight into what internal Labour polling is saying
I firmly believe this is the case - any easy way of tracking this?
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Maybe I am missing something here. Are the National Front expected to pick up a lot of votes in north London this time around?
The rumour is that Corbyn is being sent to seats that Labour knows it can't win or that are so safe not even he can put them in peril. On that basis, keeping track of where he campaigns will be an intetesting insight into what internal Labour polling is saying.
Indeed. Build a firewall around the mid-range defences, pour resources into those, and keep Corbyn out of them at all costs. Send Corbyn to seats on the Labour target list, which HQ doesn't expect to win anyway, or to deep heartland territory. Abandon Labour MPs with small majorities and tell them to fend for themselves.
Brutal, but concentrating on preventing a total rout is much more sensible, under the dire circumstances, than trying to forestall a mere heavy defeat.
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Maybe I am missing something here. Are the National Front expected to pick up a lot of votes in north London this time around?
The rumour is that Corbyn is being sent to seats that Labour knows it can't win or that are so safe not even he can put them in peril. On that basis, keeping track of where he campaigns will be an intetesting insight into what internal Labour polling is saying.
Indeed. Build a firewall around the mid-range defences, pour resources into those, and keep Corbyn out of them at all costs. Send Corbyn to seats on the Labour target list, which HQ doesn't expect to win anyway, or to deep heartland territory. Abandon Labour MPs with small majorities and tell them to fend for themselves.
Brutal, but concentrating on preventing a total rout is much more sensible, under the dire circumstances, than trying to forestall a mere heavy defeat.
Whilst I agree it's a sensible approach, is there any hope it will actually work to any great extent?
This incorporates latest evidence from Scotland, though obviously not the new Welsh data, which has not yet been published.
Two questions:
1. Are the latest Scottish surveys a blip, or will we start to see a trend as (presumably) a lot more Scotland-only surveys are published? 2. Baxter still has Ukip at 8.5%. If they collapse to 5% or lower, this ought primarily to benefit the Conservatives. What might the effect be then? 3. How much capacity is there left for further leakage of the Labour vote, especially (one would've thought) to the Liberal Democrats? This is the greatest unknowable factor: what is Labour's absolute floor?
Another interesting point... if Con go a tinsy bit higher Caroline Lucas could lose her seat and we could see the Greens decapitated. (at least according to ElectoralCalculus, especially if there is Green -> LibDem movement)
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Maybe I am missing something here. Are the National Front expected to pick up a lot of votes in north London this time around?
The rumour is that Corbyn is being sent to seats that Labour knows it can't win or that are so safe not even he can put them in peril. On that basis, keeping track of where he campaigns will be an intetesting insight into what internal Labour polling is saying
I firmly believe this is the case - any easy way of tracking this?
You could do worse than scroll down his Twitter feed. Last evidence of a visit I can see is to Crewe (Tory majority: 3,620,) which would be consistent with the target and ultra-safe seats theory.
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Maybe I am missing something here. Are the National Front expected to pick up a lot of votes in north London this time around?
The rumour is that Corbyn is being sent to seats that Labour knows it can't win or that are so safe not even he can put them in peril. On that basis, keeping track of where he campaigns will be an intetesting insight into what internal Labour polling is saying.
Indeed. Build a firewall around the mid-range defences, pour resources into those, and keep Corbyn out of them at all costs. Send Corbyn to seats on the Labour target list, which HQ doesn't expect to win anyway, or to deep heartland territory. Abandon Labour MPs with small majorities and tell them to fend for themselves.
Brutal, but concentrating on preventing a total rout is much more sensible, under the dire circumstances, than trying to forestall a mere heavy defeat.
Except, anything other than a total rout will be interpreted by cultists as sign that Corbyn needs to stay and push on e.g. 23% of the country voted for Socialism etc etc.
What is all this nonsense about a pro-remain pact?
It is literally as much use as a pro corn laws pact.
A50 has been triggered. We are all leavers now and the only issue is how to get the best possible deal.
If the EU think there are a cabal of denialists in the HoC plotting Canute-like to try and somehow (how?) stop Brexit, they will use it against us.
WE ARE LEAVING!
So you're absolutely sure there will be an EU to leave in two years' time? Depending on how things go in France, Brexit could stop being an issue well before the British election. Discussing British strategy in negotiations with EU27 would then be a bit like talking about fighting the British National Front in 1977. Except that some people actually did fight the NF in the 1970s, whereas Brit-EU27 negotiations may not even open.
Wilders failed, and LePen does not seem to be doing it this time. So I think the EU survives this electoral cycle. Not so confident for the next round.
Seriously, I don't think losing any of the newcomers from the east will be fatal. Losing France clearly would end the EU as we know it. Losing Italy? Not sure. Thoughts?
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Maybe I am missing something here. Are the National Front expected to pick up a lot of votes in north London this time around?
The rumour is that Corbyn is being sent to seats that Labour knows it can't win or that are so safe not even he can put them in peril. On that basis, keeping track of where he campaigns will be an intetesting insight into what internal Labour polling is saying
I've been trying to do exactly that. There are probably a few gaps here but so far it's been Croydon Central (no. 3 target seat), Cardiff North (17), Warrington South (21), Bristol North West (43) and Swindon South (61).
Today he's in Hornsey & Wood Green (no. 96 on the defence list)
This incorporates latest evidence from Scotland, though obviously not the new Welsh data, which has not yet been published.
Two questions:
1. Are the latest Scottish surveys a blip, or will we start to see a trend as (presumably) a lot more Scotland-only surveys are published? 2. Baxter still has Ukip at 8.5%. If they collapse to 5% or lower, this ought primarily to benefit the Conservatives. What might the effect be then? 3. How much capacity is there left for further leakage of the Labour vote, especially (one would've thought) to the Liberal Democrats? This is the greatest unknowable factor: what is Labour's absolute floor?
As well as considering whether or not the Scottish surveys are a blip - I think this latest Baxter projection assumes UNS in Scotland, which has the Tories gaining my seat, Stirling, which they came 3rd in May 2015:
By any measure the Tories taking Stirling would be a bit of a stretch - the May council elections should give us a good indication of the real underlying trends.
What is all this nonsense about a pro-remain pact?
It is literally as much use as a pro corn laws pact.
A50 has been triggered. We are all leavers now and the only issue is how to get the best possible deal.
If the EU think there are a cabal of denialists in the HoC plotting Canute-like to try and somehow (how?) stop Brexit, they will use it against us.
WE ARE LEAVING!
So you're absolutely sure there will be an EU to leave in two years' time? Depending on how things go in France, Brexit could stop being an issue well before the British election. Discussing British strategy in negotiations with EU27 would then be a bit like talking about fighting the British National Front in 1977. Except that some people actually did fight the NF in the 1970s, whereas Brit-EU27 negotiations may not even open.
Wilders failed, and LePen does not seem to be doing it this time. So I think the EU survives this electoral cycle. Not so confident for the next round.
Seriously, I don't think losing any of the newcomers from the east will be fatal. Losing France clearly would end the EU as we know it. Losing Italy? Not sure. Thoughts?
Even losing France from the euro could end the EU, I reckon. Germany could call it off. (And I still think Le Pen will win!)
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Maybe I am missing something here. Are the National Front expected to pick up a lot of votes in north London this time around?
The rumour is that Corbyn is being sent to seats that Labour knows it can't win or that are so safe not even he can put them in peril. On that basis, keeping track of where he campaigns will be an intetesting insight into what internal Labour polling is saying
I don't think that can possibly be true.
I can understand that many individual MPs don't support him and have asked that he be kept away.
But it doesn't make the situation worse for the Labour candidate if their leader is physically present in a marginal seat they are trying to defend or win, reading to schoolchildren or chatting to nurses in an hospital. It's not like it suddenly means local people realise who the Labour leader is when they didn't before. Indeed, the overwhelming majority will barely if at all notice he's been in town.
There's a lot of nonsense about this. Corbyn isn't a bogeyman, and barely anybody who might seriously consider voting Labour believes he is (some ultras in other parties do, but they aren't swing voters). He doesn't have some kind of reverse midas touch whereby everyone he touches on the campaign trail turns Tory - I expect he's unfailingly polite and people who meet him think he's fine.
I'd also note that, if the Conservatives really believed he was personally so toxic, they'd send May in to debate with him, humiliating him publicly in front of a horrified nation. Their concern is that he'd probably be fine, and might just possibly do quite well.
Corbyn's trouble isn't some deep hatred of him personally from the public... it's just that most people decided ages ago that he's ineffectual and couldn't run a bath, let alone a country. But that doesn't become more or less the case because he's been within a two mile radius of your house on the campaign trail.
This incorporates latest evidence from Scotland, though obviously not the new Welsh data, which has not yet been published.
Two questions:
1. Are the latest Scottish surveys a blip, or will we start to see a trend as (presumably) a lot more Scotland-only surveys are published? 2. Baxter still has Ukip at 8.5%. If they collapse to 5% or lower, this ought primarily to benefit the Conservatives. What might the effect be then? 3. How much capacity is there left for further leakage of the Labour vote, especially (one would've thought) to the Liberal Democrats? This is the greatest unknowable factor: what is Labour's absolute floor?
The Scottish surveys look reasonable because they offer figures that are broadly consistent with referendum numbers.
Sturgeon's rhetoric has turned the election into a referendum about a referendum. That might alienate SNP Unionists - and there are some. Similarly, there are SNP Leavers so linking independence to joining the EU is another obvious risk.
I can't imagine UKIP falling much further personally while the Scotland 2014 precedent suggests that Labour might not hit the bottom in June. There may be further to fall.
I can understand that many individual MPs don't support him and have asked that he be kept away.
But it doesn't make the situation worse for the Labour candidate if their leader is physically present in a marginal seat they are trying to defend or win, reading to schoolchildren or chatting to nurses in an hospital. It's not like it suddenly means local people realise who the Labour leader is when they didn't before. Indeed, the overwhelming majority will barely if at all notice he's been in town.
There's a lot of nonsense about this. Corbyn isn't a bogeyman, and barely anybody who might seriously consider voting Labour believes he is (some ultras in other parties do, but they aren't swing voters). He doesn't have some kind of reverse midas touch whereby everyone he touches on the campaign trail turns Tory - I expect he's unfailingly polite and people who meet him think he's fine.
I'd also note that, if the Conservatives really believed he was personally so toxic, they'd send May in to debate with him, humiliating him publicly in front of a horrified nation. Their concern is that he'd probably be fine, and might just possibly do quite well.
Corbyn's trouble isn't some deep hatred of him personally from the public... it's just that most people decided ages ago that he's ineffectual and couldn't run a bath, let alone a country. But that doesn't become more or less the case because he's been within a two mile radius of your house on the campaign trail.
Your interpretation is very much at odds with US practice. Representatives and Senators in swing districts very much want to keep unpopular Presidents out and popular Presidents in their districts during campaigns.
It may not to be about awareness levels, but rather intensity of emotion generated. Knowing something unpleasant and having it shoved in your face evoke very different emotional actions. One will get you to the voting booth, the other may not.
I can understand that many individual MPs don't support him and have asked that he be kept away.
But it doesn't make the situation worse for the Labour candidate if their leader is physically present in a marginal seat they are trying to defend or win, reading to schoolchildren or chatting to nurses in an hospital. It's not like it suddenly means local people realise who the Labour leader is when they didn't before. Indeed, the overwhelming majority will barely if at all notice he's been in town.
There's a lot of nonsense about this. Corbyn isn't a bogeyman, and barely anybody who might seriously consider voting Labour believes he is (some ultras in other parties do, but they aren't swing voters). He doesn't have some kind of reverse midas touch whereby everyone he touches on the campaign trail turns Tory - I expect he's unfailingly polite and people who meet him think he's fine.
I'd also note that, if the Conservatives really believed he was personally so toxic, they'd send May in to debate with him, humiliating him publicly in front of a horrified nation. Their concern is that he'd probably be fine, and might just possibly do quite well.
Corbyn's trouble isn't some deep hatred of him personally from the public... it's just that most people decided ages ago that he's ineffectual and couldn't run a bath, let alone a country. But that doesn't become more or less the case because he's been within a two mile radius of your house on the campaign trail.
Your interpretation is very much at odds with US practice. Representatives and Senators in swing districts very much want to keep unpopular Presidents out and popular Presidents in their districts during campaigns.
It may not to be about awareness levels, but rather intensity of emotion generated. Knowing something unpleasant and having it shoved in your face evoke very different emotional actions. One will get you to the voting booth, the other may not.
I think the original comment is severely underestimating how toxic Corbyn is.
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Maybe I am missing something here. Are the National Front expected to pick up a lot of votes in north London this time around?
The rumour is that Corbyn is being sent to seats that Labour knows it can't win or that are so safe not even he can put them in peril. On that basis, keeping track of where he campaigns will be an intetesting insight into what internal Labour polling is saying
I firmly believe this is the case - any easy way of tracking this?
You could do worse than scroll down his Twitter feed. Last evidence of a visit I can see is to Crewe (Tory majority: 3,620,) which would be consistent with the target and ultra-safe seats theory.
I can understand that many individual MPs don't support him and have asked that he be kept away.
But it doesn't make the situation worse for the Labour candidate if their leader is physically present in a marginal seat they are trying to defend or win, reading to schoolchildren or chatting to nurses in an hospital. It's not like it suddenly means local people realise who the Labour leader is when they didn't before. Indeed, the overwhelming majority will barely if at all notice he's been in town.
There's a lot of nonsense about this. Corbyn isn't a bogeyman, and barely anybody who might seriously consider voting Labour believes he is (some ultras in other parties do, but they aren't swing voters). He doesn't have some kind of reverse midas touch whereby everyone he touches on the campaign trail turns Tory - I expect he's unfailingly polite and people who meet him think he's fine.
I'd also note that, if the Conservatives really believed he was personally so toxic, they'd send May in to debate with him, humiliating him publicly in front of a horrified nation. Their concern is that he'd probably be fine, and might just possibly do quite well.
Corbyn's trouble isn't some deep hatred of him personally from the public... it's just that most people decided ages ago that he's ineffectual and couldn't run a bath, let alone a country. But that doesn't become more or less the case because he's been within a two mile radius of your house on the campaign trail.
Disagree. Corbyn is intensely disliked by an appreciable number of voters. A lot of people already know about his dodgy associations with various kinds of terrorist. This knowledge will become more widespread and accepted during the course of the campaign: CCHQ will ensure it.
May most likely doesn't want a debate because the expectations of Corbyn will be so low that if he's anything less than absolutely dire he's liable to be regarded by some as having exceeded them. So it's not in her interest to take the risk.
This incorporates latest evidence from Scotland, though obviously not the new Welsh data, which has not yet been published.
Two questions:
1. Are the latest Scottish surveys a blip, or will we start to see a trend as (presumably) a lot more Scotland-only surveys are published? 2. Baxter still has Ukip at 8.5%. If they collapse to 5% or lower, this ought primarily to benefit the Conservatives. What might the effect be then? 3. How much capacity is there left for further leakage of the Labour vote, especially (one would've thought) to the Liberal Democrats? This is the greatest unknowable factor: what is Labour's absolute floor?
The Scottish surveys look reasonable because they offer figures that are broadly consistent with referendum numbers.
Sturgeon's rhetoric has turned the election into a referendum about a referendum. That might alienate SNP Unionists - and there are some. Similarly, there are SNP Leavers so linking independence to joining the EU is another obvious risk.
I can't imagine UKIP falling much further personally while the Scotland 2014 precedent suggests that Labour might not hit the bottom in June. There may be further to fall.
FWIW it's actually the Tories who have turned first the council elections into a referendum on IndyRef2 and now May by her rhetoric around calling GE2017. What I can't fathom is that how the Tories expect to present any likely result as a majority rejection of another referendum.
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Maybe I am missing something here. Are the National Front expected to pick up a lot of votes in north London this time around?
The rumour is that Corbyn is being sent to seats that Labour knows it can't win or that are so safe not even he can put them in peril. On that basis, keeping track of where he campaigns will be an intetesting insight into what internal Labour polling is saying
I've been trying to do exactly that. There are probably a few gaps here but so far it's been Croydon Central (no. 3 target seat), Cardiff North (17), Warrington South (21), Bristol North West (43) and Swindon South (61).
Today he's in Hornsey & Wood Green (no. 96 on the defence list)
He's also been to Crewe & Nantwich (target 29.) Pattern thus far wholly consistent with the theory.
Belgium and Swiss press is leaking result as usual...
Outre-mér that voted yesterday
Martinique: Mélenchon 27.36% Macron 25.53% Fillon 16.85% LePen 10.94% Hamon 9,75% Guyane: Mélenchon 24.72% LePen 24.29% Macron 18.75% Fillon 14.66% Hamon 5.69% Guadaloupe: : Macron 30.32% Mélenchon 23,99% Fillon 14.87% LePen 13.47% Hamon 9,72% St Pierre et Miquelon: : Mélenchon 35.45% LePen 18.16% Macron 17.97% Fillon 9,32% LHamon 8,24%
Waiting with trepidation for results from Saint Martin and Saint Barthélemy
That's a remarkable result for Le Pen in Guyane. An alleged racist, hard right leader coming second in a largely minority ethnic *colony*?
But I don't know the context. Maybe Guyane is always rightwing or eccentric?
There have been large-scale protests that have shut down much of the region, basically about feeling left behind by the French state.
When you consider that many of the few ethnic French there are in the region are high-paid spaceport workers unlikely to vote for Le Pen it is even more crazy.
Christ. Imagine if it is Melenchon versus Le Pen.
If you were a sane Frenchman or woman, who would you vote for? It would have to be Le Pen, as Melenchon would destroy the economy. But the polls say Melanchon would win that run-off...
I still think it will be Macron v Le Pen. But, wow. These results are odd, even if they are Outremer.
Buckle up!
If that was to happen we can assume market turmoil when they the Far East open tonight?
Mr. Cyan, why would Germany do that? The single currency makes their exchange rate artificially weak, helping exports.
If France leaves the euro, other countries such as Italy and Spain may well follow, and Schengen would probably lose important members too. Germany would try to keep some kind of deutschmark zone, but I don't picture the EU as we know it surviving.
This incorporates latest evidence from Scotland, though obviously not the new Welsh data, which has not yet been published.
Two questions:
1. Are the latest Scottish surveys a blip, or will we start to see a trend as (presumably) a lot more Scotland-only surveys are published? 2. Baxter still has Ukip at 8.5%. If they collapse to 5% or lower, this ought primarily to benefit the Conservatives. What might the effect be then? 3. How much capacity is there left for further leakage of the Labour vote, especially (one would've thought) to the Liberal Democrats? This is the greatest unknowable factor: what is Labour's absolute floor?
It looks like something dramatic is going to have to happen to get the LibDems much into double figures of MPs. I wonder which their two seats would be up on 2015?
Why did she make the comment "I'm just completing on the purchase of a house in the constituency"?
Very very odd remark. Unless it's pre-emptive rebuttal?
That sounds like a flimsy excuse for what could be a seat with a reasonable chance of winning. If another LD wins she'll be frozen out.
Is there an LD rule that one must own property in the constituency, or has she just been told of a story in next week's local paper which would be detrimental to her campaign?
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Among my souvenirs, and other old favourites. All together, now.
Nul points, unfortunately.
The man lacks even imagination. He obviously can have no clue as to how those outside the cult might see him. Politically autistic. Desperately unsuitable, therefore, for public office let alone leadership. The big puzzle is, how do Lab rid themselves of such a blind, clueless, messianic obsessive?
Despite using Easter to announce several policies, Labour is making little effort to pretend it knows what it would do with power. The party’s website still invites visitors to “help shape our next manifesto” and Corbyn semi-loyalist Dawn Butler suggested on Newsnight there might have to be a “rolling manifesto” while policies are developed.
Yeah, that's pretty silly. The big ideas at least should be pretty clear at all times.
Corbyn ran for the leadership with the promise of a “radical economic strategy” yet the recent announcements have largely been repeats of earlier Labour policies.
I am waiting for the first reports of far lefters criticising him for being too right wing or moderate. That's more interesting than our unceasing 'Crobyn is Crap' talk.
You could argue that Labour’s recent policies go further than previous ones. But no-one can seriously claim they would revolutionise the economy. As such, they seem designed for the same voters – progressive but not radical – that the 2015 manifesto aimed to win over.
So Labour might find support for a mix of tangible incremental policies, and radical policies aimed at tackling a well-known problem. With 49% saying they would at least consider Labour, these policies appear to win the strong support of around a quarter of the population – suggesting there is still a 25% strategy open to Labour.
Definitely. They still creep up to 25-26, and down no more than 23-24, 25 is very much on, maybe a bit more. I just don't know that policy plays much of a part. Labour have some popular ones, and others that might be popular, but the proposer is not credible.
I like the comment that the pollsters will be very happy the polls are so conclusive - even if they are wrong, the right winner will almost certainly be what the polls suggest, so no one will mind all that much at the polls being wrong.
Watch this for a sense of just how bad Corbyn is. He's on a stage, now, in lefty North London, literally preaching to the converted. He's banging on about his days fighting the National Front.
This, surely, is the one place, speaking on the one subject, where he should be really good: rousing, confident, compelling. He's been doing this for 30 years.
He's just terrible. Meandering and dull, waffly and wooden.
Among my souvenirs, and other old favourites. All together, now.
Nul points, unfortunately.
The man lacks even imagination. He obviously can have no clue as to how those outside the cult might see him. Politically autistic. Desperately unsuitable, therefore, for public office let alone leadership. The big puzzle is, how do Lab rid themselves of such a blind, clueless, messianic obsessive?
This incorporates latest evidence from Scotland, though obviously not the new Welsh data, which has not yet been published.
Two questions:
1. Are the latest Scottish surveys a blip, or will we start to see a trend as (presumably) a lot more Scotland-only surveys are published? 2. Baxter still has Ukip at 8.5%. If they collapse to 5% or lower, this ought primarily to benefit the Conservatives. What might the effect be then? 3. How much capacity is there left for further leakage of the Labour vote, especially (one would've thought) to the Liberal Democrats? This is the greatest unknowable factor: what is Labour's absolute floor?
It looks like something dramatic is going to have to happen to get the LibDems much into double figures of MPs. I wonder which their two seats would be up on 2015?
Could be more than 2 if they lose one or two.
On current polling, chances of sneaking in some wins against the Tories would be limited, and they needed big swings in many places anyway, so you're looking at places like Cambridge against LDs and East Dunbartonshire or another Scottish seat against SNP.
I like the comment that the pollsters will be very happy the polls are so conclusive - even if they are wrong, the right winner will almost certainly be what the polls suggest, so no one will mind all that much at the polls being wrong.
That's precisely what happened in 2001. A lot of the polls had numbers like Lab 49 Con 30 and the result was Lab 42 Con 33. Hardly anyone noticed because the Lab maj was so big.
Comments
It is literally as much use as a pro corn laws pact.
A50 has been triggered. We are all leavers now and the only issue is how to get the best possible deal.
If the EU think there are a cabal of denialists in the HoC plotting Canute-like to try and somehow (how?) stop Brexit, they will use it against us.
WE ARE LEAVING!
For the true nerds here, you can get turnout figures by department already, for noon. It might be interesting to look at whether there's a turnout skew to or against the most Catholic departments.
A taster:
I just find it interesting to speculate what impact such a development might have on the campaign dynamics.
Very very odd remark. Unless it's pre-emptive rebuttal?
For Holyrood 2016 Survation polled the SNP 2.5% higher than the end result and the Tories 3% lower.
If that error margin recurs then a 15 point gap shrinks to 9.5.
"We think our leader would make a shite Prime Minister, so if elected we will vote for person X/person Y/person Z/we don't have a clue (delete as applicable) to be our Prime Minister. This person will then form a Government (perhaps, depending on whether our faction of the Labour Party can build a majority,) whilst the leader of our Party sits on the back benches with his supporters, destabilising our Government and plotting revenge.
"Vote Labour."
Meanwhile, Corbyn's supporters will continue to insist that he will make an excellent Prime Minister, with the support of the demented pseudo-Trotskyite majority of the party membership, if not most of his own Parliamentarians.
Yeah, that's a really inspiring pitch.
http://www.ipsos.fr/sites/default/files/public-affairs/Enquete-CEVIPOF/rapport_cevipof_idf_avril2017.pdf
Maybe Tom Watson? He has the advantage of being sort of in the middle of the party, have been voted in as deputy leader my the membership (back in 2015) and as the deputy is unaskable by Corbyn.
I have already turned the radio off 3 times when idiots have annoyed me too much - can't believe there are 6 1/2 weeks left...
That would be less disastrous than going forward with no incumbent leader at all.
It would still look terrible though.
"Hi, I'm a Labour MP. I thought our last leader was shite, so I decided to help to depose him and install this new one. You'll now have to trust my colleagues and I not to have made a catastrophic fuck-up twice, instead of just the once.
"Vote Labour."
No doubt they mean 200-1.
https://twitter.com/ElectCalculus/status/856125057508179970
This incorporates latest evidence from Scotland, though obviously not the new Welsh data, which has not yet been published.
Two questions:
1. Are the latest Scottish surveys a blip, or will we start to see a trend as (presumably) a lot more Scotland-only surveys are published?
2. Baxter still has Ukip at 8.5%. If they collapse to 5% or lower, this ought primarily to benefit the Conservatives. What might the effect be then?
3. How much capacity is there left for further leakage of the Labour vote, especially (one would've thought) to the Liberal Democrats? This is the greatest unknowable factor: what is Labour's absolute floor?
So I wouldn't want him to run for us.
Brutal, but concentrating on preventing a total rout is much more sensible, under the dire circumstances, than trying to forestall a mere heavy defeat.
Is the UK unusual in betting on elections? Our former colonies surely have picked up the grand tradition.
BTW I have asked Betfair to set up a market on who will be the next French prime minister.
That much is knowable.
Seriously, I don't think losing any of the newcomers from the east will be fatal. Losing France clearly would end the EU as we know it. Losing Italy? Not sure. Thoughts?
Today he's in Hornsey & Wood Green (no. 96 on the defence list)
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Stirling
By any measure the Tories taking Stirling would be a bit of a stretch - the May council elections should give us a good indication of the real underlying trends.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/23/tony-blair-says-feels-passionate-blocking-hard-brexit-considering/
I can understand that many individual MPs don't support him and have asked that he be kept away.
But it doesn't make the situation worse for the Labour candidate if their leader is physically present in a marginal seat they are trying to defend or win, reading to schoolchildren or chatting to nurses in an hospital. It's not like it suddenly means local people realise who the Labour leader is when they didn't before. Indeed, the overwhelming majority will barely if at all notice he's been in town.
There's a lot of nonsense about this. Corbyn isn't a bogeyman, and barely anybody who might seriously consider voting Labour believes he is (some ultras in other parties do, but they aren't swing voters). He doesn't have some kind of reverse midas touch whereby everyone he touches on the campaign trail turns Tory - I expect he's unfailingly polite and people who meet him think he's fine.
I'd also note that, if the Conservatives really believed he was personally so toxic, they'd send May in to debate with him, humiliating him publicly in front of a horrified nation. Their concern is that he'd probably be fine, and might just possibly do quite well.
Corbyn's trouble isn't some deep hatred of him personally from the public... it's just that most people decided ages ago that he's ineffectual and couldn't run a bath, let alone a country. But that doesn't become more or less the case because he's been within a two mile radius of your house on the campaign trail.
Sturgeon's rhetoric has turned the election into a referendum about a referendum. That might alienate SNP Unionists - and there are some. Similarly, there are SNP Leavers so linking independence to joining the EU is another obvious risk.
I can't imagine UKIP falling much further personally while the Scotland 2014 precedent suggests that Labour might not hit the bottom in June. There may be further to fall.
It may not to be about awareness levels, but rather intensity of emotion generated. Knowing something unpleasant and having it shoved in your face evoke very different emotional actions. One will get you to the voting booth, the other may not.
May most likely doesn't want a debate because the expectations of Corbyn will be so low that if he's anything less than absolutely dire he's liable to be regarded by some as having exceeded them. So it's not in her interest to take the risk.
Someone should ask Corbyn which candidate he would like to win the French presidency if it isn't Melenchon.
Is there an LD rule that one must own property in the constituency, or has she just been told of a story in next week's local paper which would be detrimental to her campaign?
Nul points, unfortunately.
The man lacks even imagination. He obviously can have no clue as to how those outside the cult might see him. Politically autistic. Desperately unsuitable, therefore, for public office let alone leadership. The big puzzle is, how do Lab rid themselves of such a blind, clueless, messianic obsessive?
Yeah, that's pretty silly. The big ideas at least should be pretty clear at all times.
Corbyn ran for the leadership with the promise of a “radical economic strategy” yet the recent announcements have largely been repeats of earlier Labour policies.
I am waiting for the first reports of far lefters criticising him for being too right wing or moderate. That's more interesting than our unceasing 'Crobyn is Crap' talk.
You could argue that Labour’s recent policies go further than previous ones. But no-one can seriously claim they would revolutionise the economy. As such, they seem designed for the same voters – progressive but not radical – that the 2015 manifesto aimed to win over.
So Labour might find support for a mix of tangible incremental policies, and radical policies aimed at tackling a well-known problem. With 49% saying they would at least consider Labour, these policies appear to win the strong support of around a quarter of the population – suggesting there is still a 25% strategy open to Labour.
Definitely. They still creep up to 25-26, and down no more than 23-24, 25 is very much on, maybe a bit more. I just don't know that policy plays much of a part. Labour have some popular ones, and others that might be popular, but the proposer is not credible.
On current polling, chances of sneaking in some wins against the Tories would be limited, and they needed big swings in many places anyway, so you're looking at places like Cambridge against LDs and East Dunbartonshire or another Scottish seat against SNP.