On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
I think what has deteriorated is peoples tolerance of it. I fear the Tories are somewhat behind the curve on this. Being able to pollute other peoples air because you can afford to pay the Congestion Charge is really not the answer and the proposals that they were forced to publish looked pathetic.
It feels worse today than when I was growing up with leaded petrol cars. The car manufacturers have a lot to answer for and the government needs to give VW a massive fine for cheating like the Americans did.
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
I think what has deteriorated is peoples tolerance of it. I fear the Tories are somewhat behind the curve on this. Being able to pollute other peoples air because you can afford to pay the Congestion Charge is really not the answer and the proposals that they were forced to publish looked pathetic.
The biggest mistake was Ken's Western extension of the congestion charge zone - all it did was give the wealthy residents of Kensington and Chelsea a 90% discount for their Range Rovers and Mercedes.
Amazing how an STV system still doesn't work very well for the Tories in Scotland. They got more votes than the SNP in Edinburgh and Moray and got fewer councillors.
The Ayrshire result stands out for a possible Westminster seat gain.
In STV that can often be a consequence of getting proportionately fewer transfers than other parties. Probably the reluctance to support the Tories amongst a significant slice of Scottish voters is still there, underneath the more newly emerging voting patterns.
STV follows the logic of the French Presidential election and someones comment yesterday.
Round 1 you vote for your favourite candidate, round 2 you vote for the one you hate least.... If a party wins round 1 and loses in round 2 then you can safely say they have a large core vote but revolt virtually everyone else...
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
It was terrible recently. I hope the mayor introduces a diesel free zone sooner rather than later. The government also need to fine shit out of the dodgy car manufacturers and make them pay for any scrappage scheme.
I think within 20 years people will be incredulous that diesel emitting lorries and buses were ever allowed to operate on our streets.
On the odd occasion I visit the Guardian website, the writers seem to be dead against 'populism' which came as a surprise to me. I assumed populism was derived from popular and meant the will of the majority. The opposite would be elitism which seems to be what the Guardian is in favour of. Have I missed something?
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
Hard to say, but I can hardly tolerate Central London in hot weather.
On the odd occasion I visit the Guardian website, the writers seem to be dead against 'populism' which came as a surprise to me. I assumed populism was derived from popular and meant the will of the majority. The opposite would be elitism which seems to be what the Guardian is in favour of. Have I missed something?
Nope. The Guardian is the house newspaper of the elite, written by them and for them.
Not directly linked to the choice of PM, but significant:
The former PM Manuel Valls just announced he will not run as a socialist for the parliamentary election but as a candidate for "La Republique en marche" (new name of En marche since yesterday).
This is significant as Valls was PM for most of the last 3 years, was a minister before that and has been the most well-known representative of the right-wing of the socialist party during the last few years.
His departure, that will no doubt be followed by many others, is a very bad sign for the Socialist Party's survival as a dominant force.
Between 1981 and 2017 the socialists have clearly dominated the left and held power for 20 years in total. As recently as 2014 the socialists controlled the presidency, the senate, the national assembly, almost all regions, the vast majority of big cities and a majority of departements. Sic transit gloria mundi...
That former success was based on the union in a single party of traditional socialists and pure social-democrats (Mitterand/Rocard, Jospin/Fabius, Montebourg/Valls...). The socialists now seem to have chosen the Corbyn path... After all Hamon said during the campaign that he saw Corbyn as "a model of success".
Now the trouble for Macron is that he does not want his party to become only the new centre-left party. To get a majority he needs centre-right voters. In my opinion, this reinforces the need for Macron to name a PM from the right.
Amazing collapse. Has hollande really been that bad?
On the odd occasion I visit the Guardian website, the writers seem to be dead against 'populism' which came as a surprise to me. I assumed populism was derived from popular and meant the will of the majority. The opposite would be elitism which seems to be what the Guardian is in favour of. Have I missed something?
Well, depends. There is an academic, political science use of the term 'populism' which doesn't simply translate into 'will of the majority'.
A centre right PM like Philippe and Idrac would show Macron means business with his economic reforms. As Muppets former spokesman Philippe could also be used by Macron to head off the Juppe threat given Juppe is his likely opponent in 2022
Erm, no. Macron is president because Fillon fell foul of Russian hackers and French prosecutors in equal measure. Macron was just the last anti-MLP candidate left standing.
@Chris_from_Paris is going to take some beating for tipster of the year, so many thanks for this thread.
He'd be certain to win a straight vote, Alastair, but unfortunately the competition has been sullied in the past by some pathetic creature who traipsed round the wi-fi spots in Harlesden voting for himself.
On the odd occasion I visit the Guardian website, the writers seem to be dead against 'populism' which came as a surprise to me. I assumed populism was derived from popular and meant the will of the majority. The opposite would be elitism which seems to be what the Guardian is in favour of. Have I missed something?
Depends who you read Owen Jones is still a left-wing populist
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
Hard to say, but I can hardly tolerate Central London in hot weather.
The eye candy in central London in hot weather makes it much more bearable.
Populists, for example, tend to the view that they, and they alone are the voice of the people and that every other party or leader is a member of the despised elite. i.e. they are anti-pluralist.
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
Have a look at some of the results in Surrey. The Lib Dems gained two seats from the Tories - Caterham Valley and Godalming North - both places likely to have a lot of London commuters. The increase in the Lib Dem share of the vote was also higher in Woking and Guildford compared with the rest of the county. Whether the performance of the Lib Dems in these places was good enough to indicate that they'll do particularly well in SW London is hard to say.
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
Hard to say, but I can hardly tolerate Central London in hot weather.
It isn't hard to say, it's not been better since the industrial revolution. The recent moral panic about shocking air pollution is not due to a deterioration but a failure to meet a new much tougher standard.
Centrists in this country need to show their courage. There is nothing to lose any more. Labour is drowning — it’s time for the moderates to take the plunge and break away.
Nice article, although the odds are down to 3 each now.
Capping prices is a stupid policy. Not as stupid as freezing them but still bloody daft.
Add competition, and let that drive down prices instead of handing down edicts from on high.
I would personally be looking for a means to link standard rate prices to the introductory offers the companies offer new customers...
The problem here is stopping companies from abusing those people who don't change ever 12 months. And the best way to do that would be to force companies to transfer customers to the lowest tariff on demand...
It's quite amazing that, as the general election campaign gets underway, the main opposition party are still arguing with each other, rather than with their political opponents. How much more of this before the landslide becomes an overwhelming 200 seat majority for the Tories?
Labours polling is holding up just where it was or even a bit higher.
A centre right PM like Philippe and Idrac would show Macron means business with his economic reforms. As Muppets former spokesman Philippe could also be used by Macron to head off the Juppe threat given Juppe is his likely opponent in 2022
He will be 76 by then. Even in the current gerontocracy that is surely too old to be elected.
A centre right PM like Philippe and Idrac would show Macron means business with his economic reforms. As Muppets former spokesman Philippe could also be used by Macron to head off the Juppe threat given Juppe is his likely opponent in 2022
At 76... and 81 by the end of his first term or 86 by the end of his second? Not impossible, but "likely" is pushing it...
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
I think what has deteriorated is peoples tolerance of it. I fear the Tories are somewhat behind the curve on this. Being able to pollute other peoples air because you can afford to pay the Congestion Charge is really not the answer and the proposals that they were forced to publish looked pathetic.
It feels worse today than when I was growing up with leaded petrol cars. The car manufacturers have a lot to answer for and the government needs to give VW a massive fine for cheating like the Americans did.
It isnt worse. While it is true in the pursuit of lower carbon emissions the push for diesel has resulted in a flattening and very mild uptick in the trend of continual improvements in air quality. That mild tick just takes it back to about 2012.
I am shocked and amazed that no one has revealed the Scotch subsample from this new Survation poll. The person who reposted the Mcsubsample from a Yougov at least three times last week is failing miserably in their duties.
Not directly linked to the choice of PM, but significant:
The former PM Manuel Valls just announced he will not run as a socialist for the parliamentary election but as a candidate for "La Republique en marche" (new name of En marche since yesterday).
This is significant as Valls was PM for most of the last 3 years, was a minister before that and has been the most well-known representative of the right-wing of the socialist party during the last few years.
His departure, that will no doubt be followed by many others, is a very bad sign for the Socialist Party's survival as a dominant force.
Between 1981 and 2017 the socialists have clearly dominated the left and held power for 20 years in total. As recently as 2014 the socialists controlled the presidency, the senate, the national assembly, almost all regions, the vast majority of big cities and a majority of departements. Sic transit gloria mundi...
That former success was based on the union in a single party of traditional socialists and pure social-democrats (Mitterand/Rocard, Jospin/Fabius, Montebourg/Valls...). The socialists now seem to have chosen the Corbyn path... After all Hamon said during the campaign that he saw Corbyn as "a model of success".
Now the trouble for Macron is that he does not want his party to become only the new centre-left party. To get a majority he needs centre-right voters. In my opinion, this reinforces the need for Macron to name a PM from the right.
Amazing collapse. Has hollande really been that bad?
Or that good? His delight at the election of his man was palpable yesterday.
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
I think what has deteriorated is peoples tolerance of it. I fear the Tories are somewhat behind the curve on this. Being able to pollute other peoples air because you can afford to pay the Congestion Charge is really not the answer and the proposals that they were forced to publish looked pathetic.
It feels worse today than when I was growing up with leaded petrol cars. The car manufacturers have a lot to answer for and the government needs to give VW a massive fine for cheating like the Americans did.
It isnt worse. While it is true in the pursuit of lower carbon emissions the push for diesel has resulted in a flattening and very mild uptick in the trend of continual improvements in air quality. That mild tick just takes it back to about 2012.
Centrists in this country need to show their courage. There is nothing to lose any more. Labour is drowning — it’s time for the moderates to take the plunge and break away.
@Chris_from_Paris is going to take some beating for tipster of the year, so many thanks for this thread.
He'd be certain to win a straight vote, Alastair, but unfortunately the competition has been sullied in the past by some pathetic creature who traipsed round the wi-fi spots in Harlesden voting for himself.
You wouldn't believe how low some people can go.
Utterly disgraceful conduct. Indeed, can anyone get any lower than behaving in such a fashion? .... and in Harlesden of all places !!
Just as well that I have a faithful Deputy TOTY to weed out such shocking shenanigans in future contests for lower tier TOTY elections.
I am shocked and amazed that no one has revealed the Scotch subsample from this new Survation poll. The person who reposted the Mcsubsample from a Yougov at least three times last week is failing miserably in their duties.
It's quite amazing that, as the general election campaign gets underway, the main opposition party are still arguing with each other, rather than with their political opponents. How much more of this before the landslide becomes an overwhelming 200 seat majority for the Tories?
Labours polling is holding up just where it was or even a bit higher.
Which given theyve been losing in some heartland areas would seem to make no sense, but is an indication they are still too strong to collapse so far as the very worst predictions.
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
Have a look at some of the results in Surrey. The Lib Dems gained two seats from the Tories - Caterham Valley and Godalming North - both places likely to have a lot of London commuters. The increase in the Lib Dem share of the vote was also higher in Woking and Guildford compared with the rest of the county. Whether the performance of the Lib Dems in these places was good enough to indicate that they'll do particularly well in SW London is hard to say.
This is a good point. Of course, there may be local factors about services or whatever in Surrey. But the comparison between the electorates of Surrey commuter towns and of SW London is perfectly fair.
I did suggest a few weeks back that Theresa May was heading down a Butskellite path, dressing to the left on the economy and differentiating herself by taking a right wing approach on social matters such as immigration.
Erm, no. Macron is president because Fillon fell foul of Russian hackers and French prosecutors in equal measure. Macron was just the last anti-MLP candidate left standing.
Wasn't he in the lead before that happened?
Fillon was in the lead. Before he imploded, Fillon vs Le Pen would have been the final pairing, even though polling showed (correctly as it turned out) that Macron would have beaten Le Pen if he could somehow have reached the final two.
Ah, enlightenment has dawned. A populist is pejorative, someone who thinks he speaks for the people - even if wins a majority at an election, or at a referendum, it's still a bad thing.
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
Hard to say, but I can hardly tolerate Central London in hot weather.
The eye candy in central London in hot weather makes it much more bearable.
So you are the culprit spying on Mrs JackW in Belgravia !!
Mr. Johnstone, I exaggerated, but not much. There have been more murmurings about Rudd's idiotic desire to build in a backdoor to encryption. Because hackers would never ever exploit that. Only the police and security serves would use it. Double super promise.
*sighs*
Mr. F, currently, but if Corbyn loses the election then wins/retains the leadership, Labour MPs might finally split and New New Labour could usurp the place of Corbyn-Labour.
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
I think what has deteriorated is peoples tolerance of it. I fear the Tories are somewhat behind the curve on this. Being able to pollute other peoples air because you can afford to pay the Congestion Charge is really not the answer and the proposals that they were forced to publish looked pathetic.
It feels worse today than when I was growing up with leaded petrol cars. The car manufacturers have a lot to answer for and the government needs to give VW a massive fine for cheating like the Americans did.
It isnt worse. While it is true in the pursuit of lower carbon emissions the push for diesel has resulted in a flattening and very mild uptick in the trend of continual improvements in air quality. That mild tick just takes it back to about 2012.
That's for the whole of the UK and only goes up to 2014.
Because it is shockingly difficult to get accurate information that has been collected over time. Which is a surprise considering how much has been collected. The truth is air quality has not been as good as it has right now for over two hundred years. The point made that it is our tolerance for it that might have changed. And rightly so. But what we are witnessing is a moral panic. The remarkable improvements we have seen over recent years should be applauded with a 'more to do' attitude, not it's all going to hell in a hand cart with ridiculous nonsense figures claimed about tens of thousands of deaths due to air pollution.
I support the massive clean ups we have witnessed of our rivers, air and seas. It's probably the most successful public policy since the Second World War, and it was forced upon us by the EU.
The SNP’s best hope of another near clean sweep is a divided opposition, not one increasingly unified around the staunchest opponents of independence. It might therefore be a preferable strategy for the party to focus on those left-right issues that divide Labour and Liberal Democrat from Conservative supporters.
Otherwise, with some of her party’s smallest majorities in seats where the Conservatives already look the likeliest challenger, Sturgeon could well be in for a more mixed night than in 2015. In determining the size of the Scottish Tory contingent sent to Westminster after June 8, tactics rather than toxins might win the day.
It's quite amazing that, as the general election campaign gets underway, the main opposition party are still arguing with each other, rather than with their political opponents. How much more of this before the landslide becomes an overwhelming 200 seat majority for the Tories?
Labours polling is holding up just where it was or even a bit higher.
That won't help them much if the Conservatives win c.50%.
It's quite amazing that, as the general election campaign gets underway, the main opposition party are still arguing with each other, rather than with their political opponents. How much more of this before the landslide becomes an overwhelming 200 seat majority for the Tories?
Labours polling is holding up just where it was or even a bit higher.
They're piling up votes in Islington and Liverpool, and getting a fair few in Surrey and Berkshire - and losing badly in the West Midlands and North East, where it matters for them in a Parliamentary election.
Jezza could well get 30% of the vote, yet suffer a 10% swing against him in his top 100 marginals.
Mr. Johnstone, I exaggerated, but not much. There have been more murmurings about Rudd's idiotic desire to build in a backdoor to encryption. Because hackers would never ever exploit that. Only the police and security serves would use it. Double super promise.
*sighs*
Mr. F, currently, but if Corbyn loses the election then wins/retains the leadership, Labour MPs might finally split and New New Labour could usurp the place of Corbyn-Labour.
Rudd seems to be under the illusion (one of many) that the UK has a globally-dominating IT industry and therefore is in a position to implement any changes on devices and websites.
Mr. Johnstone, I exaggerated, but not much. There have been more murmurings about Rudd's idiotic desire to build in a backdoor to encryption. Because hackers would never ever exploit that. Only the police and security serves would use it. Double super promise.
I did suggest a few weeks back that Theresa May was heading down a Butskellite path, dressing to the left on the economy and differentiating herself by taking a right wing approach on social matters such as immigration.
The wrong side on both then! I suspect my current admiration of Mrs May might wane once Brexit is done. But until Brexit is done and we are actually (not just in name only) out then I think her position is unassailable. Once we are out she's open for being brought down a notch or three.
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
I think what has deteriorated is peoples tolerance of it. I fear the Tories are somewhat behind the curve on this. Being able to pollute other peoples air because you can afford to pay the Congestion Charge is really not the answer and the proposals that they were forced to publish looked pathetic.
It feels worse today than when I was growing up with leaded petrol cars. The car manufacturers have a lot to answer for and the government needs to give VW a massive fine for cheating like the Americans did.
It isnt worse. While it is true in the pursuit of lower carbon emissions the push for diesel has resulted in a flattening and very mild uptick in the trend of continual improvements in air quality. That mild tick just takes it back to about 2012.
That's for the whole of the UK and only goes up to 2014.
Because it is shockingly difficult to get accurate information that has been collected over time. Which is a surprise considering how much has been collected. The truth is air quality has not been as good as it has right now for over two hundred years. The point made that it is our tolerance for it that might have changed. And rightly so. But what we are witnessing is a moral panic. The remarkable improvements we have seen over recent years should be applauded with a 'more to do' attitude, not it's all going to hell in a hand cart with ridiculous nonsense figures claimed about tens of thousands of deaths due to air pollution.
I support the massive clean ups we have witnessed of our rivers, air and seas. It's probably the most successful public policy since the Second World War, and it was forced upon us by the EU.
I am shocked and amazed that no one has revealed the Scotch subsample from this new Survation poll. The person who reposted the Mcsubsample from a Yougov at least three times last week is failing miserably in their duties.
Survation, aren't they the ones that didn't publish a poll at GE 2015 because it was out of line with the other polls, even tho it proved to be pretty much correct. Are there any other polls they haven't published>?
Amazing how an STV system still doesn't work very well for the Tories in Scotland. They got more votes than the SNP in Edinburgh and Moray and got fewer councillors.
The Ayrshire result stands out for a possible Westminster seat gain.
It's almost like there is anti Tory tactical voting. Of course with STV the Cons didn't get more votes.
I've been trying to make Ayrshire fit for a Con seat gain since constituency odds went u as the Con odds are good but I can't do it in any satisfying way.
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
I think what has deteriorated is peoples tolerance of it. I fear the Tories are somewhat behind the curve on this. Being able to pollute other peoples air be to publish looked pathetic.
It feels worse today than when I was growing up with leaded petrol cars. The car manufacturers have a lot to answer for and the government needs to give VW a massive fine for cheating like the Americans did.
It isnt worse. While it is true in the pursuit of lower carbon emissions the push for diesel has resulted in a flattening and very mild uptick in the trend of continual improvements in air quality. That mild tick just takes it back to about 2012.
That's for the whole of the UK and only goes up to 2014.
Because it is shockingly difficult to get accurate information that has been collected over time. Which is a surprise considering how much has been collected. The truth is air quality has not been as good as it has right now for over two hundred years. The point made that it is our tolerance for it that might have changed. And rightly so. But what we are witnessing is a moral panic. The remarkable improvements we have seen over recent years should be applauded with a 'more to do' attitude, not it's all going to hell in a hand cart with ridiculous nonsense figures claimed about tens of thousands of deaths due to air pollution.
I support the massive clean ups we have witnessed of our rivers, air and seas. It's probably the most successful public policy since the Second World War, and it was forced upon us by the EU.
The Clean Air Act was passed in 1956...
It sure was, the environmental regulations in the early ninties certainly made the push to get it clean rather than just not toxic.
Sir Norfolk, still waiting to see whether the insanity of destroying encryption will be in the Conservative manifesto.
Not sure how you can destroy encryption, are they going to outlaw maths?
Politicians don't understand computer technology, they only understand those who lobby them to make changes, whether spooks who want access to information or ISPs who want a bigger monopoly.
I am shocked and amazed that no one has revealed the Scotch subsample from this new Survation poll. The person who reposted the Mcsubsample from a Yougov at least three times last week is failing miserably in their duties.
It's quite amazing that, as the general election campaign gets underway, the main opposition party are still arguing with each other, rather than with their political opponents. How much more of this before the landslide becomes an overwhelming 200 seat majority for the Tories?
Labours polling is holding up just where it was or even a bit higher.
Which given theyve been losing in some heartland areas would seem to make no sense, but is an indication they are still too strong to collapse so far as the very worst predictions.
reading anything from subsamples is like reading tea leaves
Mr. Johnstone, I exaggerated, but not much. There have been more murmurings about Rudd's idiotic desire to build in a backdoor to encryption. Because hackers would never ever exploit that. Only the police and security serves would use it. Double super promise.
*sighs*
Mr. F, currently, but if Corbyn loses the election then wins/retains the leadership, Labour MPs might finally split and New New Labour could usurp the place of Corbyn-Labour.
Didn't they get to read the Westminster Bridge guy's final whatsapp message anyway? It was in the paper a couple of weeks after all those articles explaining why it couldn't be done.
Mr. Johnstone, I exaggerated, but not much. There have been more murmurings about Rudd's idiotic desire to build in a backdoor to encryption. Because hackers would never ever exploit that. Only the police and security serves would use it. Double super promise.
*sighs*
Mr. F, currently, but if Corbyn loses the election then wins/retains the leadership, Labour MPs might finally split and New New Labour could usurp the place of Corbyn-Labour.
Didn't they get to read the Westminster Bridge guy's final whatsapp message anyway? It was in the paper a couple of weeks after all those articles explaining why it couldn't be done.
They got the message by finding the phone of the person it was sent to - who wasn't a terrorist and co-operated with the police.
@Chris_from_Paris is going to take some beating for tipster of the year, so many thanks for this thread.
He'd be certain to win a straight vote, Alastair, but unfortunately the competition has been sullied in the past by some pathetic creature who traipsed round the wi-fi spots in Harlesden voting for himself.
You wouldn't believe how low some people can go.
Utterly disgraceful conduct. Indeed, can anyone get any lower than behaving in such a fashion? .... and in Harlesden of all places !!
Just as well that I have a faithful Deputy TOTY to weed out such shocking shenanigans in future contests for lower tier TOTY elections.
Mr. Johnstone, I exaggerated, but not much. There have been more murmurings about Rudd's idiotic desire to build in a backdoor to encryption. Because hackers would never ever exploit that. Only the police and security serves would use it. Double super promise.
*sighs*
Mr. F, currently, but if Corbyn loses the election then wins/retains the leadership, Labour MPs might finally split and New New Labour could usurp the place of Corbyn-Labour.
Rudd seems to be under the illusion (one of many) that the UK has a globally-dominating IT industry and therefore is in a position to implement any changes on devices and websites.
The recent regulations on age verification for 'adult' websites would be hilarious, if the result wasn't that all the British adult websites just relocated elsewhere and don't pay UK taxes any more.
The government, no matter which party is in charge, have never understood computer technology.
Where I currently live, the ISPs have a government-mandated internet filter which is supposed to block immoral sites - guess what, there's still plenty of porn and gambling around. Now everything is https it's becoming even more difficult to block stuff.
Not a huge surprise given education is a key indicator of identity.
Macron, Brexit and Trump are all about identity politics - albeit differrrnt identies in each case.
Education is a stronger indicator of intelligence.
Not really. In this country it's an indicator of age.
As far as political correlation is concerned, it would be easy for pollsters to split their data into age cohorts before running the correlation with voting behaviour.
I suspect both of you are right - as a single variable education is a strong proxy for age - but nevertheless more educated young people and more educated older people voted Macron/Clinton/Remain than did less educated people, both young and old.
Have a look at some of the results in Surrey. The Lib Dems gained two seats from the Tories - Caterham Valley and Godalming North - both places likely to have a lot of London commuters. The increase in the Lib Dem share of the vote was also higher in Woking and Guildford compared with the rest of the county. Whether the performance of the Lib Dems in these places was good enough to indicate that they'll do particularly well in SW London is hard to say.
I made the point about this on Saturday afternoon but it got lost in the triumphalism.
There are two political societies in existence now and to understand how that is working I illustrated two Surrey County Council results from last Thursday:
First, Sunbury Common in Spelthorne, an area which voted for LEAVE last year. The sitting LD County Councillor was seeking his fifth term and had survived fairly comfortably in 2013:
The numbers then were:
LD 40% UKIP 25%, CON 21%, LAB 14%
Last Thursday's figures:
CON 44%, LD 33%, LAB 13%, UKIP 8%, GRN 3%
The real extent of the Conservative victory in LEAVE areas was not only the party's ability to hoover up almost all the UKIP vote but to get more LEAVE voters and especially those who had formally voted for other parties over to the Conservative side. Those who had supported the local LD in 2013 and had gone on to vote LEAVE in 2016 could no longer support a pro-REMAIN candidate irrespective of local record.
By contrast, here's Godalming North in Waverley, an area which voted REMAIN. This division was held by the Conservatives whose County Councillor was also bidding for a fifth term. The 2013 figures were:
CON 44%, LD 21%, UKIP 19%, LAB 16%
Last Thursday's numbers:
LD 46%, CON 40%, UKIP 6%,
Now you might say "no Labour candidate, all the Labour vote went to the LDs" and that might or might not be true (progressive alliance fans, take note) but the CON-UKIP vote in 2013 was 63% to the Lab-LD 37% so it shouldn't have made any difference and yet the seat was lost.
The Conservative vote share fell and the UKIP vote disappeared. Well, perhaps not. I suspect what we saw were three related but separate things:
1) The bulk of the Labour vote went to the LDs. 2) The bulk of the UKIP vote went to the Conservatives. 3) The Conservative vote fell because a number of pro-REMAIN supporters, who were formerly Conservative, deserted to the pro-REMAIN LDs.
Mr. Sandpit, quite, it's monumentally stupid. Wasn't there a proposal to have everyone who wanted to use an adult website have to establish such an identity online, creating a handy database of men (and women) for any hacker with a penchant for blackmail?
And that disregards the free stuff...
These aren't complicated issues, it's common sense. I'm not tech savvy, but even I can see most of the pitfalls.
I am shocked and amazed that no one has revealed the Scotch subsample from this new Survation poll. The person who reposted the Mcsubsample from a Yougov at least three times last week is failing miserably in their duties.
In REMAIN areas, which were generally wealthier and therefore already strong Conservative areas, I suspect we'll see a less favourable outcome for the Conservatives. IF they are to suffer losses to the LDs it will be in those areas rather in stronger pro-LEAVE areas such as Cornwall. However, the existing core Conservative vote will stand up as it did even in the dark days of 1997 and 2001.
In LEAVE areas, it will be a tremendous election for the Conservatives who will hoover up both the UKIP vote and those LEAVE voters who had previously supported other parties. I expect some very strong pro-Conservative swings in the strongest of LEAVE areas though some of them were already quite staunch Conservative (eastern England as an example).
On London. It's really fascinating, and we just don't know how it will go because of the absence of any reliable polling, and the fact that no-one in the capital got to vote last Thursday. London, of course, bucked the trend in 2015, and Labour did comparatively well. I suspect it will again buck the trend.
Fwiw. I think the key motivators for Londoners are:
1) Housing costs and availability 2) Remainer fury 3) Pollution
Ostensibly, none of those issues plays well for the Tories, but I am far from sure. It really depends on how the parties pitch their message to Londoners. One thing to note is that Labour have much further to fall in London than the rest of the country, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if the swing against Labour actually ends up being higher than elsewhere.
So pollution has deteriorated in the capital? Are you sure?
Hard to say, but I can hardly tolerate Central London in hot weather.
It isn't hard to say, it's not been better since the industrial revolution. The recent moral panic about shocking air pollution is not due to a deterioration but a failure to meet a new much tougher standard.
Yes, I'm sure the official figures show as much and anecdotally I can tell you that when I was a kid it was well known that if you fell in the Thames you were whisked straight to hospital and dosed up with antibiotics because the river was so heavily polluted. Similarly the famous London fogs were in fact accumulations of pollutants in the air. I remember occasionally groping my way to school through them with a wholly ineffectual scarf over my mouth and nose.
Nowadays you can swim safely in the Thames, and fogs of any description are a rarity.
This is all very commendable. Not sure it figures high on the priority list when it comes to voting, but Londoners are certainly grateful that things have improved immeasurably in my lifetime. Not sure who properly takes the credit either - probably numerous agencies, including of course the EU.
He can vow as much as he likes, Labour members overwhelmingly will want him to go.
If Labour lose the next General Election Jeremy should continue as Labour leader if this happens 20% Jeremy should NOT continue as Labour leader if this happens 68%
Not a huge surprise given education is a key indicator of identity.
Macron, Brexit and Trump are all about identity politics - albeit differrrnt identies in each case.
Education is a stronger indicator of intelligence.
Not really. In this country it's an indicator of age.
As far as political correlation is concerned, it would be easy for pollsters to split their data into age cohorts before running the correlation with voting behaviour.
I suspect both of you are right - as a single variable education is a strong proxy for age - but nevertheless more educated young people and more educated older people voted Macron/Clinton/Remain than did less educated people, both young and old.
I think that's correct. Better educated people are more likely to see such politicians as benefitting them; less well educated people see them as working against them.
Mr. Johnstone, I exaggerated, but not much. There have been more murmurings about Rudd's idiotic desire to build in a backdoor to encryption. Because hackers would never ever exploit that. Only the police and security serves would use it. Double super promise.
*sighs*
Mr. F, currently, but if Corbyn loses the election then wins/retains the leadership, Labour MPs might finally split and New New Labour could usurp the place of Corbyn-Labour.
Forcing this on WhatsApp etc would just drive people to open source messaging anyway. Signal is entirely robust at present.
Mr. Sandpit, quite, it's monumentally stupid. Wasn't there a proposal to have everyone who wanted to use an adult website have to establish such an identity online, creating a handy database of men (and women) for any hacker with a penchant for blackmail?
And that disregards the free stuff...
These aren't complicated issues, it's common sense. I'm not tech savvy, but even I can see most of the pitfalls.
It shows a serious lack of an ability to think through consequences and plan..... Sadly the other option is far worse....
My modelling posted yesterday suggests that the left's alternative plan for getting their MPs to 15% of the parliamentary party is already in progress.
I am shocked and amazed that no one has revealed the Scotch subsample from this new Survation poll. The person who reposted the Mcsubsample from a Yougov at least three times last week is failing miserably in their duties.
Well don't keep me is suspense, what is it?
SNP on 53%
Labour on 51 in London, Tories on 54 in Northern England.
Mr. Johnstone, I exaggerated, but not much. There have been more murmurings about Rudd's idiotic desire to build in a backdoor to encryption. Because hackers would never ever exploit that. Only the police and security serves would use it. Double super promise.
*sighs*
Mr. F, currently, but if Corbyn loses the election then wins/retains the leadership, Labour MPs might finally split and New New Labour could usurp the place of Corbyn-Labour.
Forcing this on WhatsApp etc would just drive people to open source messaging anyway. Signal is entirely robust at present.
It's the ultimate King Canute scenario.
Yep, Signal is pretty robust now, and uncrackable. A message sent or received using Signal on a recent iPhone is guaranteed unreadable by anyone else, unless they physically get either phone and have the owner unlock it.
Amazing how an STV system still doesn't work very well for the Tories in Scotland. They got more votes than the SNP in Edinburgh and Moray and got fewer councillors.
The Ayrshire result stands out for a possible Westminster seat gain.
It's almost like there is anti Tory tactical voting. Of course with STV the Cons didn't get more votes.
I've been trying to make Ayrshire fit for a Con seat gain since constituency odds went u as the Con odds are good but I can't do it in any satisfying way.
There really isn't a way to do it, the move of Prestwick and Troon into central Ayrshire kills the concept
@Chris_from_Paris is going to take some beating for tipster of the year, so many thanks for this thread.
He'd be certain to win a straight vote, Alastair, but unfortunately the competition has been sullied in the past by some pathetic creature who traipsed round the wi-fi spots in Harlesden voting for himself.
You wouldn't believe how low some people can go.
Utterly disgraceful conduct. Indeed, can anyone get any lower than behaving in such a fashion? .... and in Harlesden of all places !!
Just as well that I have a faithful Deputy TOTY to weed out such shocking shenanigans in future contests for lower tier TOTY elections.
Don't push it, Jack.
I know where you live.
Auchentennach Castle will always offer you and your feather boas a warm welcome ....
There seems already to be a flurry of articles appearing on Labour websites that begin with the obligatory paragraph about how things are going better than the polls suggest before firing the opening salvoes of the internal battle to come.
@Chris_from_Paris is going to take some beating for tipster of the year, so many thanks for this thread.
He'd be certain to win a straight vote, Alastair, but unfortunately the competition has been sullied in the past by some pathetic creature who traipsed round the wi-fi spots in Harlesden voting for himself.
You wouldn't believe how low some people can go.
Utterly disgraceful conduct. Indeed, can anyone get any lower than behaving in such a fashion? .... and in Harlesden of all places !!
Just as well that I have a faithful Deputy TOTY to weed out such shocking shenanigans in future contests for lower tier TOTY elections.
Don't push it, Jack.
I know where you live.
Auchentennach Castle will always offer you and your feather boas a warm welcome ....
Yes, I'm sure the official figures show as much and anecdotally I can tell you that when I was a kid it was well known that if you fell in the Thames you were whisked straight to hospital and dosed up with antibiotics because the river was so heavily polluted. Similarly the famous London fogs were in fact accumulations of pollutants in the air. I remember occasionally groping my way to school through them with a wholly ineffectual scarf over my mouth and nose.
Nowadays you can swim safely in the Thames, and fogs of any description are a rarity.
This is all very commendable. Not sure it figures high on the priority list when it comes to voting, but Londoners are certainly grateful that things have improved immeasurably in my lifetime. Not sure who properly takes the credit either - probably numerous agencies, including of course the EU.
The pollution issues now are different. We may not have coal-fired fogs and smogs but there is often a pollution haze (which I think is nitrogen oxide or dioxide) over the capital. Although much work has been done to improve things, the sheer volume of vehicles mean exhaust emissions and their particulates are a continuing issue.
Those of us with allergies often have huge problems in hot, still weather as the pollen interacts with the pollution to make the air very difficult.
Frankly, I dread a prolonged heat wave in London - I'm sure the authorities have planned for a repeat of a 1976-style spell but we could easily see 10-14 days of temperatures above 35c in the capital and that would cause loss of life especially among the very old and the vulnerable.
Comments
Round 1 you vote for your favourite candidate, round 2 you vote for the one you hate least.... If a party wins round 1 and loses in round 2 then you can safely say they have a large core vote but revolt virtually everyone else...
Nice article, although the odds are down to 3 each now.
Capping prices is a stupid policy. Not as stupid as freezing them but still bloody daft.
Add competition, and let that drive down prices instead of handing down edicts from on high.
You wouldn't believe how low some people can go.
The problem here is stopping companies from abusing those people who don't change ever 12 months. And the best way to do that would be to force companies to transfer customers to the lowest tariff on demand...
You mean that they think words mean what they want them to mean. Or they're buggering about with the English language to exclude the rabble?
http://i67.tinypic.com/35hk6rc.jpg
Just as well that I have a faithful Deputy TOTY to weed out such shocking shenanigans in future contests for lower tier TOTY elections.
Macron, Brexit and Trump are all about identity politics - albeit differrrnt identies in each case.
Ah, enlightenment has dawned. A populist is pejorative, someone who thinks he speaks for the people - even if wins a majority at an election, or at a referendum, it's still a bad thing.
Cheers.
*sighs*
Mr. F, currently, but if Corbyn loses the election then wins/retains the leadership, Labour MPs might finally split and New New Labour could usurp the place of Corbyn-Labour.
I support the massive clean ups we have witnessed of our rivers, air and seas. It's probably the most successful public policy since the Second World War, and it was forced upon us by the EU.
Otherwise, with some of her party’s smallest majorities in seats where the Conservatives already look the likeliest challenger, Sturgeon could well be in for a more mixed night than in 2015. In determining the size of the Scottish Tory contingent sent to Westminster after June 8, tactics rather than toxins might win the day.
https://theconversation.com/nicola-sturgeon-is-overestimating-the-toxicity-of-tories-in-scotland-and-could-pay-for-it-77334
Jezza could well get 30% of the vote, yet suffer a 10% swing against him in his top 100 marginals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
I've been trying to make Ayrshire fit for a Con seat gain since constituency odds went u as the Con odds are good but I can't do it in any satisfying way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/08/jeremy-corbyn-vows-stay-labour-leader-no-matter-election-result/
John Oliver managed to crash the FCC website (US internet regulator) after he directed his audience yesterday to a public consultation on net neutrality.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/05/08/2018231/fcc-says-it-was-victim-of-cyberattack-after-john-oliver-show
I'll vote Corbyn. At least he knows his limitations.
My father was from a generation which never had the opportunity to do a degree
If he was my son's age today, he'd be at University.
I know where you live.
Do we have a comparable graphs linked to income and wealth ?
"I'm alright, Jacques" graphs.
Mr. Jessop, released in 1993, defunct by 1996 pretty much sums that up.
Mr. Patrick, people overestimate how close IQ comes to measuring intelligence.
The government, no matter which party is in charge, have never understood computer technology.
Where I currently live, the ISPs have a government-mandated internet filter which is supposed to block immoral sites - guess what, there's still plenty of porn and gambling around. Now everything is https it's becoming even more difficult to block stuff.
I suspect both of you are right - as a single variable education is a strong proxy for age - but nevertheless more educated young people and more educated older people voted Macron/Clinton/Remain than did less educated people, both young and old.
There are two political societies in existence now and to understand how that is working I illustrated two Surrey County Council results from last Thursday:
First, Sunbury Common in Spelthorne, an area which voted for LEAVE last year. The sitting LD County Councillor was seeking his fifth term and had survived fairly comfortably in 2013:
The numbers then were:
LD 40% UKIP 25%, CON 21%, LAB 14%
Last Thursday's figures:
CON 44%, LD 33%, LAB 13%, UKIP 8%, GRN 3%
The real extent of the Conservative victory in LEAVE areas was not only the party's ability to hoover up almost all the UKIP vote but to get more LEAVE voters and especially those who had formally voted for other parties over to the Conservative side. Those who had supported the local LD in 2013 and had gone on to vote LEAVE in 2016 could no longer support a pro-REMAIN candidate irrespective of local record.
By contrast, here's Godalming North in Waverley, an area which voted REMAIN. This division was held by the Conservatives whose County Councillor was also bidding for a fifth term. The 2013 figures were:
CON 44%, LD 21%, UKIP 19%, LAB 16%
Last Thursday's numbers:
LD 46%, CON 40%, UKIP 6%,
Now you might say "no Labour candidate, all the Labour vote went to the LDs" and that might or might not be true (progressive alliance fans, take note) but the CON-UKIP vote in 2013 was 63% to the Lab-LD 37% so it shouldn't have made any difference and yet the seat was lost.
The Conservative vote share fell and the UKIP vote disappeared. Well, perhaps not. I suspect what we saw were three related but separate things:
1) The bulk of the Labour vote went to the LDs.
2) The bulk of the UKIP vote went to the Conservatives.
3) The Conservative vote fell because a number of pro-REMAIN supporters, who were formerly Conservative, deserted to the pro-REMAIN LDs.
What does this mean for the GE ?
And that disregards the free stuff...
These aren't complicated issues, it's common sense. I'm not tech savvy, but even I can see most of the pitfalls.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-tories-could-win-up-to-15-westminster-seats-1-4440473
What the below means for the GE is this:
In REMAIN areas, which were generally wealthier and therefore already strong Conservative areas, I suspect we'll see a less favourable outcome for the Conservatives. IF they are to suffer losses to the LDs it will be in those areas rather in stronger pro-LEAVE areas such as Cornwall. However, the existing core Conservative vote will stand up as it did even in the dark days of 1997 and 2001.
In LEAVE areas, it will be a tremendous election for the Conservatives who will hoover up both the UKIP vote and those LEAVE voters who had previously supported other parties. I expect some very strong pro-Conservative swings in the strongest of LEAVE areas though some of them were already quite staunch Conservative (eastern England as an example).
Nowadays you can swim safely in the Thames, and fogs of any description are a rarity.
This is all very commendable. Not sure it figures high on the priority list when it comes to voting, but Londoners are certainly grateful that things have improved immeasurably in my lifetime. Not sure who properly takes the credit either - probably numerous agencies, including of course the EU.
If Labour lose the next General Election
Jeremy should continue as Labour leader if this
happens 20%
Jeremy should NOT continue as Labour leader if this
happens 68%
YouGov Election Data poll of Labour members, Feb/Mar 2017 See Page 31
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nezlzfrgi7/ElectionDataResults_170303_LabourMembers.pdf
It's the ultimate King Canute scenario.
Sadly the other option is far worse....
http://labourlist.org/2017/05/nick-palmer-why-corbyns-critics-need-the-mcdonnell-amendment/
My modelling posted yesterday suggests that the left's alternative plan for getting their MPs to 15% of the parliamentary party is already in progress.
Phone polls.
There's central heating below stairs now !! ....
Mr. Johnstone, so, intrusive, stupid *and* ineffective?
Just hope it's not in the manifesto. I quite like the right to privacy.
Those of us with allergies often have huge problems in hot, still weather as the pollen interacts with the pollution to make the air very difficult.
Frankly, I dread a prolonged heat wave in London - I'm sure the authorities have planned for a repeat of a 1976-style spell but we could easily see 10-14 days of temperatures above 35c in the capital and that would cause loss of life especially among the very old and the vulnerable.