"Strong and Stable" is what the country needs though. Brexit is quite tumultuous, as is the prospect of another once in a generation Scottish referendum. So although it is boring, it is true
But we are not strong and stable and Tories are not doing anything that will make us so. It si just sound bites for the sake of it.
All this talk about the cost of the triple lock and having to abandon the 2.5% bit of it, yet if we are heading towards a higher inflation world, dropping the 2.5% bit isn't going to save a penny.
Come election day, the Tories will have a result somewhere in the forties. Labour will be somewhere in the twenties. Wherever they each end up within that band, Theresa May will be Prime Minister with a majority somewhere between very handy and troublingly large. Enough to get to deliver our leaving the EU, without worrying about game-playing by those who STILL want to overturn the Referendum result. Job done.
There is absolutely no incentive for the Tories to kill off Labour whilst Corbyn (and whoever his successor might be) are still incoherent on the economy.
Neither Commons nor Lords held up Brexit plans, A50 passed both quickly and easily.
Any delay was due to poor organisation by the government, in particular in futile appeals against a very reasonable court ruling.
May wants a large majority because of internal party enemies, not the opposite benches.
But Labour said subsequently that they'd try to block it down the road - big mistake by Starmer.
No, he said that Labour would not unconditionally support what May came back with. We would not want it any other way in a democracy, would we?
Labour's stance is apparently to offer concessions with nothing in return and go into those negotiations telling the other side if the deal the other side offers isn't attractive we will stay.
Mhhh - Most would call that stupid if not criminally inept.
All this talk about the cost of the triple lock and having to abandon the 2.5% bit of it, yet if we are heading towards a higher inflation world, dropping the 2.5% bit isn't going to save a penny.
Cancer specialist blames SNP as NHS ‘heads for a precipice’ We may have lost the chance to put health on a sustainable footing, says Anna Gregor, as poll shows most voters believe service is worse Dr Anna Gregor, formerly Scotland’s lead cancer clinician, has launched a scathing attack on the SNP government — claiming that “pork-barrel politics of the highest order” has left the NHS “hurtling over a precipice”.
Extra funding made available by the UK government to Scotland under the Barnett formula whenever it increased health investment in England was not put into the NHS in Scotland in the form of so-called “consequentials” after the SNP came to power, she said.
What is happening to the Labour vote ? Three in a row at 30% or above ?
A week ago we were talking about annihilation!
Coalition of chaos probably isn't having the desired effect, because it's not a credible threat. That said the Tories haven't really touched the IRA, Hamas, shoot-to-kill stuff yet.
What will you bring up ? Martin McGuinness was a terrorist ? Bring it on.
Probably thinking more along the lines of his greatest hits during the hight of the IRA mainland bombing campaign. His association with Hamas, his veneration of Venezuela and his paid appearances on Russia Today, to be honest.
And, then. when he died the Queen sent a message of condolence. Mandela was a terrorist too !!!!!!!! And dare I say, before the heavy mob gets to me, so was Menachem Begin.
The people know that we had to talk to these people to finally achieve peace. Corbyn met them earlier.
The older generation may take it more seriously. They are not voting Labour anyway.
Corbyn was their cheerleader.
As I said, bring it on. The Queen's message of condolence, the Queen inviting MM to Buch House for lunch, Prince Charles meeting Gerry Adams.
All these will be dredged up too. You want to talk about the past ? We can talk about the recent past.
That’s nonsense, I think the average person in the UK can distinguish between the head of state, or her representatives having to receive unsavoury characters and a back bench MP choosing to associate with them.
She did not have to invite MM to Buck House for lunch. Don't give us that bullshit early on a Sunday morning.
The Queen does what the government tells her to do. She has met all sides in the NI conflict. Corbyn only ever met one. Are there any photos anywhere of him attending meetings or marches with Unionists, or even with the SDLP - Labour's sister party? Nope. Corbyn wanted the IRA to win. There is absolutely no getting around that. In the same way, where are the photos of Corbyn attending rallies or meeting with pro-Israeli groups? There aren't any.
Put all that together and it makes him a lying git and gives Labour a huge, ongoing, unsolvable credibility problem in the eyes of many voters who might otherwise be sympathetic tot he party.
What is happening to the Labour vote ? Three in a row at 30% or above ?
A week ago we were talking about annihilation!
Coalition of chaos probably isn't having the desired effect, because it's not a credible threat. That said the Tories haven't really touched the IRA, Hamas, shoot-to-kill stuff yet.
What will you bring up ? Martin McGuinness was a terrorist ? Bring it on.
Probably thinking more along the lines of his greatest hits during the hight of the IRA mainland bombing campaign. His association with Hamas, his veneration of Venezuela and his paid appearances on Russia Today, to be honest.
And, then. when he died the Queen sent a message of condolence. Mandela was a terrorist too !!!!!!!! And dare I say, before the heavy mob gets to me, so was Menachem Begin.
The people know that we had to talk to these people to finally achieve peace. Corbyn met them earlier.
The older generation may take it more seriously. They are not voting Labour anyway.
LOl - either you don't know your history or you are engaged in a major spin attempt.
Remember Corbyn hates what he sees as imperialism - he hates us, America and Israel but is ok with Hamas and Iranian press tv.
Strange if Corbyn was such a man of peace he didn't talk to all sides in the conflict eh?
I don't think it's as bad as that. He has a very old fashioned view, grounded by his party's history and ethos, of politics as the collective class struggle of the oppressed against the powerful. This view of the world no longer fits the reality of the more complex societies of western democracies; Corbyn finds it reassuring to go round the world finding places where his view of things still appears to have some relevance.
Yes, I think that's spot on, Ian.
He's not evil, he's a throwback - to the 60s and 70s when there was more of a market for his kind of Socialism. Perhaps I recognise it because I was there, and as a young man met and debated with many of that ilk. They weren't bad people. They were idealists, romantics and apt to wear their hearts on their sleeves, but politically inept and impractical.
I never expected to see them resurface to lead the Labour Party.
If Corbyn hasn't resigned by 9.00 pm on the 9th a new party will have formed from the rump of the now defunct Labour party leaving the man himself to soldier on with his small band of Momentumites. They could call themselves 'Corbynistas Under New Transitional Structure' with the acronym CUNTS
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
Yep. If the polls take amother turn for the worse, expect a strategy change.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
cuckoo, she met tory stooges in the forest in Scotland , in a hall booked for a birthday party in a fake name. How very public
This defence of jahadi jez and ira is quite incredible. It isn't just the ira it a whole range of terrorist organisations and individuals...He even wrote a reference letter for an ISIS fund raiser in attempt to get them released for christmas.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
What is happening to the Labour vote ? Three in a row at 30% or above ?
A week ago we were talking about annihilation!
Coalition of chaos probably isn't having the desired effect, because it's not a credible threat. That said the Tories haven't really touched the IRA, Hamas, shoot-to-kill stuff yet.
What will you bring up ? Martin McGuinness was a terrorist ? Bring it on.
Probably thinking more along the lines of his greatest hits during the hight of the IRA mainland bombing campaign. His association with Hamas, his veneration of Venezuela and his paid appearances on Russia Today, to be honest.
And, then. when he died the Queen sent a message of condolence. Mandela was a terrorist too !!!!!!!! And dare I say, before the heavy mob gets to me, so was Menachem Begin.
The people know that we had to talk to these people to finally achieve peace. Corbyn met them earlier.
The older generation may take it more seriously. They are not voting Labour anyway.
Corbyn was their cheerleader.
As I said, bring it on. The Queen's message of condolence, the Queen inviting MM to Buch House for lunch, Prince Charles meeting Gerry Adams.
All these will be dredged up too. You want to talk about the past ? We can talk about the recent past.
That’s nonsense, ves having to receive unsavoury characters and a back bench MP choosing to associate with them.
She did not have to invite MM to Buck House for lunch. Don't give us that bullshit early on a Sunday morning.
The Queen does what the government tells her to do. She has met all sides in the NI conflict. Corbyn only ever met one. Are there any photos anywhere of him attending meetings or marches with Unionists, or even with the SDLP - Labour's sister party? Nope. Corbyn wanted the IRA to win. There is absolutely no getting around that.
Absolutely Southam.
I agree with both of you on why his stance is different and should be problematic. But in practice I think those that fear a huge tory majority and the death or splitting of Labour will not care enough if they find out and were previously unaware to overcome that fear. Hence the labour recovery. It matters what he did and said, but they will be more conCerne about now.
Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.
A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.
Usual wooden rubbish from her. "Strong and stable", "Coalition of chaos" etc. etc.
To be fair, the PB Tories needn't worry. The press arm of the defacto one-party state hasn't been deployed yet so relax folks. JCICWNBPM.
Actually, she wasn't wooden. She's just slightly cold, she's never going to get the audience laughing. But she's clever in avoiding difficult questions, she deftly swerves around traps, and she has an impressive grasp of detail. She's an intelligent and capable politician with a good poker face. And she's not annoyingly posh and never gives the impression she's looking down on you.
I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.
She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .
So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?
The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.
Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.
Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?
You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
This defence of jahadi jez and ira is quite incredible. It isn't just the ira it a whole range of terrorist organisations and individuals...He even wrote a reference letter for an ISIS fund raiser in attempt to get them released for christmas.
It'e the reason why the charming 'anti-racist' campaigners keep going after UKIP. They know where the media - especially the BBC - will shine their light. Corbyn's associations have not even been raised during his interviews. Why? Working for Iranian TV, sharing platforms with renowned Holocaust deniers, etc, etc, etc. If anything, the media have gone fairly soft on him so far.
This election campaign hasn't even started yet. There's been a phoney war of sorts. It's been a complete non-event so far, but I expect that to change markedly after next Thurday's elections.
This defence of jahadi jez and ira is quite incredible. It isn't just the ira it a whole range of terrorist organisations and individuals...He even wrote a reference letter for an ISIS fund raiser in attempt to get them released for christmas.
***There now follows an excessively long post in several parts. Apologies. ***
On the general subject of the polls: I think a lot of us (and I'm not without sin myself on this front) are falling into the same trap that we did last time. It is assumed that they are correct, and therefore the wobbling about of a few numbers is setting the agenda. Exhibit A:
"Although the way Mrs May is blowing huge Tory leads in this campaign so far, I wouldn’t be surprised if William Hill introduce very shortly a similar market on whether she’ll announce her resignation before 11pm on June 9th as the Tory party will prove once again it is an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide if she fails to win (a majority) against Corbyn."
Leaving aside the point that @TSE appears to have a particular personal loathing of May, and that consequently he might be regarded as being vulnerable to confirmation bias, how do we know she's "blowing huge Tory leads"? Is there an actual movement in public opinion towards Corbyn/Labour, or have the pollsters been fiddling their figures so that current surveys are incomparable with those that went before (we know that this is the case for at least one of the three pollsters who reported yesterday?) And how do we know that the pollsters have successfully corrected for their chronic problem with pro-Labour/anti-Tory bias, which has been ongoing, to various degrees, for decades?
As thinking, reasoning human beings, at some point we have to look at a result that looks wrong and say "this is wrong." This is regardless of the fact that some statisticians have interviewed a non-random sample of people, applied arbitrary corrections that they made up to correct for said non-randomness, and another arbitrary set of corrections to account for whether or not they will vote, and yet another arbitrary set of corrections to account for whether or not they are lying, and then made a proclamation from on high at the end. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong about everything, but when we think they are obviously wrong we need not hold back from saying "this is a load of bollocks, isn't it?"
All of these polls showing Labour rolling around 30% of the popular vote are obviously a load of bollocks. Labour managed just shy of 31% last time around, and whatever else was wrong with the party at the time it was not shambolic, hopelessly divided, or burdened with a leader who is both transparently unfit for high office and unwanted by most of his own MPs. There is no reason to suppose that Labour will match its levels of support last time, on this basis alone.
Moreover, we are living in the aftermath of the EU referendum campaign - and we know from the Scottish precedent what referendum campaigns do to electorates. We can establish from actual evidence of voting patterns that the Scottish electorate has now largely polarised between a convinced Nationalist and convinced Unionist party. Labour, which has dithered, has fallen between two stools, and has also suffered from the fact that it is a nominally Unionist party which saw much of its former base vote heavily with the Nationalist side in the referendum. The EU referendum, I would contend, has not been so viscerally divisive of the wider population, but nonetheless Labour has again dithered in the middle and seen a large part of its base vote heavily against the Remain option, of which the vast bulk of the party's MPs continue to be personally convinced, whilst other, pro-European, supporters will have watched in horror as Jeremy Corbyn instructed his party to back the Government over Article 50. I refuse to believe that this, together with the public having the choice of both a convinced Leave PM (May) and a convinced Remain alternative (Farron and his Liberal Democrats) has had no effect whatsoever on Labour's standing with the electorate.
On top of all that, we have more real election results to consider. Labour collapsed to third in the Scottish Parliament elections; in Wales, where it has held on to power, it nonetheless misplaced one fifth of its entire vote. In English local elections since 2015, the main Opposition has, overall, gone backwards whilst the Government has advanced: this is almost unprecedented in modern times. The Liberal Democrats have also made some gains, whilst Ukip have gone backwards - the latter also, importantly, being utterly shambolic, having its own leadership problems, and now spinning further away from the centre of public opinion in terms of policy.
Taking all of this into account, I'm willing to stick my neck out and make the following predictions:
1. Labour is not going to do as well as at the last two elections; however, I also believe that it has a large residual core, and that most of the habit/cultural loyalty voters who haven't already peeled off will stick with the party. They'll probably tramp down to the polling stations and vote for it, and even if they don't they'll abstain. I reckon that puts Labour's final result in a narrow band around about 26%; they might do marginally better, i.e. Michael Foot better, or marginaly worse, but they're not going to drop like a stone to 20%. There aren't any strong left-leaning alternatives to mop up the extra votes. 2. The Conservatives will ship a few Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats, but ought to mop up most of what's left of Labour's swing voters to compensate. Other than that, the rest of the 2015 Tory vote will stay put: they have nowhere else to go. Meanwhile... 3. Ukip will shed somewhere between a third and a half of its 2015 vote to the Tories. Now that Brexit has been accomplished, I predict that many Ukip voters will see the party's job as finished and swing behind Mrs May, expecting EU withdrawal to be delivered. I also think that some of the ex-Labour Ukip vote will like her repositioning of the Tory Party, and compare both her and her party with Corbyn and the current state of Labour, and make the switch. Ukip won't die, because people who distrust May over the extent of her commitment to Brexit will stick with it for the time being, and because it also appeals to much the same demographic of poorer, social conservative working class voters, who are wavering in their support of Labour or have abandoned it completely, as did the BNP. Consequently... 4. Ukip ought to hold on to no less than half its vote in whatever fraction of seats it continues to contest, and the boost created by other Ukip voters moving to the Conservatives will ensure that they finish the election somewhere in the low-to-mid 40s. My central forecast would be 43% for the Conservatives and probably, allowing for failure to contest a proportion of seats, about 5% for Ukip.
5. The Liberal Democrats will make some progress by skimming Europhile voters off both the large parties, but I think that the total numbers available are limited simply because they are a minor party, and also because I believe that there are only a finite number of voters for whom Continuity Remain is an existential issue; that most of them have already crossed to the Liberal Democrats; and that the bulk of the remainder will be staying with Labour either because they are also quite left-wing, or because they view the Lib Dems as too small and weak to accomplish anything useful. My central forecast for them is 11%. 6. For other parties, based on a combination of election results and intuition, I think that the Greens will soften as some of their flank backs Corbyn, leaving them on around 3%; that Plaid Cymru, who tend to underwhelm at General Elections, will tread water, with probably not much more than the 12% of the vote in Wales that they got last time; and that the SNP are likely to finish on or about 43%, based on an assumption that their Unionist support will fall off over Indyref2, whilst Nationalists will continue to back them (i.e. 45%, less a small allowance for a low Scottish Green vote.)
Based on all of these numbers, and making educated guesses about Scottish vote shares and variations in turnout nationally, I reckon that the following outcome is likely for the main players:
Con: 385-390 (i.e. a majority of 120-130; not too far off UNS based on the above percentages, factoring in an allowance for exceptional gains in Leave-leaning/strong Ukip areas in the North slightly outweighing extra Labour holds in Remain-leaning London marginals) Lab: 170-175 (just shy of UNS, for the same reasons) SNP: 45-50 (shedding a couple of seats to the Lib Dems, and a small handful to the Tories) Lib Dem: 10-15 (gains in a handful of Remain-leaning marginals plus a couple of seats in Scotland, likely tempered by a small number of losses to the Tories)
That's my best guess and I'm sticking to it until polling day. Done.
All this talk about the cost of the triple lock and having to abandon the 2.5% bit of it, yet if we are heading towards a higher inflation world, dropping the 2.5% bit isn't going to save a penny.
Who wants to make pensioners living solely on the state pension poorer again? That isn't meant to be the aim.
The problem is that company and public sector pension schemes produced a vast excess for those born between about 1930 and 1965 followed by a deficit for those born later in the 20th. C. and still in the middle of their working lives. As a result, some older pensioners, now aged 80 or so are much better off than their children, now 50.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
Isn't that her own constituency, Carlotta? Not exactly the front line, is it!
Well, they look like genuine non-bussed in members of the public to me. Let's be seeing a similar snap of Jezza. All I can recall is a pic of him on a ram-packed train, sitting on the floor glued to the New Statesman rather than chatting to his fellow ram-packees.
All of these polls showing Labour rolling around 30% of the popular vote are obviously a load of bollocks. Labour managed just shy of 31% last time around, and whatever else was wrong with the party at the time it was not shambolic, hopelessly divided, or burdened with a leader who is both transparently unfit for high office and unwanted by most of his own MPs. There is no reason to suppose that Labour will match its levels of support last time, on this basis alone.
That supposes a lot about what the public thinks. I find 30% for Lab implausible for the reasons you list, but I find the Tory leads that preceded their Lab's mini revival implausible too, and there are explanations for it - a floor of 25% who will vote Lab no matter what, and those saying they will return because they fear Tory dominance.
Either of those assumptions may be wrong, but neither can, I think, be dismissed merely as bollocks because it does not feel like Labour should be doing so well does not really hold up either, even accepting your point that polling is, as ever, not as solid as we all act like it is.
It feels like the LDs should be doing better than they are, but admirable results in local by-elections aside - and it'll be interesting to see how they do in the locals this week - there's no evidence suggesting anything more than a minor rise.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
Isn't that her own constituency, Carlotta? Not exactly the front line, is it!
They're the people who'll be voting for her.....see earlier Paul waugh comment about May arguing with Hill about not scheduling enough time to meet voters.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
Isn't that her own constituency, Carlotta? Not exactly the front line, is it!
Well, they look like genuine non-bussed in members of the public to me. Let's be seeing a similar snap of Jezza. All I can recall is a pic of him on a ram-packed train, sitting on the floor glued to the New Statesman rather than chatting to his fellow ram-packees.
Yes, I understand he too is not very keen on speaking to people who might not agree with him.
'..and whatever else was wrong with the party at the time it was not shambolic, hopelessly divided, or burdened with a leader who is both transparently unfit for high office and unwanted by most of his own MPs.'
Probably thinking more along the lines of his greatest hits during the hight of the IRA mainland bombing campaign. His association with Hamas, his veneration of Venezuela and his paid appearances on Russia Today, to be honest.
The older generation may take it more seriously. They are not voting Labour anyway.
Corbyn was their cheerleader.
As I said, bring it on. The Queen's message of condolence, the Queen inviting MM to Buch House for lunch, Prince Charles meeting Gerry Adams.
All these will be dredged up too. You want to talk about the past ? We can talk about the recent past.
That’s nonsense, I think the average person in the UK can distinguish between the head of state, or her representatives having to receive unsavoury characters and a back bench MP choosing to associate with them.
She did not have to invite MM to Buck House for lunch. Don't give us that bullshit early on a Sunday morning.
The Queen does what the government tells her to do. She has met all sides in the NI conflict. Corbyn only ever met one. Are there any photos anywhere of him attending meetings or marches with Unionists, or even with the SDLP - Labour's sister party? Nope. Corbyn wanted the IRA to win. There is absolutely no getting around that. In the same way, where are the photos of Corbyn attending rallies or meeting with pro-Israeli groups? There aren't any.
Put all that together and it makes him a lying git and gives Labour a huge, ongoing, unsolvable credibility problem in the eyes of many voters who might otherwise be sympathetic tot he party.
Absolutely Southam.
Fair enough but would any of the others wanted to meet Corbyn anyway? Don't under-estimate vanity. No doubt the likes of Hamas, Sinn Fein, Iran made him as a non-entity politician feel important. What does he actually think? I've no idea. Maybe he didn't really think anything much at all except a vague let's bring people into the tent together.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
Isn't that her own constituency, Carlotta? Not exactly the front line, is it!
They're the people who'll be voting for her.....see earlier Paul waugh comment about May arguing with Hill about not scheduling enough time to meet voters.
Yes and she is surrounded by stooges , the real public are down the road wondering what is happening.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
This defence of jahadi jez and ira is quite incredible. It isn't just the ira it a whole range of terrorist organisations and individuals...He even wrote a reference letter for an ISIS fund raiser in attempt to get them released for christmas.
This election campaign hasn't even started yet. There's been a phoney war of sorts. It's been a complete non-event so far, but I expect that to change markedly after next Thurday's elections.
Since the NEV for the Tories will, I believe, be less even than the 10ish leads they are getting in the polling, are the Tories holding fire until the locals because it will be easier to craft a narrative of Lab being close? (notwithstanding Lab are expected to do poorly and their NEV may not be great, but the gap between them may not be as large, enabling a 'look, they could be close, not remember what a loony the leader is' argument)
The interupt-aton tactics of Marr and Evan Davis are really annoying and actually you learn nothing about the interviewee. The best approach is being well briefed and let them dig a hole with pertinent questions at the right time, but that requires you to be really on top of your brief which most talking heads aren't. They instead prep something they think will be uncomfortable for the interviewee and then try and hammer that.
Yes, just letting the interviewee talk can be a very good tactic.
Not if it is just pap, you have to at least ensure they do not get away with lies throughout
LOL! Salmond just complained about Andrew Neil interrupting him on the Sunday Politics.
Con: 385-390 (i.e. a majority of 120-130; not too far off UNS based on the above percentages, factoring in an allowance for exceptional gains in Leave-leaning/strong Ukip areas in the North slightly outweighing extra Labour holds in Remain-leaning London marginals) Lab: 170-175 (just shy of UNS, for the same reasons) SNP: 45-50 (shedding a couple of seats to the Lib Dems, and a small handful to the Tories) Lib Dem: 10-15 (gains in a handful of Remain-leaning marginals plus a couple of seats in Scotland, likely tempered by a small number of losses to the Tories).
I waver on the Lab score. I'd put them at slightly more if the current situation is where we end up, but I think staying above 200 would be very difficult and an excellent result all things considered, a Cat Smith might say. LDs look about right.
All this talk about the cost of the triple lock and having to abandon the 2.5% bit of it, yet if we are heading towards a higher inflation world, dropping the 2.5% bit isn't going to save a penny.
Who wants to make pensioners living solely on the state pension poorer again? That isn't meant to be the aim.
The problem is that company and public sector pension schemes produced a vast excess for those born between about 1930 and 1965 followed by a deficit for those born later in the 20th. C. and still in the middle of their working lives. As a result, some older pensioners, now aged 80 or so are much better off than their children, now 50.
Conversely so many many more pensioners who did not have that benefit have to live on the worst pension in the civilised world, worse off than everybody and anybody working or not working.
PS: Safe to assume you are not living on state pension for sure
Tell that to William and Scott, who greet every demand from the EU as destined to occur because the tide of history means they will get everything.
@tnewtondunn: Theresa May holds firm on no Brexit divorce payout until EU confirms trade deal terms: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" #Marr
The most likely outcome of that stance is "nothing is agreed"
No deal.
Don't be silly. We will agree to pay X assuming we reach an agreement on everything else. Then we move on to everything else. Negotiation 101
Not really a negotiation if one party's hands are tied, is it, Charles?
No: we have a negotiation about the size of the payment first, but make the actual payment conditional on what we want.
There are no circumstances in which we will pay multiple billions to the EU without a package that is acceptable overall.
(It's basically "I will agree to this proposal provided that you agree to A, B and C")
Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.
A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.
Usual wooden rubbish from her. "Strong and stable", "Coalition of chaos" etc. etc.
To be fair, the PB Tories needn't worry. The press arm of the defacto one-party state hasn't been deployed yet so relax folks. JCICWNBPM.
Actually, she wasn't wooden. She's just slightly cold, she's never going to get the audience laughing. But she's clever in avoiding difficult questions, she deftly swerves around traps, and she has an impressive grasp of detail. She's an intelligent and capable politician with a good poker face. And she's not annoyingly posh and never gives the impression she's looking down on you.
I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.
She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .
So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?
The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.
Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.
Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?
You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.
No answer then mAlky?
You really are a sad little Tory creep, obviously unable to read as well.
"Strong and Stable" is what the country needs though. Brexit is quite tumultuous, as is the prospect of another once in a generation Scottish referendum. So although it is boring, it is true
Yes but as Brexit is the opposite of strong and stable, Mrs May can't be as long as she attempts to carry out it. She will either give into the ongoing EU demands or she will take Britain over the cliff edge. Neither option is strong and stable.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
I think SkyBet's 7/2 on a Labour hold in Westminster North is excellent value.
The demographic trends for the Conservatives in that constituency are seriously negative.
For example there is now more social/council housing than owner-occupied and the combined Black and Muslim populations (there is some crossover between these two groups) is higher than the White British population.
These do not apply in either Hampstead or Tooting constituencies.
For historical precedent, the last clearly defeated leader not to resign after the election was Kinnock, seven elections and 30 years ago in 1987. He resigned in 1992, followed by Major, Hague, Howard, Brown and Miliband.
Brown did not resign immediately though - only when it became clear that discussions with the LibDems re- a possible deal required him to do so.
All this talk about the cost of the triple lock and having to abandon the 2.5% bit of it, yet if we are heading towards a higher inflation world, dropping the 2.5% bit isn't going to save a penny.
Who wants to make pensioners living solely on the state pension poorer again? That isn't meant to be the aim.
The problem is that company and public sector pension schemes produced a vast excess for those born between about 1930 and 1965 followed by a deficit for those born later in the 20th. C. and still in the middle of their working lives. As a result, some older pensioners, now aged 80 or so are much better off than their children, now 50.
No, the problem is that the ageing population means that all pension arrangements are costing more, and that the government's response so far has been to try and save money solely by retarding the payment age.
And I don't think the issue is the wealth difference between pensioners and those aged 50, the latter being at the tail end of the generation who benefited from access to DB pensions and an affordable but rising housing market. The issue is the difference between both the 80- and 50-year olds and those aged 20 or 30.
If the Tory election expenses scandal explodes, all bets are off I guess? We all know that it will be a negative but just how much it dents the Tories is still up for grabs!
"Strong and Stable" is what the country needs though. Brexit is quite tumultuous, as is the prospect of another once in a generation Scottish referendum. So although it is boring, it is true
Yes but as Brexit is the opposite of strong and stable, Mrs May can't be as long as she attempts to carry out it. She will either give into the ongoing EU demands or she will take Britain over the cliff edge. Neither option is strong and stable.
It's a comparative scaling looking at the other political options - Brexit is happening, Lab are on board too after all just differ in the details, so of the options moving forward, which is most strong and stable.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.
Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.
LOL, rewriting history now.
Uh? She was Tory party chairman if I remember rightly, that usually goes to someone who does that kind of thing. Just because she is not doing it now does not mean she never has.
On to more important matters, the locals, of 4 parties standing in my area I've still only had leaflets from two of them, so the others have a few more days or they have no chance at my vote due to lack of effort. One of the others is Lab, and I don't think even locally I can reward Lab with my vote so long as Corbyn leads them, which means the last will get the vote by default in all likelihood.
Morning all. Wouldn't it be rather amusing if he didn't quit? Rather amusing that is, except for anyone who wants to see a strong Labour Party, good opposition to the government and 1970s communists, antisemites and terrorist sympathisers eradicated from modern politics.
Which is why the defeat has to be utter and total, Labour need to lose half their MPs to wake up those who bankroll the party and want to be in government
Corbyn doesn't want to be in govt, he's been a state sponsored protester for decades. The thing with these lefties is they KNOW they are right, that anybody who disagrees is an uncaring, capitalist fascist. He won't resign, he'll need to be thrown out and I've no idea how that happens.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.
Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.
LOL, rewriting history now.
Uh? She was Tory party chairman if I remember rightly, that usually goes to someone who does that kind of thing. Just because she is not doing it now does not mean she never has.
Yep for two years - also local councillor for 8 years and fought two unsuccessful elections in 'no hope seats' before being selected for Maidenhead. Did it the old fashioned way....unlike some other leaders of the party...
@chrisg000Neil: Why have the SNP cut 4000 teachers?
Salmond: We are going to increase the numbers of teachers.
Simple, clear facts hurt!
...........................
Neil:In terms of Gov time in Holyrood, 43 hrs debating independence, how many debating education?
Salmond:don't know
Neil:Answer is 0
Your usual half facts and lies. Teachers numbers increased last year and areas where they did not are not under SNP control or are very rural and obviously hard to recruit. Given the governemnt gives the money to councils who are in charge , we see the Tories and Labour diverting the money for their pet projects.
If the Tory election expenses scandal explodes, all bets are off I guess? We all know that it will be a negative but just how much it dents the Tories is still up for grabs!
If they are polling back up where they were last week I think they'll be fine. If things remain static, and the campaign is as poor as to date, then even though the other parties did provably break rules as well, I can see it hitting them even if Lab are the main beneficiaries.
I think SkyBet's 7/2 on a Labour hold in Westminster North is excellent value.
The demographic trends for the Conservatives in that constituency are seriously negative.
For example there is now more social/council housing than owner-occupied and the combined Black and Muslim populations (there is some crossover between these two groups) is higher than the White British population.
These do not apply in either Hampstead or Tooting constituencies.
Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.
A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.
Usual wooden rubbish from her. "Strong and stable", "Coalition of chaos" etc. etc.
To be fair, the PB Tories needn't worry. The press arm of the defacto one-party state hasn't been deployed yet so relax folks. JCICWNBPM.
Actually, she wasn't wooden. She's just slightly cold, she's never going to get the audience laughing. But she's clever in avoiding difficult questions, she deftly swerves around traps, and she has an impressive grasp of detail. She's an intelligent and capable politician with a good poker face. And she's not annoyingly posh and never gives the impression she's looking down on you.
I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.
She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .
So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?
The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.
Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.
Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?
You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.
No answer then mAlky?
You really are a sad little Tory creep, obviously unable to read as well.
mAlky, still no answer. Silly addled fool. bye bye.
On to more important matters, the locals, of 4 parties standing in my area I've still only had leaflets from two of them, so the others have a few more days or they have no chance at my vote due to lack of effort. One of the others is Lab, and I don't think even locally I can reward Lab with my vote so long as Corbyn leads them, which means the last will get the vote by default in all likelihood.
I haven't had a single leaflet so far for the locals.
This defence of jahadi jez and ira is quite incredible. It isn't just the ira it a whole range of terrorist organisations and individuals...He even wrote a reference letter for an ISIS fund raiser in attempt to get them released for christmas.
It'e the reason why the charming 'anti-racist' campaigners keep going after UKIP. They know where the media - especially the BBC - will shine their light. Corbyn's associations have not even been raised during his interviews. Why? Working for Iranian TV, sharing platforms with renowned Holocaust deniers, etc, etc, etc. If anything, the media have gone fairly soft on him so far.
This election campaign hasn't even started yet. There's been a phoney war of sorts. It's been a complete non-event so far, but I expect that to change markedly after next Thurday's elections.
Compare and contrast vs all the bullingdon nonsense, George meeting a Russian bloke on a yacht once for dinner and most recently how overexcited the media have got over Tim farron's views on gay sex. Tiny Tim votes for gay marriage, jezza takes money from a state that kills them.
Morning all. Wouldn't it be rather amusing if he didn't quit? Rather amusing that is, except for anyone who wants to see a strong Labour Party, good opposition to the government and 1970s communists, antisemites and terrorist sympathisers eradicated from modern politics.
Which is why the defeat has to be utter and total, Labour need to lose half their MPs to wake up those who bankroll the party and want to be in government
Corbyn doesn't want to be in govt, he's been a state sponsored protester for decades. The thing with these lefties is they KNOW they are right, that anybody who disagrees is an uncaring, capitalist fascist. He won't resign, he'll need to be thrown out and I've no idea how that happens.
Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.
A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.
Usual wooden rubbish from her. "Strong and stable", "Coalition of chaos" etc. etc.
To be fair, the PB Tories needn't worry. The press arm of the defacto one-party state hasn't been deployed yet so relax folks. JCICWNBPM.
Actually, she wasn't wooden. She's just slightly cold, she's never going to get the audience laughing. But she's clever in avoiding difficult questions, she deftly swerves around traps, and she has an impressive grasp of detail. She's an intelligent and capable politician with a good poker face. And she's not annoyingly posh and never gives the impression she's looking down on you.
I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.
She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .
So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?
The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.
Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.
Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?
You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.
No answer then mAlky?
You really are a sad little Tory creep, obviously unable to read as well.
mAlky, still no answer. Silly addled fool. bye bye.
Go play tag on the motorway you cretin, given your thickness you will lose big time.
On to more important matters, the locals, of 4 parties standing in my area I've still only had leaflets from two of them, so the others have a few more days or they have no chance at my vote due to lack of effort. One of the others is Lab, and I don't think even locally I can reward Lab with my vote so long as Corbyn leads them, which means the last will get the vote by default in all likelihood.
I haven't had a single leaflet so far for the locals.
Unfortunate. I don't know what I'd do in that situation, as I feel that parties that don't even bother don't deserve my vote, but what if none do?
On to more important matters, the locals, of 4 parties standing in my area I've still only had leaflets from two of them, so the others have a few more days or they have no chance at my vote due to lack of effort. One of the others is Lab, and I don't think even locally I can reward Lab with my vote so long as Corbyn leads them, which means the last will get the vote by default in all likelihood.
I haven't had a single leaflet so far for the locals.
Unfortunate. I don't know what I'd do in that situation, as I feel that parties that don't even bother don't deserve my vote, but what if none do?
Number them up and roll a die? Being a boardgame nerd I have a number of different sided die so luckily I am covered.
Taking all of this into account, I'm willing to stick my neck out and make the following predictions:
1. Labour is not going to do as well as at the last two elections; however, I also believe that it has a large residual core, and that most of the habit/cultural loyalty voters who haven't already peeled off will stick with the party. They'll probably tramp down to the polling stations and vote for it, and even if they don't they'll abstain. I reckon that puts Labour's final result in a narrow band around about 26%; they might do marginally better, i.e. Michael Foot better, or marginaly worse, but they're not going to drop like a stone to 20%. There aren't any strong left-leaning alternatives to mop up the extra votes. 2. The Conservatives will ship a few Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats, but ought to mop up most of what's left of Labour's swing voters to compensate. Other than that, the rest of the 2015 Tory vote will stay put: they have nowhere else to go. Meanwhile... 3. Ukip will shed somewhere between a third and a half of its 2015 vote to the Tories. Now that Brexit has been accomplished, I predict that many Ukip voters will see the party's job as finished and swing behind Mrs May, expecting EU withdrawal to be delivered. I also think that some of the ex-Labour Ukip vote will like her repositioning of the Tory Party, and compare both her and her party with Corbyn and the current state of Labour, and make the switch. Ukip won't die, because people who distrust May over the extent of her commitment to Brexit will stick with it for the time being, and because it also appeals to much the same demographic of poorer, social conservative working class voters, who are wavering in their support of Labour or have abandoned it completely, as did the BNP. Consequently... 4. Ukip ought to hold on to no less than half its vote in whatever fraction of seats it continues to contest, and the boost created by other Ukip voters moving to the Conservatives will ensure that they finish the election somewhere in the low-to-mid 40s. My central forecast would be 43% for the Conservatives and probably, allowing for failure to contest a proportion of seats, about 5% for Ukip.
Not bad reasoning but sadly your figures do not add up
Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.
A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.
Usual wooden rubbish from her. "Strong and stable", "Coalition of chaos" etc. etc.
To be fair, the PB Tories needn't worry. The press arm of the defacto one-party state hasn't been deployed yet so relax folks. JCICWNBPM.
Actually, she wasn't wooden. She's just slightly cold, she's never going to get the audience laughing. But she's clever in avoiding difficult questions, she deftly swerves around traps, and she has an impressive grasp of detail. She's an intelligent and capable politician with a good poker face. And she's not annoyingly posh and never gives the impression she's looking down on you.
I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.
She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .
So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?
The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.
Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.
Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?
You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.
No answer then mAlky?
You really are a sad little Tory creep, obviously unable to read as well.
mAlky, still no answer. Silly addled fool. bye bye.
Don't confuse him with facts. He reacts badly. Think 'two year old temper tantrum with the vocabulary of a slightly dim 14 year old boy'
Tell that to William and Scott, who greet every demand from the EU as destined to occur because the tide of history means they will get everything.
@tnewtondunn: Theresa May holds firm on no Brexit divorce payout until EU confirms trade deal terms: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" #Marr
The most likely outcome of that stance is "nothing is agreed"
No deal.
Don't be silly. We will agree to pay X assuming we reach an agreement on everything else. Then we move on to everything else. Negotiation 101
Not really a negotiation if one party's hands are tied, is it, Charles?
No: we have a negotiation about the size of the payment first, but make the actual payment conditional on what we want.
There are no circumstances in which we will pay multiple billions to the EU without a package that is acceptable overall.
(It's basically "I will agree to this proposal provided that you agree to A, B and C")
Tell that to William and Scott, who greet every demand from the EU as destined to occur because the tide of history means they will get everything.
@tnewtondunn: Theresa May holds firm on no Brexit divorce payout until EU confirms trade deal terms: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" #Marr
The most likely outcome of that stance is "nothing is agreed"
No deal.
Don't be silly. We will agree to pay X assuming we reach an agreement on everything else. Then we move on to everything else. Negotiation 101
Not really a negotiation if one party's hands are tied, is it, Charles?
No: we have a negotiation about the size of the payment first, but make the actual payment conditional on what we want.
There are no circumstances in which we will pay multiple billions to the EU without a package that is acceptable overall.
(It's basically "I will agree to this proposal provided that you agree to A, B and C")
Pay multiple billions??!!! And there's me thinking that leaving the EU would save us money....
Seriously, your second paragraph sounds very much like 'no deal' to me, and leaving without an agreement would throw us back on to WTO terms or similar, no?
You're not doing a great job of selling this to me, Charles.
I think SkyBet's 7/2 on a Labour hold in Westminster North is excellent value.
The demographic trends for the Conservatives in that constituency are seriously negative.
For example there is now more social/council housing than owner-occupied and the combined Black and Muslim populations (there is some crossover between these two groups) is higher than the White British population.
These do not apply in either Hampstead or Tooting constituencies.
@tnewtondunnWhy are 1 in 5 Scottish children functionally illiterate? Alex Salmond, rarely on the back foot: "Er, that's just one statistic" #bbcsp
Will have to watch that when it's up later, the only thing more fun than watching Salmond struggle is Farage. When he is squirming I get the popcorn out.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.
Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.
LOL, rewriting history now.
Uh? She was Tory party chairman if I remember rightly, that usually goes to someone who does that kind of thing. Just because she is not doing it now does not mean she never has.
She was hardly known till recently despite being MP forever and at Home Office for 6 years. Party chairmen shake hands with other greedy gits buying favours to get money out of them , they do not talk to the public. She is hiding now when it counts.
All this talk about the cost of the triple lock and having to abandon the 2.5% bit of it, yet if we are heading towards a higher inflation world, dropping the 2.5% bit isn't going to save a penny.
Who wants to make pensioners living solely on the state pension poorer again? That isn't meant to be the aim.
The problem is that company and public sector pension schemes produced a vast excess for those born between about 1930 and 1965 followed by a deficit for those born later in the 20th. C. and still in the middle of their working lives. As a result, some older pensioners, now aged 80 or so are much better off than their children, now 50.
Conversely so many many more pensioners who did not have that benefit have to live on the worst pension in the civilised world, worse off than everybody and anybody working or not working.
PS: Safe to assume you are not living on state pension for sure
No I'm not but I'm worried about the future unless the triple lock is maintained.
Interestingly, even the USA, which doesn't have much of a welfare state, provides a state pension which seems enough to live on if you earn a low-ish income of say $1500/month
She was hardly known till recently despite being MP forever and at Home Office for 6 years. Party chairmen shake hands with other greedy gits buying favours to get money out of them , they do not talk to the public. She is hiding now when it counts.
I had heard of her....but then I am a little bit of a politics nerd. I should have bet on her last summer becoming leader, I couldn't see anyone else getting the job if Osborne was sidelined and Brexit did that. She also had to meet the members too though, and go around during local elections etc etc. All the things Cameron avoided doing. She is, which again is odd. She is an average public speaker at best, but they have her hammering away at those and avoiding speaking to people. Like they've just dusted off the GE plan for 2015 that Cameron used and have her using it, which won't work.
Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.
A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.
Usual wooden rubbish from her. "Strong and stable", "Coalition of chaos" etc. etc.
To be fair, the PB Tories needn't worry. The press arm of the defacto one-party state hasn't been deployed yet so relax folks. JCICWNBPM.
Actually, she wasn't wooden. She's just slightly cold, she's never going to get the audience laughing. But she's clever in avoiding difficult questions, she deftly swerves around traps, and she has an impressive grasp of detail. She's an intelligent and capable politician with a good poker face. And she's not annoyingly posh and never gives the impression she's looking down on you.
I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.
She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .
So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?
The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.
Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.
Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?
You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.
No answer then mAlky?
You really are a sad little Tory creep, obviously unable to read as well.
mAlky, still no answer. Silly addled fool. bye bye.
Go play tag on the motorway you cretin, given your thickness you will lose big time.
Wit and repartee, something else you fail miserably at. Now seriously, have to go and clean out the hamsters, I'll be throwing away biological matter that has more intelligence than you do.
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.
Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.
LOL, rewriting history now.
Uh? She was Tory party chairman if I remember rightly, that usually goes to someone who does that kind of thing. Just because she is not doing it now does not mean she never has.
She was hardly known till recently despite being MP forever and at Home Office for 6 years. Party chairmen shake hands with other greedy gits buying favours to get money out of them , they do not talk to the public. She is hiding now when it counts.
Actually Malc her whole political career has been as one of an ardent canvasser which she started when she became a local councillor. Ask anyone who knows her and door knocking in elections is in her DNA
May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.
(Starting when?)
That is her reason for no TV debates.
She managed to say it with a straight face.
Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.
I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?
There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.
She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.
May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:
Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.
Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.
LOL, rewriting history now.
Uh? She was Tory party chairman if I remember rightly, that usually goes to someone who does that kind of thing. Just because she is not doing it now does not mean she never has.
She was hardly known till recently despite being MP forever and at Home Office for 6 years. Party chairmen shake hands with other greedy gits buying favours to get money out of them , they do not talk to the public. She is hiding now when it counts.
Actually she was first elected in 1997 (ten years after Salmond...).
Con: 385-390 (i.e. a majority of 120-130; not too far off UNS based on the above percentages, factoring in an allowance for exceptional gains in Leave-leaning/strong Ukip areas in the North slightly outweighing extra Labour holds in Remain-leaning London marginals) Lab: 170-175 (just shy of UNS, for the same reasons) SNP: 45-50 (shedding a couple of seats to the Lib Dems, and a small handful to the Tories) Lib Dem: 10-15 (gains in a handful of Remain-leaning marginals plus a couple of seats in Scotland, likely tempered by a small number of losses to the Tories).
I waver on the Lab score. I'd put them at slightly more if the current situation is where we end up, but I think staying above 200 would be very difficult and an excellent result all things considered, a Cat Smith might say. LDs look about right.
Re: SNP - depends on extent of Conservative recovery. My UNS estimate put the SNP at 50, but I fancy the Conservatives to do marginally better (and, consequently, the SNP just a little worse) due to the fact that the Tories ought to outperform in the far South and the North East, and underperform in much of the rest of the country. If pushed for an exact figure for the SNP, I'd go for 48 - but it's just a guessing game, isn't it?
UNS based on my central estimate of vote share puts Labour just under 185, and I've nudged them down a little for reasons previously described.
Taking all of this into account, I'm willing to stick my neck out and make the following predictions:
1. Labour is not going to do as well as at the last two elections; however, I also believe that it has a large residual core, and that most of the habit/cultural loyalty voters who haven't already peeled off will stick with the party. They'll probably tramp down to the polling stations and vote for it, and even if they don't they'll abstain. I reckon that puts Labour's final result in a narrow band around about 26%; they might do marginally better, i.e. Michael Foot better, or marginaly worse, but they're not going to drop like a stone to 20%. There aren't any strong left-leaning alternatives to mop up the extra votes. 2. The Conservatives will ship a few Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats, but ought to mop up most of what's left of Labour's swing voters to compensate. Other than that, the rest of the 2015 Tory vote will stay put: they have nowhere else to go. Meanwhile... 3. Ukip will shed somewhere between a third and a half of its 2015 vote to the Tories. Now that Brexit has been accomplished, I predict that many Ukip voters will see the party's job as finished and swing behind Mrs May, expecting EU withdrawal to be delivered. I also think that some of the ex-Labour Ukip vote will like her repositioning of the Tory Party, and compare both her and her party with Corbyn and the current state of Labour, and make the switch. Ukip won't die, because people who distrust May over the extent of her commitment to Brexit will stick with it for the time being, and because it also appeals to much the same demographic of poorer, social conservative working class voters, who are wavering in their support of Labour or have abandoned it completely, as did the BNP. Consequently... 4. Ukip ought to hold on to no less than half its vote in whatever fraction of seats it continues to contest, and the boost created by other Ukip voters moving to the Conservatives will ensure that they finish the election somewhere in the low-to-mid 40s. My central forecast would be 43% for the Conservatives and probably, allowing for failure to contest a proportion of seats, about 5% for Ukip.
Not bad reasoning but sadly your figures do not add up
Con 43 Lab 26 LD 11 Green 3 Nats 7 UKIP 5
Who gets the other 5%
2% would be Northern Ireland. The speaker and the rainbow of fringe parties must account for another 1%? Then rounding error.
Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.
A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.
.
I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.
She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .
So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?
The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.
Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.
Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?
You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.
No answer then mAlky?
You really are a sad little Tory creep, obviously unable to read as well.
mAlky, still no answer. Silly addled fool. bye bye.
Go play tag on the motorway you cretin, given your thickness you will lose big time.
Wit and repartee, something else you fail miserably at. Now seriously, have to go and clean out the hamsters, I'll be throwing away biological matter that has more intelligence than you do.
Bye, bye.
Oh dear making your bed now, run away and enjoy your vegetables, they will be more interesting than you for sure. Keep taking your JSA.
Con: 385-390 (i.e. a majority of 120-130; not too far off UNS based on the above percentages, factoring in an allowance for exceptional gains in Leave-leaning/strong Ukip areas in the North slightly outweighing extra Labour holds in Remain-leaning London marginals) Lab: 170-175 (just shy of UNS, for the same reasons) SNP: 45-50 (shedding a couple of seats to the Lib Dems, and a small handful to the Tories) Lib Dem: 10-15 (gains in a handful of Remain-leaning marginals plus a couple of seats in Scotland, likely tempered by a small number of losses to the Tories).
I waver on the Lab score. I'd put them at slightly more if the current situation is where we end up, but I think staying above 200 would be very difficult and an excellent result all things considered, a Cat Smith might say. LDs look about right.
Re: SNP - depends on extent of Conservative recovery. My UNS estimate put the SNP at 50, but I fancy the Conservatives to do marginally better (and, consequently, the SNP just a little worse) due to the fact that the Tories ought to outperform in the far South and the North East, and underperform in much of the rest of the country. If pushed for an exact figure for the SNP, I'd go for 48 - but it's just a guessing game, isn't it?
UNS based on my central estimate of vote share puts Labour just under 185, and I've nudged them down a little for reasons previously described.
The other thing to look for is the size of the Green vote. They may be highly attractive to the ideologically pure, pro-independence far left who are not thrilled with the SNP's government record. It's hard to imagine them taking many (edit - that was meant to be 'any') seats particularly as most of their vote will surely be in Glasgow but if they're on 5% or more across Scotland it's easy to see them tipping 5/6 seats over the edge.
Taking all of this into account, I'm willing to stick my neck out and make the following predictions:
1. Labour is not going to do as well as at the last two elections; however, I also believe that it has a large residual core, and that most of the habit/cultural loyalty voters who haven't already peeled off will stick with the party. They'll probably tramp down to the polling stations and vote for it, and even if they don't they'll abstain. I reckon that puts Labour's final result in a narrow band around about 26%; they might do marginally better, i.e. Michael Foot better, or marginaly worse, but they're not going to drop like a stone to 20%. There aren't any strong left-leaning alternatives to mop up the extra votes. 2. The Conservatives will ship a few Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats, but ought to mop up most of what's left of Labour's swing voters to compensate. Other than that, the rest of the 2015 Tory vote will stay put: they have nowhere else to go. Meanwhile... 3. Ukip will shed somewhere between a third and a half of its 2015 vote to the Tories. Now that Brexit has been accomplished, I predict that many Ukip voters will see the party's job as finished and swing behind Mrs May, expecting EU withdrawal to be delivered. I also think that some of the ex-Labour Ukip vote will like her repositioning of the Tory Party, and compare both her and her party with Corbyn and the current state of Labour, and make the switch. Ukip won't die, because people who distrust May over the extent of her commitment to Brexit will stick with it for the time being, and because it also appeals to much the same demographic of poorer, social conservative working class voters, who are wavering in their support of Labour or have abandoned it completely, as did the BNP. Consequently... 4. Ukip ought to hold on to no less than half its vote in whatever fraction of seats it continues to contest, and the boost created by other Ukip voters moving to the Conservatives will ensure that they finish the election somewhere in the low-to-mid 40s. My central forecast would be 43% for the Conservatives and probably, allowing for failure to contest a proportion of seats, about 5% for Ukip.
Not bad reasoning but sadly your figures do not add up
Con 43 Lab 26 LD 11 Green 3 Nats 7 UKIP 5
Who gets the other 5%
2% would be Northern Ireland. The speaker and the rainbow of fringe parties must account for another 1%? Then rounding error.
A quick check is the rule of 92/3
Con + Lab + LD + Green + UKIP summed through to 91.7 last time.
Seeing as the SNP will drop back a touch and Plaid will go forward, I make it ~92.5 for the "main" full UK parties.
So check that you sum through to 92 or 93 for Con + Lab + LD + Green + UKIP
Just watched Sarah Olney on Sunday Politics (London bit). She was very good and quite withering about the Goldsmith reselection. I think she'll probably hold Richmond Park.
To be fair, though, I can't really remember any PMQs by anyone. It's internal political drama, family spats that are soon forgotten.
Agreed. I was in the Chamber at most of them for 13 years (sometimes didn't bother). I can remember the odd line (Hague's rueful and endearing resignation comment effectively that he'd won every one and a fat lot of good it had done him) but otherwise meh.
I can only remember one of my own, come to that. Tony Blair had announced some anti-social behaviour initiative tackling lawless adult louts. I said that in Broxtowe we were making good progress in tackling street violence by pensioners, but did he have any policies on teenagers? To be fair he laughed with the rest of the House - hut, typically, I can't remember what the reply was, except that it didn't really say anything.
There's a couple of lines that stick around - 'You were the future once' from Cameron, 'Stalin to Mr Bean' from Cable - plus some of the gaffes like 'We saved the world' by Brown or 'calm down dear' by Cameron. Few and far between though.
Con: 385-390 (i.e. a majority of 120-130; not too far off UNS based on the above percentages, factoring in an allowance for exceptional gains in Leave-leaning/strong Ukip areas in the North slightly outweighing extra Labour holds in Remain-leaning London marginals) Lab: 170-175 (just shy of UNS, for the same reasons) SNP: 45-50 (shedding a couple of seats to the Lib Dems, and a small handful to the Tories) Lib Dem: 10-15 (gains in a handful of Remain-leaning marginals plus a couple of seats in Scotland, likely tempered by a small number of losses to the Tories).
I waver on the Lab score. I'd put them at slightly more if the current situation is where we end up, but I think staying above 200 would be very difficult and an excellent result all things considered, a Cat Smith might say. LDs look about right.
Re: SNP - depends on extent of Conservative recovery. My UNS estimate put the SNP at 50, but I fancy the Conservatives to do marginally better (and, consequently, the SNP just a little worse) due to the fact that the Tories ought to outperform in the far South and the North East, and underperform in much of the rest of the country. If pushed for an exact figure for the SNP, I'd go for 48 - but it's just a guessing game, isn't it?
UNS based on my central estimate of vote share puts Labour just under 185, and I've nudged them down a little for reasons previously described.
The other thing to look for is the size of the Green vote. They may be highly attractive to the ideologically pure, pro-independence far left who are not thrilled with the SNP's government record. It's hard to imagine them taking many (edit - that was meant to be 'any') seats particularly as most of their vote will surely be in Glasgow but if they're on 5% or more across Scotland it's easy to see them tipping 5/6 seats over the edge.
In England I think Corbyn already has most of that USP, and there is no sign of any green uptick. In Scotland I guess being pro-Indy lefties may give them a small edge over their rUK counterparts?
I think Teresa May has made a big mistake in going for a long campaign.
In the next 6 weeks she will have to say something - people (well journalists) are already getting fed up with the 'Vote for me, a strong leader" theme.
Just repeating platitudes isn't going to work. The demand for real policies on Brexit and the economy (stupid!) will increase. Today's announcement on pensions is meaningless - there are almost no defined benefit schemes left except for government employees.
She had no choice! The FTPA requires 25 days - excluding Bank Holidays between Dissolution and Polling Day.
Comments
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/858618640094162944
Mhhh - Most would call that stupid if not criminally inept.
He's not evil, he's a throwback - to the 60s and 70s when there was more of a market for his kind of Socialism. Perhaps I recognise it because I was there, and as a young man met and debated with many of that ilk. They weren't bad people. They were idealists, romantics and apt to wear their hearts on their sleeves, but politically inept and impractical.
I never expected to see them resurface to lead the Labour Party.
http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/areas/114483/prime-minister-launches-maidenhead-election-campaign-in-the-high-street.html#.WQR51ahvzjk.twitter
Isn't that her own constituency, Carlotta? Not exactly the front line, is it!
This election campaign hasn't even started yet. There's been a phoney war of sorts. It's been a complete non-event so far, but I expect that to change markedly after next Thurday's elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/13/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-foreign-policy-antisemitism
And that other right wing Tory rag the Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-defends-taking-money-from-iranian-state-broadcaster-press-tv-appearances_uk_57c705b7e4b01e359229a9be
On the general subject of the polls: I think a lot of us (and I'm not without sin myself on this front) are falling into the same trap that we did last time. It is assumed that they are correct, and therefore the wobbling about of a few numbers is setting the agenda. Exhibit A:
"Although the way Mrs May is blowing huge Tory leads in this campaign so far, I wouldn’t be surprised if William Hill introduce very shortly a similar market on whether she’ll announce her resignation before 11pm on June 9th as the Tory party will prove once again it is an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide if she fails to win (a majority) against Corbyn."
Leaving aside the point that @TSE appears to have a particular personal loathing of May, and that consequently he might be regarded as being vulnerable to confirmation bias, how do we know she's "blowing huge Tory leads"? Is there an actual movement in public opinion towards Corbyn/Labour, or have the pollsters been fiddling their figures so that current surveys are incomparable with those that went before (we know that this is the case for at least one of the three pollsters who reported yesterday?) And how do we know that the pollsters have successfully corrected for their chronic problem with pro-Labour/anti-Tory bias, which has been ongoing, to various degrees, for decades?
As thinking, reasoning human beings, at some point we have to look at a result that looks wrong and say "this is wrong." This is regardless of the fact that some statisticians have interviewed a non-random sample of people, applied arbitrary corrections that they made up to correct for said non-randomness, and another arbitrary set of corrections to account for whether or not they will vote, and yet another arbitrary set of corrections to account for whether or not they are lying, and then made a proclamation from on high at the end. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong about everything, but when we think they are obviously wrong we need not hold back from saying "this is a load of bollocks, isn't it?"
All of these polls showing Labour rolling around 30% of the popular vote are obviously a load of bollocks. Labour managed just shy of 31% last time around, and whatever else was wrong with the party at the time it was not shambolic, hopelessly divided, or burdened with a leader who is both transparently unfit for high office and unwanted by most of his own MPs. There is no reason to suppose that Labour will match its levels of support last time, on this basis alone.
On top of all that, we have more real election results to consider. Labour collapsed to third in the Scottish Parliament elections; in Wales, where it has held on to power, it nonetheless misplaced one fifth of its entire vote. In English local elections since 2015, the main Opposition has, overall, gone backwards whilst the Government has advanced: this is almost unprecedented in modern times. The Liberal Democrats have also made some gains, whilst Ukip have gone backwards - the latter also, importantly, being utterly shambolic, having its own leadership problems, and now spinning further away from the centre of public opinion in terms of policy.
1. Labour is not going to do as well as at the last two elections; however, I also believe that it has a large residual core, and that most of the habit/cultural loyalty voters who haven't already peeled off will stick with the party. They'll probably tramp down to the polling stations and vote for it, and even if they don't they'll abstain. I reckon that puts Labour's final result in a narrow band around about 26%; they might do marginally better, i.e. Michael Foot better, or marginaly worse, but they're not going to drop like a stone to 20%. There aren't any strong left-leaning alternatives to mop up the extra votes.
2. The Conservatives will ship a few Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats, but ought to mop up most of what's left of Labour's swing voters to compensate. Other than that, the rest of the 2015 Tory vote will stay put: they have nowhere else to go. Meanwhile...
3. Ukip will shed somewhere between a third and a half of its 2015 vote to the Tories. Now that Brexit has been accomplished, I predict that many Ukip voters will see the party's job as finished and swing behind Mrs May, expecting EU withdrawal to be delivered. I also think that some of the ex-Labour Ukip vote will like her repositioning of the Tory Party, and compare both her and her party with Corbyn and the current state of Labour, and make the switch. Ukip won't die, because people who distrust May over the extent of her commitment to Brexit will stick with it for the time being, and because it also appeals to much the same demographic of poorer, social conservative working class voters, who are wavering in their support of Labour or have abandoned it completely, as did the BNP. Consequently...
4. Ukip ought to hold on to no less than half its vote in whatever fraction of seats it continues to contest, and the boost created by other Ukip voters moving to the Conservatives will ensure that they finish the election somewhere in the low-to-mid 40s. My central forecast would be 43% for the Conservatives and probably, allowing for failure to contest a proportion of seats, about 5% for Ukip.
6. For other parties, based on a combination of election results and intuition, I think that the Greens will soften as some of their flank backs Corbyn, leaving them on around 3%; that Plaid Cymru, who tend to underwhelm at General Elections, will tread water, with probably not much more than the 12% of the vote in Wales that they got last time; and that the SNP are likely to finish on or about 43%, based on an assumption that their Unionist support will fall off over Indyref2, whilst Nationalists will continue to back them (i.e. 45%, less a small allowance for a low Scottish Green vote.)
Based on all of these numbers, and making educated guesses about Scottish vote shares and variations in turnout nationally, I reckon that the following outcome is likely for the main players:
Con: 385-390 (i.e. a majority of 120-130; not too far off UNS based on the above percentages, factoring in an allowance for exceptional gains in Leave-leaning/strong Ukip areas in the North slightly outweighing extra Labour holds in Remain-leaning London marginals)
Lab: 170-175 (just shy of UNS, for the same reasons)
SNP: 45-50 (shedding a couple of seats to the Lib Dems, and a small handful to the Tories)
Lib Dem: 10-15 (gains in a handful of Remain-leaning marginals plus a couple of seats in Scotland, likely tempered by a small number of losses to the Tories)
That's my best guess and I'm sticking to it until polling day. Done.
The problem is that company and public sector pension schemes produced a vast excess for those born between about 1930 and 1965 followed by a deficit for those born later in the 20th. C. and still in the middle of their working lives. As a result, some older pensioners, now aged 80 or so are much better off than their children, now 50.
Either of those assumptions may be wrong, but neither can, I think, be dismissed merely as bollocks because it does not feel like Labour should be doing so well does not really hold up either, even accepting your point that polling is, as ever, not as solid as we all act like it is.
It feels like the LDs should be doing better than they are, but admirable results in local by-elections aside - and it'll be interesting to see how they do in the locals this week - there's no evidence suggesting anything more than a minor rise.
Hhhmmmm.
The Confidence Trick
https://thecommongreen.scot/2017/04/29/the-confidence-trick/
A comment that doesn't apply to foodbank users in general.
PS: Safe to assume you are not living on state pension for sure
There are no circumstances in which we will pay multiple billions to the EU without a package that is acceptable overall.
(It's basically "I will agree to this proposal provided that you agree to A, B and C")
Salmond: We are going to increase the numbers of teachers.
Simple, clear facts hurt!
...........................
Neil:In terms of Gov time in Holyrood, 43 hrs debating independence, how many debating education?
Salmond:don't know
Neil:Answer is 0
The demographic trends for the Conservatives in that constituency are seriously negative.
For example there is now more social/council housing than owner-occupied and the combined Black and Muslim populations (there is some crossover between these two groups) is higher than the White British population.
These do not apply in either Hampstead or Tooting constituencies.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/westminsternorth/comment-page-1/#comments
And I don't think the issue is the wealth difference between pensioners and those aged 50, the latter being at the tail end of the generation who benefited from access to DB pensions and an affordable but rising housing market. The issue is the difference between both the 80- and 50-year olds and those aged 20 or 30.
Yes, but only a bit.
And isn't it 31% in one poll?
Con 43
Lab 26
LD 11
Green 3
Nats 7
UKIP 5
Who gets the other 5%
Seriously, your second paragraph sounds very much like 'no deal' to me, and leaving without an agreement would throw us back on to WTO terms or similar, no?
You're not doing a great job of selling this to me, Charles.
Interestingly, even the USA, which doesn't have much of a welfare state, provides a state pension which seems enough to live on if you earn a low-ish income of say $1500/month
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)
She also had to meet the members too though, and go around during local elections etc etc. All the things Cameron avoided doing.
She is, which again is odd. She is an average public speaker at best, but they have her hammering away at those and avoiding speaking to people. Like they've just dusted off the GE plan for 2015 that Cameron used and have her using it, which won't work.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I should be off. Just over an hour until the race.
Bye, bye.
Nats 7% is way too high unless you're expecting Plaid to be on about 40% in Wales.
UNS based on my central estimate of vote share puts Labour just under 185, and I've nudged them down a little for reasons previously described.
Con + Lab + LD + Green + UKIP summed through to 91.7 last time.
Seeing as the SNP will drop back a touch and Plaid will go forward, I make it ~92.5 for the "main" full UK parties.
So check that you sum through to 92 or 93 for Con + Lab + LD + Green + UKIP