Sky News running a 'can Farron lose Westmorland' story
He could lose it. But he probably won't. Because:
1. He got over 50% at the last election in the seat, and the LDs vote share has actually risen (albeit marginally) since the last GE. 2. Party leaders usually get a boost. 3. The LDs increased their vote share in the wards that make up the constituency last Thursday. 4. The constituency voted Remain. 5. UKIP only got 6% last time around, so there's not a lot for the Conservatives to pick up there.
My bet is that Farron will get 45-50% of the vote, with the Conservatives on 35-40%.
LibDem sign boards abound in Westmorland like a host of golden daffodils.
Are the Tories even targeting W&L? Surely Cumbria Tories should be concentrating on Workington?
Total guess, but I would think a lot of talk of winning Westmoreland, and similar seats, is more in the hope that a Tory surge sweeps all before it rather than committing a great many resources to such an area.
Chestnut - how many days in the past five years has the "always on strike" tube been on strike?
LOL
Good morning to you John and hope you are well. This manifesto has actually made me warm to Labour. The energy and rail proposals are a great contribution to the debate at the very least.
I Presume jezza is waiting until his second term before he bans all robots in factories.
Tory alternative?
Elect a robot for PM?
Do you seriously think banning Driverless trains is a good policy? Having somebody "drive" the DLR just because the law demands when there is no need. The reality is the whole tube should be Driverless like a like of modern metro systems around the world.
For all the stick Tories and Kippers get about looking back to the past wearing rose-tinted spectacles nothing they have proposed is as conservative and backwards looking as this proposed Labour manifesto.
Clause V is apparently the section of the Party rules to do with the party programme.
Clause V (4)
When not in Government the NEC, the Shadow Cabinet, the Parliamentary Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party (‘PLP’) and the Chair and three vice Chairs of the NPF shall decide which items from the party programme shall be included in the manifesto that shall be issued by the NEC prior to every general election. The joint meeting shall also define the attitude of the party to the principal issues raised by the election which are not covered by the manifesto
Why do pollsters still ask "If there was a general election tomorrow" rather than eg "at the general election on June 8 ..." since Parliament has been dissolved already?
Why do pollsters still ask "If there was a general election tomorrow" rather than eg "at the general election on June 8 ..." since Parliament has been dissolved already?
Last? Almost, I should think, but on topic, if everybody thinks "Well, no-one else is going to vote for the poor chap, I'll give him my sympathy vote", Mr Corbyn could very well end up as PM. He became Labour leader due to the sympathy vote.
And IMHO it was worth taking the risk now because the risk would only increase. It's blindingly obvious that the PLP aren't going to dislodge Mr Corbyn and the Conservatives can hardly sustain these polling levels for long.
But all this has been discussed in the early part of the thread & you've all moved on to other conversations.
FWIW, after early canvassing in his far-from-best areas, Kevin Foster is very bullish about holding Torbay.
I'd be staggered if the LDs ran the Conservatives close in any of the seats in the West country (except perhaps St Ives, and even there I'd expect a 7-8% lead).
The local elections show that the Lib Dems are a serious threat to the Conservatives in North Cornwall not St Ives .
Dan Rogerson was 14 points behind his Conservative opponent in 2015, and there's a big UKIP vote to squeeze.
I'd save your money.
St Ives, on the other hand, has only a small majority, and there's a decent sized Labour vote for the LDs to (potentially) squeeze. Don't get me wrong, I think the Conservatives will hold St Ives. But I think the LDs will keep their lead to single digits.
North Cornwall local elections LDems 51% Con 34.5% UKIP 0.2% yes zero . 2 % Squeezing the UKIP vote to nothing did not help the Conservatives .
Are we to presume that bin collection elections and a General Election are the same thing now?
Yes. Even though we were also told the LDs would make gains all across Cornwall, and they went backwards. But this time it is correct.
The Lib Dems did make gains in Cornwall and did not go backwards .
Well, how partial is that information Mark?
Cornwall
2013: LD 36 councillors 2017 LD 37 councillors plus one
2013: Tories 31 councillors 2017: Tories 46 councillors plus fifteen
LibDems - Winning Here!!!*
(*Just nowhere near as well as the Tories though)
North Cornwall seats ( 21 ) LD 17 plus 1 deferred Con 2 Ind 1 LD gain 2 from Con 2 from Ind Con gain 1 from LD 1 from Ind
Clause V is apparently the section of the Party rules to do with the party programme.
Clause V (4)
When not in Government the NEC, the Shadow Cabinet, the Parliamentary Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party (‘PLP’) and the Chair and three vice Chairs of the NPF shall decide which items from the party programme shall be included in the manifesto that shall be issued by the NEC prior to every general election. The joint meeting shall also define the attitude of the party to the principal issues raised by the election which are not covered by the manifesto
Ta.
Tangentially one wonders why Corbyn hasn't reinstated Clause IV. "Because that would be bonkers" doesn't stop him doing stuff.
Tom Watson arrives at Labour's Clause V meeting and tells us "Its not a great day for the Labour Party"
Trouble at tha mill.
What a grumpy gus. Labour's doing fine, Tom, I heard the leader say so. Closing the gap on the Tories, people want a change and all that.
""Jeremy Corbyn did not attend a Labour poster launch this morning because he is dealing with "internal matters", elections co-ordinator Ian Lavery told reporters at the event."
"internal matters" sounds really ominous to me. Kangaroo court for whoever leaked the manifesto?
Corbyn does not do Kangaroo Courts.
He does do Manifestos that mean.
For 95% of UK citizens, their life is improved
For the 5% their life is unaltered, but should feel "enriched" to help UK progress
Under Corbyn, about 95% would have their lives made worse.
How?
The policies he is pursuing are unaffordable.
He would introduce the tax rises (yes) and they wouldn't raise anything like the money to pay for those commitments, so what would happen is the deficit would balloon and we'd enter a funding crisis. That would be exacerbated by a fall-off in inward investment and private enterprise. Strikes would increase, and the quality of service provided by the newly nationalised utilities deteriorate as they became captured by producer rather than consumer interests.
Meanwhile, immigration would run unchecked inward, a brain drain might also occur outward, and the armed forces would be run down, leading to a reduction in Britain's global influence. Northern Ireland and Scottish nationalists would try to take advantage of his naivety, as would the UK's enemies both internal (domestic security against terrorism) and worldwide (rogue states and competing foreign powers).
Ultimately, he'd be thrown out, and a much poorer British populace would ache for the return of any Government that could sort out the mess.
Why do pollsters still ask "If there was a general election tomorrow" rather than eg "at the general election on June 8 ..." since Parliament has been dissolved already?
Saying June 8th invites the answer "well, it depends on manifestos, who knocks on door, etc". Saying tomorrow implies you don't get more info and it's how you feel now.
Clause V is apparently the section of the Party rules to do with the party programme.
Clause V (4)
When not in Government the NEC, the Shadow Cabinet, the Parliamentary Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party (‘PLP’) and the Chair and three vice Chairs of the NPF shall decide which items from the party programme shall be included in the manifesto that shall be issued by the NEC prior to every general election. The joint meeting shall also define the attitude of the party to the principal issues raised by the election which are not covered by the manifesto
Ta.
Tangentially one wonders why Corbyn hasn't reinstated Clause IV. "Because that would be bonkers" doesn't stop him doing stuff.
9 August 2015
Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn has denied that he would reinstate clause IV of the Labour party constitution, which committed the party to nationalising industry and was scrapped by Tony Blair 20 years ago.
Corbyn provoked criticism from his Labour leadership rivals when he seemed to suggest in an interview with the Independent on Sunday that he would be open to restoring the clause as it was originally written, arguing that the party needed to make a clear commitment to public ownership of industry.
But a spokesperson from his campaign said Corbyn was not saying he wanted a return to “the old clause IV” and that he did not want “a big ‘moment’ such as that”.
(2) Voters aren't universally impressed by the strength and stability offered by TMT.
How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?
A question to be taken seriously, so poked around the IPSOS Mori archive as they have been asking essentially the same satisfaction question since the 1970's. Theresa May's ratings are good, but not unusually good. For example only 4% higher satisfaction than Cameron at the same point in his premiership.
Short answer "none".
OK. Taking your question literally: How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?Two: Blair by a big margin and Cameron by a whisker. Major who was prime minister 25 years ago equalled May subsequently but did better than her before 1992. Only Gordon Brown was lower than May. Of course May might improve her ratings from here on. IPSOS Mori figures.
Under Corbyn, about 95% would have their lives made worse.
All the talk about the nice things spending will buy is irrelevant. The kind of Britain Labour wants is one where private business will be much diminished, we are likely to see a brain drain, and tax receipts will be miserable whilst spending soars. The idea that 95% will be no worse off, even if only in tax terms, is laughable.
Sounds like Brexit to me. Except for the spending.
We are going through the event horizon of Brexit at the moment, yes, which is disruptive, yes, because it will lead to a change in our economic model and trading networks. But ultimately, equilibrium will be reached again - be it in 2,5 or 8 years.
However, that isn't the same as pursuing intrinsically suicidal domestic economic policies as part of a visionary policy agenda.
Tom Watson arrives at Labour's Clause V meeting and tells us "Its not a great day for the Labour Party"
Trouble at tha mill.
What a grumpy gus. Labour's doing fine, Tom, I heard the leader say so. Closing the gap on the Tories, people want a change and all that.
""Jeremy Corbyn did not attend a Labour poster launch this morning because he is dealing with "internal matters", elections co-ordinator Ian Lavery told reporters at the event."
"internal matters" sounds really ominous to me. Kangaroo court for whoever leaked the manifesto?
Corbyn does not do Kangaroo Courts.
He does do Manifestos that mean.
For 95% of UK citizens, their life is improved
For the 5% their life is unaltered, but should feel "enriched" to help UK progress
Under Corbyn, about 95% would have their lives made worse.
How?
The policies he is pursuing are unaffordable.
He would introduce the tax rises (yes) and they wouldn't raise anything like the money to pay for those commitments, so what would happen is the deficit would balloon and we'd enter a funding crisis. That would be exacerbated by a fall-off in inward investment and private enterprise. Strikes would increase, and the quality of service provided by the newly nationalised utilities deteriorate as they became captured by producer rather than consumer interests.
Meanwhile, immigration would run unchecked inward, a brain drain might also occur outward, and the armed forces would be run down, leading to a reduction in Britain's global influence. Northern Ireland and Scottish nationalists would try to take advantage of his naivety, as would the UK's enemies both internal (domestic security against terrorism) and worldwide (rogue states and competing foreign powers).
Ultimately, he'd be thrown out, and a much poorer British populace would ache for the return of any Government that could sort out the mess.
He? Theresa May is a woman, and it's the Conservatives which have been running down our armed forces and not restricted immigration.
Some people seem jolly keen on re-nationalising the energy companies and, depending on how you read it, such a proposal does seem to be contained in the (draft) Labour Manifesto. Fair enough. My question is how does the UK government go about nationalising a multi-billion pound company in this day and age, especially if it is foreign owned?
Why do pollsters still ask "If there was a general election tomorrow" rather than eg "at the general election on June 8 ..." since Parliament has been dissolved already?
Two reasons. Firstly, it gives a more immediate response. One question one pollster asks is whether voters are likely to change their mind. If so, you might get a different answer between asking how someone would vote tomorrow (e.g. Lab) and how they expect to vote in four weeks (e.g. DK, because they think they might change their mind).
Also, once the postal votes have been issued, asking how someone intends to vote on June 8 becomes an exit poll for PV voters who've returned their ballot and as such would be embargoed.
Some people seem jolly keen on re-nationalising the energy companies and, depending on how you read it, such a proposal does seem to be contained in the (draft) Labour Manifesto. Fair enough. My question is how does the UK government go about nationalising a multi-billion pound company in this day and age, especially if it is foreign owned?
Expropriation is easier if one can write the laws without reference to restrictive EU laws.
Why do pollsters still ask "If there was a general election tomorrow" rather than eg "at the general election on June 8 ..." since Parliament has been dissolved already?
Two reasons. Firstly, it gives a more immediate response. One question one pollster asks is whether voters are likely to change their mind. If so, you might get a different answer between asking how someone would vote tomorrow (e.g. Lab) and how they expect to vote in four weeks (e.g. DK, because they think they might change their mind).
Also, once the postal votes have been issued, asking how someone intends to vote on June 8 becomes an exit poll for PV voters who've returned their ballot and as such would be embargoed.
I thought the PV embargo only applied if you asked voters if they have voted and if so how have they voted? If you don't ask if they've voted already or not, you don't know if they're postal voters (or even voters at all).
Some people seem jolly keen on re-nationalising the energy companies and, depending on how you read it, such a proposal does seem to be contained in the (draft) Labour Manifesto. Fair enough. My question is how does the UK government go about nationalising a multi-billion pound company in this day and age, especially if it is foreign owned?
Fortunately we know the answer to that questions. In 2012, Mrs Kirchner renationalised Argentinian energy company YPF, which had previously been a part of Spanish firm Repsol.
(2) Voters aren't universally impressed by the strength and stability offered by TMT.
How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?
A question to be taken seriously, so poked around the IPSOS Mori archive as they have been asking essentially the same satisfaction question since the 1970's. Theresa May's ratings are good, but not unusually good. For example only 4% higher satisfaction than Cameron at the same point in his premiership.
Short answer "none".
OK. Taking your question literally: How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?Two: Blair by a big margin and Cameron by a whisker. Major who was prime minister 25 years ago equalled May subsequently but did better than her before 1992. Only Gordon Brown was lower than May. Of course May might improve her ratings from here on. IPSOS Mori figures.
"A separate Tube strike on the Central and Waterloo and City lines saw hundreds of thousands of people forced to re-plan their journeys as the sixth major London Underground walkout in less than a year took hold."
(2) Voters aren't universally impressed by the strength and stability offered by TMT.
How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?
A question to be taken seriously, so poked around the IPSOS Mori archive as they have been asking essentially the same satisfaction question since the 1970's. Theresa May's ratings are good, but not unusually good. For example only 4% higher satisfaction than Cameron at the same point in his premiership.
Short answer "none".
OK. Taking your question literally: How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?Two: Blair by a big margin and Cameron by a whisker. Major who was prime minister 25 years ago equalled May subsequently but did better than her before 1992. Only Gordon Brown was lower than May. Of course May might improve her ratings from here on. IPSOS Mori figures.
That's not a like for like comparison. Blair at his height going into his first re-election campaign in 2001 was not polling 21% - we need to compare May now, to Blair [and others] then when they were leaders during their election campaign.
It doesn't really matter how Blair is viewed now, he's not on the ballot paper now.
Interesting polll, the 5% UKIP is a real interest, they arent standing in more than 50% of seats I hear, so what happens when the Kipper holds their crayon poised to mark the X and sees no UKIP - does it automatically go Tory?
Under Corbyn, about 95% would have their lives made worse.
All the talk about the nice things spending will buy is irrelevant. The kind of Britain Labour wants is one where private business will be much diminished, we are likely to see a brain drain, and tax receipts will be miserable whilst spending soars. The idea that 95% will be no worse off, even if only in tax terms, is laughable.
Sounds like Brexit to me. Except for the spending.
We are going through the event horizon of Brexit at the moment, yes, which is disruptive, yes, because it will lead to a change in our economic model and trading networks. But ultimately, equilibrium will be reached again - be it in 2,5 or 8 years.
However, that isn't the same as pursuing intrinsically suicidal domestic economic policies as part of a visionary policy agenda.
Hmmm - it depends what kind of Brexit we have, really. Take the brain drain - UK universities, the fintech sector and the life science sector stand to be deeply damaged by or EU withdrawal. Restoring the equilibrium in those industries and others will be extremely tough once our leadership positions are lost.
Likewise, if we have a rock hard Brexit or leave without a deal, the high-skilled, well-paid jobs that currently exist in manufacturing and other sectors that depend on EU supply chains and EU sales will quickly go. And once they go, why would they come back?
(2) Voters aren't universally impressed by the strength and stability offered by TMT.
How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?
A question to be taken seriously, so poked around the IPSOS Mori archive as they have been asking essentially the same satisfaction question since the 1970's. Theresa May's ratings are good, but not unusually good. For example only 4% higher satisfaction than Cameron at the same point in his premiership.
Short answer "none".
OK. Taking your question literally: How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?Two: Blair by a big margin and Cameron by a whisker. Major who was prime minister 25 years ago equalled May subsequently but did better than her before 1992. Only Gordon Brown was lower than May. Of course May might improve her ratings from here on. IPSOS Mori figures.
An election is a competitive event. Given a choice between an incompetent and a mediocrity, you choose the mediocrity. However, Theresa May isn't quite seen as the gift from God that the Conservative party and some rampers on here make her out to be, although she is doing OK.
@Carlotta, that chart is historical hindsight and irrelevant.
Chestnut - how many days in the past five years has the "always on strike" tube been on strike?
Compare that with the privately run southern rail. Which is a big issue where I live (West Sussex). As is the chronic underfunding of the counties schools and the abject lack of investment in roads in the area. It was particularly galling when the funding for the Chichester bypass was withdrawn by the MP for Epsom in the same week that miraculously cash was made available to Surrey to avoid council tax hikes. I'm not predicting a swathe of seat losses in the area but Mrs May is very lucky her opponents are risible. That won't always be the case and there are plenty of lessons to be learnt from Labour wrt the consequences of taking ones core vote for granted.
Interesting polll, the 5% UKIP is a real interest, they arent standing in more than 50% of seats I hear, so what happens when the Kipper holds their crayon poised to mark the X and sees no UKIP - does it automatically go Tory?
Not all of it but about 75% do would be my fag packet guess.
Some people seem jolly keen on re-nationalising the energy companies and, depending on how you read it, such a proposal does seem to be contained in the (draft) Labour Manifesto. Fair enough. My question is how does the UK government go about nationalising a multi-billion pound company in this day and age, especially if it is foreign owned?
Expropriation is easier if one can write the laws without reference to restrictive EU laws.
Straight theft then? Such an action might possibly provoke a re-action, do you think? HMG needs to borrow lots of money from overseas and the amount needed will only increase under Labour's (draft) plans. Indeed the need for such an increase is specifically provided for under the plans for a Nation Investment Bank.
Forgive me, but I am not convinced that having had their assets stolen once investors, be they from overseas or UK pension funds or whatever, would be terribly ken to lend the UK any further money, at least not without a very substantial premium. Furthermore to stop the flood of money draining out the UK to safer havens HMG might well have to resort to currency controls, then we really would be back to the 1970s if not, after a few years, to the late 1940s.
Interesting polll, the 5% UKIP is a real interest, they arent standing in more than 50% of seats I hear, so what happens when the Kipper holds their crayon poised to mark the X and sees no UKIP - does it automatically go Tory?
QTWAIN.
May just as easily go Lib Dem ("none of the above"), Monster Raving Loony Party or other oddballs or spoil their ballot. If people who were saying really UKIP meant Conservative they would be saying Conservative. There is no reason to assume those saying UKIP mean anything other than what they're saying an no further inference can be made.
Some people seem jolly keen on re-nationalising the energy companies and, depending on how you read it, such a proposal does seem to be contained in the (draft) Labour Manifesto. Fair enough. My question is how does the UK government go about nationalising a multi-billion pound company in this day and age, especially if it is foreign owned?
This is 22nd June thinking. All things are possible with sovereignty.
(2) Voters aren't universally impressed by the strength and stability offered by TMT.
How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?
A question to be taken seriously, so poked around the IPSOS Mori archive as they have been asking essentially the same satisfaction question since the 1970's. Theresa May's ratings are good, but not unusually good. For example only 4% higher satisfaction than Cameron at the same point in his premiership.
Short answer "none".
OK. Taking your question literally: How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?Two: Blair by a big margin and Cameron by a whisker. Major who was prime minister 25 years ago equalled May subsequently but did better than her before 1992. Only Gordon Brown was lower than May. Of course May might improve her ratings from here on. IPSOS Mori figures.
That's not a like for like comparison. Blair at his height going into his first re-election campaign in 2001 was not polling 21% - we need to compare May now, to Blair [and others] then when they were leaders during their election campaign.
It doesn't really matter how Blair is viewed now, he's not on the ballot paper now.
But May is, and we are where we are.
Thinking about the following Prime Ministers, do you think they are or were...
Assuming the YouGov London poll is accurate - showing Labour 5 points ahead of the Tories, the latest National poll with underweight London showing Labour 11 points ahead may be flattering Labour.....
Some people seem jolly keen on re-nationalising the energy companies and, depending on how you read it, such a proposal does seem to be contained in the (draft) Labour Manifesto. Fair enough. My question is how does the UK government go about nationalising a multi-billion pound company in this day and age, especially if it is foreign owned?
This is 22nd June thinking. All things are possible with sovereignty.
So nationalise EDF against its will and the trans Channel supply of electricity from France fails on the first cold day?
Under Corbyn, about 95% would have their lives made worse.
All the talk about the nice things spending will buy is irrelevant. The kind of Britain Labour wants is one where private business will be much diminished, we are likely to see a brain drain, and tax receipts will be miserable whilst spending soars. The idea that 95% will be no worse off, even if only in tax terms, is laughable.
Sounds like Brexit to me. Except for the spending.
We are going through the event horizon of Brexit at the moment, yes, which is disruptive, yes, because it will lead to a change in our economic model and trading networks. But ultimately, equilibrium will be reached again - be it in 2,5 or 8 years.
However, that isn't the same as pursuing intrinsically suicidal domestic economic policies as part of a visionary policy agenda.
Hmmm - it depends what kind of Brexit we have, really. Take the brain drain - UK universities, the fintech sector and the life science sector stand to be deeply damaged by or EU withdrawal. Restoring the equilibrium in those industries and others will be extremely tough once our leadership positions are lost.
Likewise, if we have a rock hard Brexit or leave without a deal, the high-skilled, well-paid jobs that currently exist in manufacturing and other sectors that depend on EU supply chains and EU sales will quickly go. And once they go, why would they come back?
Put another way, many parts of the country have still to recover from the end of heavy industry that took place in the 1980s. Once something goes, there is absolutely no guarantee that what comes next will replace it like for like and deliver improved living standards.
What are the odds that the Tories hit a majority of the vote either as a total or in England alone?
Has to be a reasonable chance. 46-49% seems to be their polling average. Take away NI and that's 45-48
Historically the polls have undershot the Tories by about 2-3%. May not be the case this time but if they do that's 47-51%
Polls give ~5% to UKIP but if they're not in half the constituencies then that's 2.5% to be redirected. If even 40% of that goes blue then that means possibly 48-52% for the Tories.
For England alone I'd estimate that is 50-54%, or 48-51 if we don't take into account traditional underpolling of the Tories.
There hasn't been a government in my lifetime that has got the majority of the votes and I never thought there would be, but it seems possible this year.
Interesting polll, the 5% UKIP is a real interest, they arent standing in more than 50% of seats I hear, so what happens when the Kipper holds their crayon poised to mark the X and sees no UKIP - does it automatically go Tory?
They'll forget why they're there, then go home and watch Peppa Pig
(2) Voters aren't universally impressed by the strength and stability offered by TMT.
How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?
A question to be taken seriously, so poked around the IPSOS Mori archive as they have been asking essentially the same satisfaction question since the 1970's. Theresa May's ratings are good, but not unusually good. For example only 4% higher satisfaction than Cameron at the same point in his premiership.
Short answer "none".
OK. Taking your question literally: How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?Two: Blair by a big margin and Cameron by a whisker. Major who was prime minister 25 years ago equalled May subsequently but did better than her before 1992. Only Gordon Brown was lower than May. Of course May might improve her ratings from here on. IPSOS Mori figures.
That's not a like for like comparison. Blair at his height going into his first re-election campaign in 2001 was not polling 21% - we need to compare May now, to Blair [and others] then when they were leaders during their election campaign.
It doesn't really matter how Blair is viewed now, he's not on the ballot paper now.
But May is, and we are where we are.
Thinking about the following Prime Ministers, do you think they are or were...
So the May figure is meaningful but the other figures don't enlighten us at all. What's it meant to prove, that people wouldn't vote Blair today? So what he isn't on the ballot today. He was in the ballot in 2001 and won handsomely then because he was popular then. If you want to make a reasonable comparison take May today and Blair 2001 and then compare. Or take Corbyn today and Hague 2001 and compare.
The difference with the 2015 election is that there is more evidence this time ofan allegiance between Labour, Lib Dem and Green working together to defeat Conservatives in some constituencies.
The symbolism of this in just a few constituencies will cut through and put off tribal Labour, Lib Dem and Green voting for the so called progressive alliance candidate and put off many Labour, Lib Dem and Green supporters from their own party.
In particular it is madness for the Lib Dems to allign with Corbyn Labour and Green since they should be targetting Conservative remainers.
(2) Voters aren't universally impressed by the strength and stability offered by TMT.
How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?
A question to be taken seriously, so poked around the IPSOS Mori archive as they have been asking essentially the same satisfaction question since the 1970's. Theresa May's ratings are good, but not unusually good. For example only 4% higher satisfaction than Cameron at the same point in his premiership.
Short answer "none".
OK. Taking your question literally: How many PMs in the last 25 years have had better ratings?Two: Blair by a big margin and Cameron by a whisker. Major who was prime minister 25 years ago equalled May subsequently but did better than her before 1992. Only Gordon Brown was lower than May. Of course May might improve her ratings from here on. IPSOS Mori figures.
That's not a like for like comparison. Blair at his height going into his first re-election campaign in 2001 was not polling 21% - we need to compare May now, to Blair [and others] then when they were leaders during their election campaign.
It doesn't really matter how Blair is viewed now, he's not on the ballot paper now.
Pre Iraq War Blair was up with May and Thatcher which was why he won over 40% and majorities of more than 100 in 1997 and 2001 but post Iraq War Blair was worse than Cameron which was why he only got 35% in 2005 ie less than the 37% Cameron got in 2010 and 2015
Chestnut - how many days in the past five years has the "always on strike" tube been on strike?
Compare that with the privately run southern rail. Which is a big issue where I live (West Sussex). As is the chronic underfunding of the counties schools and the abject lack of investment in roads in the area. It was particularly galling when the funding for the Chichester bypass was withdrawn by the MP for Epsom in the same week that miraculously cash was made available to Surrey to avoid council tax hikes. I'm not predicting a swathe of seat losses in the area but Mrs May is very lucky her opponents are risible. That won't always be the case and there are plenty of lessons to be learnt from Labour wrt the consequences of taking ones core vote for granted.
Mr. Winter, I think it will be a cold day in hell before West Sussex returns anything but a Conservative dominated political class at local and MP levels. That said there is certainly an under current of discontent. You mention schools, for example.
The local councils, forced in some cases by HMG, have opened the taps on house building. There are new houses being thrown up just about everywhere, which of course increases the demand for school places. Herself has a little job helping out at the local infants school, intakes there used to be 30 children a year, is now 90, and it was planned to go up to 120 this September with the extra children to be taught in portacabins on the school playing field. The district council, having sanctioned the extra demand, has now refused permission for the portacabins, so the demand they created cannot now be met. Every school in the area, and especially infant and primary, is now packed solid - there are not enough places for all the children.
The same is true in other areas of infrastructure. Population is going up but medical provision is being cut, there are no new roads (save those on the new estates) being built, the railways at peak times are massively over crowded and so on and so forth. Some joined up thinking by the West Sussex politicians would be warmly welcomed. I am sure that exactly the same concerns exist in other parts of the SE.
This Labour manifesto. Bloody hell. Is it real? If it is the polls will move over the next few days. Makes the longest suicide note look positively sensible. Telegraph absolutely monstering it today.
Who reads the fucking Telegraph ?
I do.. The paper edition twice a week and online for free..
I also read the Grauniad, The D Mail, Th Mirros and the Sub.. the latter take 2 minutes each each. All on line.
The Telegraph has lots of faults. So do the rest.
I suspect you're a typical Left winger who cannot stand reading opinions that conflict with your beliefs... :-)
The Sun 1,666,715 Daily Mail 1,511,357 Metro (free) 1,476,956 The Sun on Sunday 1,375,539 The Mail on Sunday 1,257,984 London Evening Standard (free) 887,253 The Sunday Times 792,324 Daily Mirror 724,888 Sunday Mirror 629,277 The Daily Telegraph 472,258 The Times 451,261 Daily Star 443,452 Daily Express 392,526 The Sunday Telegraph 359,400 Sunday Express 335,772 i 266,768 Daily Star – Sunday 256,801 Sunday People 240,846 Financial Times 188,924 The Observer 185,752 Sunday Mail 168,164 The Guardian 156,756 Daily Record 155,772 Sunday Post 143,169 City AM (free) 90,319
Digital readership data also available at Press Gazette
So the May figure is meaningful but the other figures don't enlighten us at all. What's it meant to prove, that people wouldn't vote Blair today? So what he isn't on the ballot today. He was in the ballot in 2001 and won handsomely then because he was popular then. If you want to make a reasonable comparison take May today and Blair 2001 and then compare. Or take Corbyn today and Hague 2001 and compare.
I don't see the value in this sort of poll either. For a lot of the people asked, Thatcher is now an historical figure, who doesn't even feature in their lived experience. Major is also such a figure for quite a few too (makes me feel old!) but, in any event, is barely part of the political discourse today (nobody talks about "Major's children", "Major's legacy", or "heir to Major").
That isn't really comparable with Blair, Brown and Cameron, whose names are still regularly part of the discourse, but who aren't (I think) part of the history syllabus. And it certainly isn't comparable with May - we have no idea (yet) what sort of PM May will be, and it is merely a prospective judgment. When her political career ends in failure (as they inevitably do) and some years (quite a lot, I think) have passed, only then can we talk about legacy.
This isn't a criticism of May - and the polls comparing her with Corbyn as to who would be the best Prime Minister NOW tell a very clear story about this election. It's a criticism of a meaningless poll question.
Chestnut - how many days in the past five years has the "always on strike" tube been on strike?
Compare that with the privately run southern rail. Which is a big issue where I live (West Sussex). As is the chronic underfunding of the counties schools and the abject lack of investment in roads in the area. It was particularly galling when the funding for the Chichester bypass was withdrawn by the MP for Epsom in the same week that miraculously cash was made available to Surrey to avoid council tax hikes. I'm not predicting a swathe of seat losses in the area but Mrs May is very lucky her opponents are risible. That won't always be the case and there are plenty of lessons to be learnt from Labour wrt the consequences of taking ones core vote for granted.
Mr. Winter, I think it will be a cold day in hell before West Sussex returns anything but a Conservative dominated political class at local and MP levels. That said there is certainly an under current of discontent. You mention schools, for example.
The local councils, forced in some cases by HMG, have opened the taps on house building. There are new houses being thrown up just about everywhere, which of course increases the demand for school places. Herself has a little job helping out at the local infants school, intakes there used to be 30 children a year, is now 90, and it was planned to go up to 120 this September with the extra children to be taught in portacabins on the school playing field. The district council, having sanctioned the extra demand, has now refused permission for the portacabins, so the demand they created cannot now be met. Every school in the area, and especially infant and primary, is now packed solid - there are not enough places for all the children.
The same is true in other areas of infrastructure. Population is going up but medical provision is being cut, there are no new roads (save those on the new estates) being built, the railways at peak times are massively over crowded and so on and so forth. Some joined up thinking by the West Sussex politicians would be warmly welcomed. I am sure that exactly the same concerns exist in other parts of the SE.
That mirrors the experience in my part of Kent exactly. Lots of boxes for people to live in which are filled as fast as they are built, but no more (in some cases fewer) doctors, school places etc, and no investment in infrastructure or services.
Assuming we haven't left the EU by the time of the entry into Number 10 of JCICIPM, will EU law allow the execution of the fullness of his glorious manifesto?
Population is going up but medical provision is being cut, there are no new roads (save those on the new estates) being built, the railways at peak times are massively over crowded and so on and so forth.
The population has increased by about 2.5m - 3m people since 2010. Most are staying in London and the South. It's ridiculous.
This Labour manifesto. Bloody hell. Is it real? If it is the polls will move over the next few days. Makes the longest suicide note look positively sensible. Telegraph absolutely monstering it today.
Who reads the fucking Telegraph ?
I do.. The paper edition twice a week and online for free..
I also read the Grauniad, The D Mail, Th Mirros and the Sub.. the latter take 2 minutes each each. All on line.
The Telegraph has lots of faults. So do the rest.
I suspect you're a typical Left winger who cannot stand reading opinions that conflict with your beliefs... :-)
The Sun 1,666,715 Daily Mail 1,511,357 Metro (free) 1,476,956 The Sun on Sunday 1,375,539 The Mail on Sunday 1,257,984 London Evening Standard (free) 887,253 The Sunday Times 792,324 Daily Mirror 724,888 Sunday Mirror 629,277 The Daily Telegraph 472,258 The Times 451,261 Daily Star 443,452 Daily Express 392,526 The Sunday Telegraph 359,400 Sunday Express 335,772 i 266,768 Daily Star – Sunday 256,801 Sunday People 240,846 Financial Times 188,924 The Observer 185,752 Sunday Mail 168,164 The Guardian 156,756 Daily Record 155,772 Sunday Post 143,169 City AM (free) 90,319
Digital readership data also available at Press Gazette
Comments
NHSLABOUR PARTY!We've seen this before.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/11/voting-intention-conservatives-46-labour-30-9-10-m/
Clause V (4)
When not in Government the NEC, the Shadow
Cabinet, the Parliamentary Committee of the
Parliamentary Labour Party (‘PLP’) and the Chair and
three vice Chairs of the NPF shall decide which items
from the party programme shall be included in the
manifesto that shall be issued by the NEC prior to
every general election. The joint meeting shall also
define the attitude of the party to the principal
issues raised by the election which are not covered
by the manifesto
What is the opposite of "a bit previous"?
And it might well help Labour, not really against the Tories though.
And IMHO it was worth taking the risk now because the risk would only increase. It's blindingly obvious that the PLP aren't going to dislodge Mr Corbyn and the Conservatives can hardly sustain these polling levels for long.
But all this has been discussed in the early part of the thread & you've all moved on to other conversations.
Good morning to you all.
Tangentially one wonders why Corbyn hasn't reinstated Clause IV. "Because that would be bonkers" doesn't stop him doing stuff.
He would introduce the tax rises (yes) and they wouldn't raise anything like the money to pay for those commitments, so what would happen is the deficit would balloon and we'd enter a funding crisis. That would be exacerbated by a fall-off in inward investment and private enterprise. Strikes would increase, and the quality of service provided by the newly nationalised utilities deteriorate as they became captured by producer rather than consumer interests.
Meanwhile, immigration would run unchecked inward, a brain drain might also occur outward, and the armed forces would be run down, leading to a reduction in Britain's global influence. Northern Ireland and Scottish nationalists would try to take advantage of his naivety, as would the UK's enemies both internal (domestic security against terrorism) and worldwide (rogue states and competing foreign powers).
Ultimately, he'd be thrown out, and a much poorer British populace would ache for the return of any Government that could sort out the mess.
Although I do wonder why they don't say " today".
Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn has denied that he would reinstate clause IV of the Labour party constitution, which committed the party to nationalising industry and was scrapped by Tony Blair 20 years ago.
Corbyn provoked criticism from his Labour leadership rivals when he seemed to suggest in an interview with the Independent on Sunday that he would be open to restoring the clause as it was originally written, arguing that the party needed to make a clear commitment to public ownership of industry.
But a spokesperson from his campaign said Corbyn was not saying he wanted a return to “the old clause IV” and that he did not want “a big ‘moment’ such as that”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/09/jeremy-corbyn-denies-would-bring-back-clause-iv
Ah, August 2015 - it was a more innocent and less fraught time.
However, that isn't the same as pursuing intrinsically suicidal domestic economic policies as part of a visionary policy agenda.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/862573012566110208
Also, once the postal votes have been issued, asking how someone intends to vote on June 8 becomes an exit poll for PV voters who've returned their ballot and as such would be embargoed.
It's not been a conspicuous success.
https://twitter.com/ThatMattSpencer/status/862614331938283520
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tube-strike-2017-cost-to-londons-economy-tops-500m-after-latest-strike-business-leaders-predict-a3473321.html
It doesn't really matter how Blair is viewed now, he's not on the ballot paper now.
Likewise, if we have a rock hard Brexit or leave without a deal, the high-skilled, well-paid jobs that currently exist in manufacturing and other sectors that depend on EU supply chains and EU sales will quickly go. And once they go, why would they come back?
@Carlotta, that chart is historical hindsight and irrelevant.
As is the chronic underfunding of the counties schools and the abject lack of investment in roads in the area. It was particularly galling when the funding for the Chichester bypass was withdrawn by the MP for Epsom in the same week that miraculously cash was made available to Surrey to avoid council tax hikes.
I'm not predicting a swathe of seat losses in the area but Mrs May is very lucky her opponents are risible. That won't always be the case and there are plenty of lessons to be learnt from Labour wrt the consequences of taking ones core vote for granted.
Forgive me, but I am not convinced that having had their assets stolen once investors, be they from overseas or UK pension funds or whatever, would be terribly ken to lend the UK any further money, at least not without a very substantial premium. Furthermore to stop the flood of money draining out the UK to safer havens HMG might well have to resort to currency controls, then we really would be back to the 1970s if not, after a few years, to the late 1940s.
May just as easily go Lib Dem ("none of the above"), Monster Raving Loony Party or other oddballs or spoil their ballot. If people who were saying really UKIP meant Conservative they would be saying Conservative. There is no reason to assume those saying UKIP mean anything other than what they're saying an no further inference can be made.
'Voter registration soars to 90% among students with 55% backing Labour'
That's the easy bit, will a third of that number actually bother to vote?
Thinking about the following Prime Ministers, do you think they are or were...
Net 'Great/Good'
May: +13
Cameron: -14
Brown: -44
Blair: -25
Major: -16
Thatcher: +16
Next.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/labour-manifesto-pledges-to-restore-tom-baker-as-doctor-who-20170511127458
Has to be a reasonable chance. 46-49% seems to be their polling average. Take away NI and that's 45-48
Historically the polls have undershot the Tories by about 2-3%. May not be the case this time but if they do that's 47-51%
Polls give ~5% to UKIP but if they're not in half the constituencies then that's 2.5% to be redirected. If even 40% of that goes blue then that means possibly 48-52% for the Tories.
For England alone I'd estimate that is 50-54%, or 48-51 if we don't take into account traditional underpolling of the Tories.
There hasn't been a government in my lifetime that has got the majority of the votes and I never thought there would be, but it seems possible this year.
The symbolism of this in just a few constituencies will cut through and put off tribal Labour, Lib Dem and Green voting for the so called progressive alliance candidate and put off many Labour, Lib Dem and Green supporters from their own party.
In particular it is madness for the Lib Dems to allign with Corbyn Labour and Green since they should be targetting Conservative remainers.
The local councils, forced in some cases by HMG, have opened the taps on house building. There are new houses being thrown up just about everywhere, which of course increases the demand for school places. Herself has a little job helping out at the local infants school, intakes there used to be 30 children a year, is now 90, and it was planned to go up to 120 this September with the extra children to be taught in portacabins on the school playing field. The district council, having sanctioned the extra demand, has now refused permission for the portacabins, so the demand they created cannot now be met. Every school in the area, and especially infant and primary, is now packed solid - there are not enough places for all the children.
The same is true in other areas of infrastructure. Population is going up but medical provision is being cut, there are no new roads (save those on the new estates) being built, the railways at peak times are massively over crowded and so on and so forth. Some joined up thinking by the West Sussex politicians would be warmly welcomed. I am sure that exactly the same concerns exist in other parts of the SE.
Newspaper circulations Jan 17 (print) at http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/
The Sun 1,666,715
Daily Mail 1,511,357
Metro (free) 1,476,956
The Sun on Sunday 1,375,539
The Mail on Sunday 1,257,984
London Evening Standard (free) 887,253
The Sunday Times 792,324
Daily Mirror 724,888
Sunday Mirror 629,277
The Daily Telegraph 472,258
The Times 451,261
Daily Star 443,452
Daily Express 392,526
The Sunday Telegraph 359,400
Sunday Express 335,772
i 266,768
Daily Star – Sunday 256,801
Sunday People 240,846
Financial Times 188,924
The Observer 185,752
Sunday Mail 168,164
The Guardian 156,756
Daily Record 155,772
Sunday Post 143,169
City AM (free) 90,319
Digital readership data also available at Press Gazette
That isn't really comparable with Blair, Brown and Cameron, whose names are still regularly part of the discourse, but who aren't (I think) part of the history syllabus. And it certainly isn't comparable with May - we have no idea (yet) what sort of PM May will be, and it is merely a prospective judgment. When her political career ends in failure (as they inevitably do) and some years (quite a lot, I think) have passed, only then can we talk about legacy.
This isn't a criticism of May - and the polls comparing her with Corbyn as to who would be the best Prime Minister NOW tell a very clear story about this election. It's a criticism of a meaningless poll question.
NEW THREAD