The poll shows that 44 per cent believe that Britain was right to vote to leave the EU, while 45 per cent think the decision was wrong. This is the third time since the referendum that YouGov has found a majority of people thinking that Britain made a mistake in last year’s vote.
I think that such findings have consistently been linked with a smaller Tory lead, down around the 16 level rather than up to 20. Which makes sense if this is a sampling issue.
But I agree with the thread header. Basing this campaign around the threat of Corbyn becoming PM is a mistake because no one believes it is possible. Rather, as May herself has done, the emphasis should be on giving her the strongest possible hand to negotiate Brexit on the country's behalf. Marine Le Pen had a better chance of winning than Corbyn and she had no chance at all.
That's a very interesting point that I had not really considered. Polls might be different dependant on the no of leave /remainers in the poll. I am rather confused about vote shares this time round and the likely seat counts because I think results could be very non US.
What Mrs May really needs is a few polls with the Tory lead down to single digits.
Or a good old Tory campaign coitus up.
Perhaps she can be recorded off mic calling voters thick, smelly, or bigots.
She already has a number of polls putting Labour on 31%, the same as last time. Confirms Nick Palmer's reports of the Labour vote holding steady.
I have to admit to being totally surprised that Labour is hitting circa 30% all the time now. They could 32-33 by the end of the campaign.
Actually, apart from Abbott's plane crash, things have gone relatively smoothly.
The problem is that there is a wedge of 10%+ of all voters up for grabs at this election and Labour, at best, are getting 1-2% of them with the rest going Tory. Indeed their 1-2% is not quite offsetting the proportion of their voters that are switching to the Tories and to the Lib Dems. Unless something changes radically a 5% swing against Labour is looking like a best case scenario with a smaller swing in London and a larger one in the midlands and the east. That's a long way short of wipeout but its going to hurt.
To illustrate the point about policies, here's something that one of my Labour-voting friends put on Facebook today (he's obviously decided that the election campaign has begun):
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
Lucas said someone did offer £250,000, and that it went through their ethical checks, and was rejected. The Greens didn't do anything wrong here, whoever offered the money did.
Wrong in a moral sense, perhaps, but not in any legal sense.
In any event the House of Lords is stuffed with big Tory and Labour Party donors, and the companies and trade unions making big donations to the major parties regularly find them taking up policy positions that are in the business's or union's self-interest. You think all this came about by chance? Compared to which a suggestion that a minor party doesn't contest a single by-election is trivial by comparison.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances.
Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
But a LD donor may have that kind of money?
That's a possibility, but the biggest LD donor quit the party. Who else would be in a position to lay down that kind of cash?
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
Lucas said someone did offer £250,000, and that it went through their ethical checks, and was rejected. The Greens didn't do anything wrong here, whoever offered the money did.
Wrong in a moral sense, perhaps, but not in any legal sense.
In any event the House of Lords is stuffed with big Tory and Labour Party donors, and the companies and trade unions making big donations to the major parties regularly find them taking up policy positions that are in the business's or union's self-interest. You think all this came about by chance? Compared to which a suggestion that a minor party doesn't contest a single by-election is trivial by comparison.
Depends if it was related to the decision for the candidate not to stand, if it was then it was wrong legally. The fact that the Green's own ethics checks rejected the donation does raise some suspicions on the motive of the would-be donor.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I suspect that may not be happening any time soon...
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
My comment wasn't about the content of the document - although I do think it's mostly uncosted nonsense - but rather the ability of those involved to keep it secret before publication!
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I suspect that may not be happening any time soon...
The start of the process will be a sign "under new management".
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
My comment went about the content of the document - although I do think it's mostly uncosted nonsense - but rather the ability of those involved to keep it secret before publication!
Getting it on the front pages of the newspapers is exactly where Labour want their manifesto contents. If it hadn't been leaked, it wouldn't have got there. And that's incompetence?
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
Lucas said someone did offer £250,000, and that it went through their ethical checks, and was rejected. The Greens didn't do anything wrong here, whoever offered the money did.
Wrong in a moral sense, perhaps, but not in any legal sense.
In any event the House of Lords is stuffed with big Tory and Labour Party donors, and the companies and trade unions making big donations to the major parties regularly find them taking up policy positions that are in the business's or union's self-interest. You think all this came about by chance? Compared to which a suggestion that a minor party doesn't contest a single by-election is trivial by comparison.
My favourite example of this is William Walker. He made a large donation to secure a peerage (this was in 1919) and chose the title Baron Wavertree. To ensure Lloyd George would not renege, he post-dated the cheque to the following 1st January and signed it 'Wavertree'. If he didn't get his peerage the cheque would bounce because it had the wrong name on it!
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
John Pienaar was saying something similar on R5 yesterday in relation to their education policies. Its not about the individual policies its about trust. When the BBC is bringing this front and central you have a problem.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
There is growing speculation of another unexpected and shocking sacking.
Sources in Bedford have revealed exclusively to JNN that TSE may already have been terminated by OGH after the former Ozzie groupie refused to desist his investigation into the "Thread First" occupied by Smithson Jnr, well known for his avatar links to President Putin.
Mike Smithson was unavailable for comment this morning.
RCS winning here!
Free footwear for Aristocratic wives is the policy missing from Jezza's manifesto to clinch your vote surely?
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Their education policies are an absolute joke, as I have pointed out many times, and would wreck the state education system entirely in twelve months. They were written by people who were more useless than Nicky Morgan. Even Gove's spectacular incompetence would have been better than Rayner. As has also been pointed out, their transport policies appear not to understand the current system.
Their crime and policing policies assume the only costs involved in policing are officers' salaries. This is so stupid even a child can see through it.
Their housing proposals assume all the problems that have bedevilled house building since the 1960s will magically disappear
Their tax policies are based on the simplistic and entirely wrong assumption that the higher the rate, the greater the intake.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Their education policies are an absolute joke, as I have pointed out many times, and would wreck the state education system entirely in twelve months. They were written by people who were more useless than Nicky Morgan. Even Gove's spectacular incompetence would have been better than Rayner.
As has also been pointed out, their transport policies appear not to understand the current system.
Their crime and policing policies assume the only costs involved in policing are officers' salaries. This is so stupid even a child can see through it.
Their housing proposals assume all the problems that have bedevilled house building since the 1960s will magically disappear
Their tax policies are based on the simplistic and entirely wrong assumption that the higher the rate, the greater the intake.
No, it's definitely the message.
Most of the public would be pressed to name more than three policies of either party. Three might be an overestimate.
Labour emphatically do not have a monopoly on idiotic policies.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
Current projections (no laughing at the back) still have the deficit coming down.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
My comment went about the content of the document - although I do think it's mostly uncosted nonsense - but rather the ability of those involved to keep it secret before publication!
Getting it on the front pages of the newspapers is exactly where Labour want their manifesto contents. If it hadn't been leaked, it wouldn't have got there. And that's incompetence?
Don't parties like to do their big campaign launches, with their own well-rehearsed spin lines and positivity about their vision for the future?
Rather than a draft manifesto heading to unfriendly papers who attack it hard with their own negative spin about how it's all unaffordable pie-in-the-sky that might as well have been written in 1976! Or maybe it was just to dampen down the story of Corbyn's 'heavies' harassing a military veteran in uniform yesterday?
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
That's because she has to say something sensible because she will have to implement it. People recognise that. If you look at the energy cap Ed Milliband said he would freeze all tariffs whilst a report was completed, whereas the report has now been completed and has quantified the problem. The key problem being inertia leads to higher prices and very much like the auto enrol pension policy, the new policy is a third way within a market framework. Whilst being a left wing Tory policy it is hardly renationisation.
Its hard to get the complete picture but according to the BBC Labour is committed to £20bn on English education by 2022, £8bn on Social Care, £6bn on the NHS, the abolition of Tuition fees, the nationalisation of some energy producers, the nationalisation of TOCs (possibly at the end of their franchises) and the building of 100K Council homes a year. Oh, and the abolition of parking fees at hospitals.
This is supposed to be paid for by a large increase in business taxation and an additional 5% on those earning over £80K a year. The macro economic consequences of making the UK so unattractive to business are ignored as is the small matter of us still having a deficit of £50bn at the moment.
There are aspects of free money that are inevitably attractive but the package is one that fewer than 3 in 10 voters will believe can be delivered.
Most of the public would be pressed to name more than three policies of either party. Three might be an overestimate.
Labour emphatically do not have a monopoly on idiotic policies.
I confess that at this moment I am unable to name a single Tory policy beyond the rather strange sound bites 'strong and stable' and 'Brexit means Brexit'.
However, I was not suggesting that Labour have a monopoly on cretinous ideas. Rather I was suggesting they have been monopolised by cretinous ideas.
Edit - had forgotten the fuel price cap. That's still a cretinous idea, which does support your view of course.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
That's because she has to say something sensible because she will have to implement it. People recognise that. If you look at the energy cap Ed Milliband said he would freeze all tariffs whilst a report was completed, whereas the report has now been completed and has quantified the problem. The key problem being inertia leads to higher prices and very much like the auto enrol pension policy, the new policy is a third way within a market framework. Whilst being a left wing Tory policy it is hardly renationisation.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next Conservative government renationalised something. If it did, I expect that three quarters of pb Conservatives would defend it as necessary.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
The govt were told by the electorate to leave the EU. I appreciate that irks you enormously but the role of govt is to do what the electorate tells it or be booted out.
In a few weeks time the electorate will tell Labour they don't like their manifesto or leader, its very simple.
To illustrate the point about policies, here's something that one of my Labour-voting friends put on Facebook today (he's obviously decided that the election campaign has begun):
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Its hard to get the complete picture but according to the BBC Labour is committed to £20bn on English education by 2022, £8bn on Social Care, £6bn on the NHS, the abolition of Tuition fees, the nationalisation of some energy producers, the nationalisation of TOCs (possibly at the end of their franchises) and the building of 100K Council homes a year. Oh, and the abolition of parking fees at hospitals.
This is supposed to be paid for by a large increase in business taxation and an additional 5% on those earning over £80K a year. The macro economic consequences of making the UK so unattractive to business are ignored as is the small matter of us still having a deficit of £50bn at the moment.
There are aspects of free money that are inevitably attractive but the package is one that fewer than 3 in 10 voters will believe can be delivered.
I doubt that close to 3 in 10 believe it can be delivered. They just think that it will be problem along 7 in 10.
Which is very short sighted, because the one thing we can say with certainty is that when Labour (inevitably) gets it wrong on the economy, it will be the 3 in 10 that get kicked in the nads.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
How can you say that they have abandoned austerity when the deficit fell about £18bn in the last year alone? The downward slope to balance has got less steep but we are clearly still on it.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
How can you say that they have abandoned austerity when the deficit fell about £18bn in the last year alone? The downward slope to balance has got less steep but we are clearly still on it.
It's a statement of fact. The government has abandoned its previous deficit reduction programme.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
Current projections (no laughing at the back) still have the deficit coming down.
Its hard to get the complete picture but according to the BBC Labour is committed to £20bn on English education by 2022, £8bn on Social Care, £6bn on the NHS, the abolition of Tuition fees, the nationalisation of some energy producers, the nationalisation of TOCs (possibly at the end of their franchises) and the building of 100K Council homes a year. Oh, and the abolition of parking fees at hospitals.
This is supposed to be paid for by a large increase in business taxation and an additional 5% on those earning over £80K a year. The macro economic consequences of making the UK so unattractive to business are ignored as is the small matter of us still having a deficit of £50bn at the moment.
There are aspects of free money that are inevitably attractive but the package is one that fewer than 3 in 10 voters will believe can be delivered.
I doubt that close to 3 in 10 believe it can be delivered. They just think that it will be problem along 7 in 10.
Which is very short sighted, because the one thing we can say with certainty is that when Labour (inevitably) gets it wrong on the economy, it will be the 3 in 10 that get kicked in the nads.
Only in the long term. In the short term, they'd benefit at the expense of the 7 in 10.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
How can you say that they have abandoned austerity when the deficit fell about £18bn in the last year alone? The downward slope to balance has got less steep but we are clearly still on it.
It's a statement of fact. The government has abandoned its previous deficit reduction programme.
But they are still reducing the deficit. So to say they abandoned austerity is false, they are just doing it a bit slower.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I thought that the polling had it the other way around. Corbyn' leadership is rated significantly behind brand Labour.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Is it?
According to the Guardian:
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election” through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
How can you say that they have abandoned austerity when the deficit fell about £18bn in the last year alone? The downward slope to balance has got less steep but we are clearly still on it.
It's a statement of fact. The government has abandoned its previous deficit reduction programme.
No it hasn't. It has modified the time that will be taken to eliminate the deficit to give more support to the economy during Brexit, in the same way that Osborne did to offset serious economic weakness in the EZ during the Coalition. That is not abandonment of the objective or the recognition of the need to reduce debt as a share of GDP.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
It's mens rea. Is it a crime for a security guard to go for a leak when his bladder is full? Is it a crime for a security guard to accept £50k to take a leak just when a truck full of armed robbers are due to drill through the bank vault wall?
Aaargh I know - avoid analogies on PB at all costs. Must go. Work.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Is it?
According to the Guardian:
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election” through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
Thanks. A lot could turn on "corruptly". Setting up a progressive alliance might be argued not to be corrupt.
Its hard to get the complete picture but according to the BBC Labour is committed to £20bn on English education by 2022, £8bn on Social Care, £6bn on the NHS, the abolition of Tuition fees, the nationalisation of some energy producers, the nationalisation of TOCs (possibly at the end of their franchises) and the building of 100K Council homes a year. Oh, and the abolition of parking fees at hospitals.
This is supposed to be paid for by a large increase in business taxation and an additional 5% on those earning over £80K a year. The macro economic consequences of making the UK so unattractive to business are ignored as is the small matter of us still having a deficit of £50bn at the moment.
There are aspects of free money that are inevitably attractive but the package is one that fewer than 3 in 10 voters will believe can be delivered.
I doubt that close to 3 in 10 believe it can be delivered. They just think that it will be problem along 7 in 10.
Which is very short sighted, because the one thing we can say with certainty is that when Labour (inevitably) gets it wrong on the economy, it will be the 3 in 10 that get kicked in the nads.
I also forgot (how could I) that carefully costed increase in police numbers. I agree that with an economic policy like this we all suffer but those who are more vulnerable, such as those in marginal or insecure employment, suffer the most.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Is it?
According to the Guardian:
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election” through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
Thanks. A lot could turn on "corruptly". Setting up a progressive alliance might be argued not to be corrupt.
Isn't the "corruptly inducing" part the bribe?
Edit: The full text from the 1983 Act is:
Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of the inducement or procurement, shall be guilty of an illegal payment.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
There is an extra £350 million per week for the NHS. A workers Brexit, not a Bosses Brexit, for the many not the few.
Implausible uncosted policies with no proper background work clinched it for Donald. Why not Jezza?
It's surely blindingly obvious that they called the election in order to win a proper majority after Cameron's dithering mess. This will mean that TM won't have to push a hard Brexit, nor will the tail wag the dog. The bitter likes of Gove and Redwood will be relatively silenced.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Is it?
According to the Guardian:
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election” through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
Thanks. A lot could turn on "corruptly". Setting up a progressive alliance might be argued not to be corrupt.
Isn't the "corruptly inducing" part the bribe?
Edit: The full text from the 1983 Act is:
Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of the inducement or procurement, shall be guilty of an illegal payment.
That would make the word "corruptly" superfluous. It must have some additional meaning.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Is it?
According to the Guardian:
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election” through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
Thanks. A lot could turn on "corruptly". Setting up a progressive alliance might be argued not to be corrupt.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
There is an extra £350 million per week for the NHS. A workers Brexit, not a Bosses Brexit, for the many not the few.
Implausible uncosted policies with no proper background work clinched it for Donald. Why not Jezza?
Let's have a game of Brexit bingo.
Hard brexit Soft brexit Workers brexit Bosses brexit The many not the few brexit
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Is it?
According to the Guardian:
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election” through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
"Withdraw" is an interesting choice of word in the legislation - does it cover choosing not to stand as well as filing papers and then dropping out?
Its hard to get the complete picture but according to the BBC Labour is committed to £20bn on English education by 2022, £8bn on Social Care, £6bn on the NHS, the abolition of Tuition fees, the nationalisation of some energy producers, the nationalisation of TOCs (possibly at the end of their franchises) and the building of 100K Council homes a year. Oh, and the abolition of parking fees at hospitals.
This is supposed to be paid for by a large increase in business taxation and an additional 5% on those earning over £80K a year. The macro economic consequences of making the UK so unattractive to business are ignored as is the small matter of us still having a deficit of £50bn at the moment.
There are aspects of free money that are inevitably attractive but the package is one that fewer than 3 in 10 voters will believe can be delivered.
I doubt that close to 3 in 10 believe it can be delivered. They just think that it will be problem along 7 in 10.
Which is very short sighted, because the one thing we can say with certainty is that when Labour (inevitably) gets it wrong on the economy, it will be the 3 in 10 that get kicked in the nads.
I also forgot (how could I) that carefully costed increase in police numbers. I agree that with an economic policy like this we all suffer but those who are more vulnerable, such as those in marginal or insecure employment, suffer the most.
What Mrs May really needs is a few polls with the Tory lead down to single digits.
Or a good old Tory campaign coitus up.
Perhaps she can be recorded off mic calling voters thick, smelly, or bigots.
She already has a number of polls putting Labour on 31%, the same as last time. Confirms Nick Palmer's reports of the Labour vote holding steady.
I have to admit to being totally surprised that Labour is hitting circa 30% all the time now. They could 32-33 by the end of the campaign.
Actually, apart from Abbott's plane crash, things have gone relatively smoothly.
Surely the big worry for the sensible Labour supporters is that the vote share now holds up? If Corbyn gets 30% he'll have to be dragged from the leader's chair in a wooden box.
20% of Labour members said they would want Corbyn to stay on after a general election defeat. I imagine they were thinking of a defeat in normal terms, not a defeat in landslide terms. Had the question been asked in terms of whether Labour members wanted Corbyn to stay on after a Tory general election landslide, I presume the figure would have been below 20%. So this time a leadership challenge to Corbyn will clearly be viable.
The only people setting any store by 30% are the Corbynistas.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Is it?
According to the Guardian:
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election” through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
Thanks. A lot could turn on "corruptly". Setting up a progressive alliance might be argued not to be corrupt.
Unclear drafting though. Does the corrupt action apply to inducing and procuring or only procuring. No doubt intended to be both both on a strict interpretation only inducing.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
There is an extra £350 million per week for the NHS. A workers Brexit, not a Bosses Brexit, for the many not the few.
Implausible uncosted policies with no proper background work clinched it for Donald. Why not Jezza?
Let's have a game of Brexit bingo.
Hard brexit Soft brexit Workers brexit Bosses brexit The many not the few brexit
HOUSE!!!!!
You missed out diamond brexit and red white and blue brexit for a Royal Flush. I
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Is it?
According to the Guardian:
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election” through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
"Withdraw" is an interesting choice of word in the legislation - does it cover choosing not to stand as well as filing papers and then dropping out?
Withdrawing is a formal process with forms and a statutory process and timetable. It doesn't cover deciding not to stand in the first place.
There are two aspects to this. The chances of it occurring, and the consequences. Even if something's very unlikely, if you think it'll be dreadful then you'll take steps to avoid it (insurance against your house burning down, for example).
It's certainly true the odds are against PM Corbyn, but the consequences would not be very welcome to the general public.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
There is an extra £350 million per week for the NHS. A workers Brexit, not a Bosses Brexit, for the many not the few.
Implausible uncosted policies with no proper background work clinched it for Donald. Why not Jezza?
But Corbyn is proposing a Bosses Brexit - a Union Bosses Brexit to be precise.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Is it?
According to the Guardian:
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election” through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
"Withdraw" is an interesting choice of word in the legislation - does it cover choosing not to stand as well as filing papers and then dropping out?
Withdrawing is a formal process with forms and a statutory process and timetable. It doesn't cover deciding not to stand in the first place.
It is a positive manifesto though, daft as a brush financially but it is trying something. The Tories can critique it but they also need to be positive, beyond the vapid 'strong and stable'.
Have just been looking at this draft energy policy. The Guardian are claiming that it doesn't mean renationalisation - that instead, the distribution networks will be renationalised and local companies will be set up to compete with private providers.
However, I think their analysis is wrong. It's poorly phrased and the wording is ambiguous, but it states at the start that energy companies will be taken 'back into public ownership.' That means nationalisation. And that is of course conceded by the Grauniad with regard to the networks.
What's incredible, and where the Guardian are getting hung up, is the last clause. Labour say they want 'at least one publicly owned energy company in every region of the UK', talking a lot of rubbish about how this will be 'democratically accountable' (which as anyone with a brain will know is a lie - at that level, such things are negligible political concerns).
They seem to mean - incredibly - that they want separate companies owned by the same people (local councillors, de facto) actually competing with each other. I suppose this is their sop to the market system but it looks to me more like a recipe for chaos, cartels and power cuts.
Anyone still think the detail of this will be popular?
What Mrs May really needs is a few polls with the Tory lead down to single digits.
Or a good old Tory campaign coitus up.
Perhaps she can be recorded off mic calling voters thick, smelly, or bigots.
She already has a number of polls putting Labour on 31%, the same as last time. Confirms Nick Palmer's reports of the Labour vote holding steady.
I have to admit to being totally surprised that Labour is hitting circa 30% all the time now. They could 32-33 by the end of the campaign.
Actually, apart from Abbott's plane crash, things have gone relatively smoothly.
It does seem to be an amazing performance in the polls by Labour, despite the widespread ridiculing of its leader and increasingly so of his second in command, John McDonnell.
It does now appear entirely possible that Labour could end winning a larger share of the vote than they achieved in the 2015 GE. Were this to be the case, the party's hierarchy would no doubt claim that it was not so much Corbyn and his team who lost the GE for Labour, but rather UKIP and possibly the SNP to a lesser extent who had handed it on a plate to the Tories. We live in strange times.
May looks horribly confident to me. Almost smug. I sometimes wonder whether she should go away and send back party political broadcasts sitting by a pool with a pina colada.
What Mrs May really needs is a few polls with the Tory lead down to single digits.
Or a good old Tory campaign coitus up.
Perhaps she can be recorded off mic calling voters thick, smelly, or bigots.
She already has a number of polls putting Labour on 31%, the same as last time. Confirms Nick Palmer's reports of the Labour vote holding steady.
I have to admit to being totally surprised that Labour is hitting circa 30% all the time now. They could 32-33 by the end of the campaign.
Actually, apart from Abbott's plane crash, things have gone relatively smoothly.
It does seem to be an amazing performance in the polls by Labour, despite the widespread ridiculing of its leader and increasingly so of his second in command, John McDonnell.
It does now appear entirely possible that Labour could end winning a larger share of the vote than they achieved in the 2015 GE. Were this to be the case, the party's hierarchy would no doubt claim that it was not so much Corbyn and his team who lost the GE for Labour, but rather UKIP and possibly the SNP to a lesser extent who had handed it on a plate to the Tories. We live in strange times.
Labour managed 30% in 1931.
However, they were below 30% in the local elections.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
There is an extra £350 million per week for the NHS. A workers Brexit, not a Bosses Brexit, for the many not the few.
Implausible uncosted policies with no proper background work clinched it for Donald. Why not Jezza?
But Corbyn is proposing a Bosses Brexit - a Union Bosses Brexit to be precise.
Morning. So the idiots couldn't even stop their manifesto from being on all the front pages, yet they think we should elect them to run the country?
Labour's policies are generally pretty popular. The problem is the medium rather than the message.
I think that's true.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
There is an extra £350 million per week for the NHS. A workers Brexit, not a Bosses Brexit, for the many not the few.
Implausible uncosted policies with no proper background work clinched it for Donald. Why not Jezza?
But Corbyn is proposing a Bosses Brexit - a Union Bosses Brexit to be precise.
The majority like most Labour policies, polling shows that regularly. But they like Tory patriotism and air of responsibility. Blair managed to neutralise the fear of profligacy and mismanagement while also pledging windfall taxes on energy companies and a national minimum wage. May is doing the inverse, using her Tory advantage to implement a few Labour policies
May looks horribly confident to me. Almost smug. I sometimes wonder whether she should go away and send back party political broadcasts sitting by a pool with a pina colada.
At this stage, it does appear the Tories are trying to run as low-key a campaign as they can. The calculation seems to be, don't risk the c17% lead, just keep repeating 'strong and stable' and let Labour mess things up.
The risk with that is that Labour start to gain traction on the back of media saturation. As loony as some of the manifesto is, I could see that happening. Presumably the Tories are holding lots back in case the polls narrow. The next couple of weeks will be very interesting.
May looks horribly confident to me. Almost smug. I sometimes wonder whether she should go away and send back party political broadcasts sitting by a pool with a pina colada.
Wipe the smile off her face by reducing her number of MP's by any means possible.
Bring on that cure for smugness, bring on that Coalition of Chaos, or as I prefer to call it: multi-party democracy
Mr. Putney, I agree, and it's quite concerning Labour could score so well with such a batshit insane leader in whom most of his own party have no confidence.
May looks horribly confident to me. Almost smug. I sometimes wonder whether she should go away and send back party political broadcasts sitting by a pool with a pina colada.
Wipe the smile off her face by reducing her number of MP's by any means possible.
Bring on that cure for smugness, bring on that Coalition of Chaos, or as I prefer to call it: multi-party democracy
for smug read pleased. You'd be pleased if you were TMay and saw the Labour manifesto.
What Mrs May really needs is a few polls with the Tory lead down to single digits.
Or a good old Tory campaign coitus up.
Perhaps she can be recorded off mic calling voters thick, smelly, or bigots.
She already has a number of polls putting Labour on 31%, the same as last time. Confirms Nick Palmer's reports of the Labour vote holding steady.
I have to admit to being totally surprised that Labour is hitting circa 30% all the time now. They could 32-33 by the end of the campaign.
Actually, apart from Abbott's plane crash, things have gone relatively smoothly.
It's Corbyn's blue suit and haircut. A very talented stylist has transformed him and made him look like a politician so people are now listening to what he's saying
These are the days of micro-targeting and social media. I don't know much about BuzzFeed and note that the first thing it offers me is "26 Times Australian Animals Just Took Things Way Too Far"; perhaps the subgroup who are interested in Australian Animals Just Taking Things Way Too Far have been identified as over-chilled at the thought of the Corbyn danger, or perhaps this is just a campaigning theme being run up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. I'll take it more seriously when I see it on a billboard.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
There is an extra £350 million per week for the NHS. A workers Brexit, not a Bosses Brexit, for the many not the few.
Implausible uncosted policies with no proper background work clinched it for Donald. Why not Jezza?
But Corbyn is proposing a Bosses Brexit - a Union Bosses Brexit to be precise.
Better than the alternative though.
Both the left and right extremes are a Fatcat Brexit - on the left for the public sector fatcats and union bosses on the right for bankers and CEOs - what we need is the middle course ie a people's brexit.
Both Fatcat Brexit extremes support continuous uncontrolled immigration it should be noted.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Personal view: no. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. The LDs simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money. Their overdraft is close to maxed out, and they couldn't come up with £250k under any normal circumstances. Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
And in fact the offer of the donation was not denied by Lucas on the show yesterday. She said the donation went through their ethics procedure and was rejected. Although I should add that she said this was after the candidate had already stood down.
I wonder if the candidate had to stand down quickly - the candidate's papers were withdrawn before the deadline because their "ethics procedure" wouldn't have been quick enough for them to take up the offer otherwise?
Or the Greens got played - and the LibDems got their £250k worth without having to hand over a cent.
I think vote share will all that Labour will be looking at in this GE. They've given up any hope of winning a majority and want to see how throw back policies are received by this generation. If there's any traction at all, they'll have a (mildly) watered down version in 2022.
May looks horribly confident to me. Almost smug. I sometimes wonder whether she should go away and send back party political broadcasts sitting by a pool with a pina colada.
My MP has been warned about this from above, told to be confident not smug. The only danger to the tories is alienating people who don't like cockiness, myself included.
However, they were below 30% in the local elections.
The vote % and the seat distribution are two completely different things under our electoral system.
And remember the French elections just gone, polls had Macron around 61-63, nothing had him at 66. Macron was the sensible choice in that election.
When you add in normal polling errors and our FPTP system it is a heady brew for the June 8th result. Personally I have no idea how large the Tory majority might be.
May looks horribly confident to me. Almost smug. I sometimes wonder whether she should go away and send back party political broadcasts sitting by a pool with a pina colada.
At this stage, it does appear the Tories are trying to run as low-key a campaign as they can. The calculation seems to be, don't risk the c17% lead, just keep repeating 'strong and stable' and let Labour mess things up.
The risk with that is that Labour start to gain traction on the back of media saturation. As loony as some of the manifesto is, I could see that happening. Presumably the Tories are holding lots back in case the polls narrow. The next couple of weeks will be very interesting.
Labour will probably slip back as people's minds are focused on leadership and management of the economy. Of course, there could be a few who, like me, we're going to protest vote until they realised their Labour MP might actually lose his seat
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
There is an extra £350 million per week for the NHS. A workers Brexit, not a Bosses Brexit, for the many not the few.
Implausible uncosted policies with no proper background work clinched it for Donald. Why not Jezza?
But Corbyn is proposing a Bosses Brexit - a Union Bosses Brexit to be precise.
Better than the alternative though.
Both the left and right extremes are a Fatcat Brexit - on the left for the public sector fatcats and union bosses on the right for bankers and CEOs - what we need is the middle course ie a people's brexit.
Both Fatcat Brexit extremes support continuous uncontrolled immigration it should be noted.
I think May will surprise everyone and go for a Goldilocks Brexit (TM), focusing on what's best for middle England
The Dutch and German governments are not subsidising our rail network at all - they are making surpluses thanks to the vast taxpayer subsidy to franchisees. Hence our government is subsidising them. The level of ignorance on the shambles that is rail franchising may soon come to an end if it becomes an election issue!
What Mrs May really needs is a few polls with the Tory lead down to single digits.
Or a good old Tory campaign coitus up.
Perhaps she can be recorded off mic calling voters thick, smelly, or bigots.
She already has a number of polls putting Labour on 31%, the same as last time. Confirms Nick Palmer's reports of the Labour vote holding steady.
I have to admit to being totally surprised that Labour is hitting circa 30% all the time now. They could 32-33 by the end of the campaign.
Actually, apart from Abbott's plane crash, things have gone relatively smoothly.
It does seem to be an amazing performance in the polls by Labour, despite the widespread ridiculing of its leader and increasingly so of his second in command, John McDonnell.
It does now appear entirely possible that Labour could end winning a larger share of the vote than they achieved in the 2015 GE. Were this to be the case, the party's hierarchy would no doubt claim that it was not so much Corbyn and his team who lost the GE for Labour, but rather UKIP and possibly the SNP to a lesser extent who had handed it on a plate to the Tories. We live in strange times.
I suspect they will drift down on the day - as many of their supporters are from the sections least likely to vote and it's v. difficult to accurately figure this in the polling. Where I do see some positive is in the under-performance of the LDs who are failing to paint themselves as an alternative opposition.
Comments
http://imgur.com/a/LYU7T
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
In any event the House of Lords is stuffed with big Tory and Labour Party donors, and the companies and trade unions making big donations to the major parties regularly find them taking up policy positions that are in the business's or union's self-interest. You think all this came about by chance? Compared to which a suggestion that a minor party doesn't contest a single by-election is trivial by comparison.
Free footwear for Aristocratic wives is the policy missing from Jezza's manifesto to clinch your vote surely?
As has also been pointed out, their transport policies appear not to understand the current system.
Their crime and policing policies assume the only costs involved in policing are officers' salaries. This is so stupid even a child can see through it.
Their housing proposals assume all the problems that have bedevilled house building since the 1960s will magically disappear
Their tax policies are based on the simplistic and entirely wrong assumption that the higher the rate, the greater the intake.
No, it's definitely the message.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
Labour emphatically do not have a monopoly on idiotic policies.
Rather than a draft manifesto heading to unfriendly papers who attack it hard with their own negative spin about how it's all unaffordable pie-in-the-sky that might as well have been written in 1976! Or maybe it was just to dampen down the story of Corbyn's 'heavies' harassing a military veteran in uniform yesterday?
This is supposed to be paid for by a large increase in business taxation and an additional 5% on those earning over £80K a year. The macro economic consequences of making the UK so unattractive to business are ignored as is the small matter of us still having a deficit of £50bn at the moment.
There are aspects of free money that are inevitably attractive but the package is one that fewer than 3 in 10 voters will believe can be delivered.
However, I was not suggesting that Labour have a monopoly on cretinous ideas. Rather I was suggesting they have been monopolised by cretinous ideas.
Edit - had forgotten the fuel price cap. That's still a cretinous idea, which does support your view of course.
In a few weeks time the electorate will tell Labour they don't like their manifesto or leader, its very simple.
Which is very short sighted, because the one thing we can say with certainty is that when Labour (inevitably) gets it wrong on the economy, it will be the 3 in 10 that get kicked in the nads.
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election” through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
Is it a crime for a security guard to go for a leak when his bladder is full?
Is it a crime for a security guard to accept £50k to take a leak just when a truck full of armed robbers are due to drill through the bank vault wall?
Aaargh I know - avoid analogies on PB at all costs. Must go. Work.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
Edit: The full text from the 1983 Act is:
Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of the inducement or procurement, shall be guilty of an illegal payment.
Implausible uncosted policies with no proper background work clinched it for Donald. Why not Jezza?
Hard brexit
Soft brexit
Workers brexit
Bosses brexit
The many not the few brexit
HOUSE!!!!!
The only people setting any store by 30% are the Corbynistas.
I
There are two aspects to this. The chances of it occurring, and the consequences. Even if something's very unlikely, if you think it'll be dreadful then you'll take steps to avoid it (insurance against your house burning down, for example).
It's certainly true the odds are against PM Corbyn, but the consequences would not be very welcome to the general public.
However, I think their analysis is wrong. It's poorly phrased and the wording is ambiguous, but it states at the start that energy companies will be taken 'back into public ownership.' That means nationalisation. And that is of course conceded by the Grauniad with regard to the networks.
What's incredible, and where the Guardian are getting hung up, is the last clause. Labour say they want 'at least one publicly owned energy company in every region of the UK', talking a lot of rubbish about how this will be 'democratically accountable' (which as anyone with a brain will know is a lie - at that level, such things are negligible political concerns).
They seem to mean - incredibly - that they want separate companies owned by the same people (local councillors, de facto) actually competing with each other. I suppose this is their sop to the market system but it looks to me more like a recipe for chaos, cartels and power cuts.
Anyone still think the detail of this will be popular?
Edit - Guardian analysis here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/11/general-election-2017-labour-leaked-manifesto-politics-live?page=with:block-5913fa77e4b0a8ea08b6d2c3#block-5913fa77e4b0a8ea08b6d2c3
It does now appear entirely possible that Labour could end winning a larger share of the vote than they achieved in the 2015 GE. Were this to be the case, the party's hierarchy would no doubt claim that it was not so much Corbyn and his team who lost the GE for Labour, but rather UKIP and possibly the SNP to a lesser extent who had handed it on a plate to the Tories. We live in strange times.
However, they were below 30% in the local elections.
The risk with that is that Labour start to gain traction on the back of media saturation. As loony as some of the manifesto is, I could see that happening. Presumably the Tories are holding lots back in case the polls narrow. The next couple of weeks will be very interesting.
Bring on that cure for smugness, bring on that Coalition of Chaos, or as I prefer to call it: multi-party democracy
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/09/28/14/jeremy-
corbyn-1.jpghttps://www.wessexscene.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Jeremy_Corbyn_No_More_War_crop1.jpg
Both Fatcat Brexit extremes support continuous uncontrolled immigration it should be noted.
Or the Greens got played - and the LibDems got their £250k worth without having to hand over a cent.
It all stinks of not-very-progressive politics.
If so, do they use Southern????
And remember the French elections just gone, polls had Macron around 61-63, nothing had him at 66. Macron was the sensible choice in that election.
When you add in normal polling errors and our FPTP system it is a heady brew for the June 8th result. Personally I have no idea how large the Tory majority might be.
Imagine Brexit with Corbyn's policies on top.