For all of the boffins out there - if the Tories did replicate 1992 and achieved 14 million votes - how would that translate into seats?
How many million are we giving to Corbyn ?
Hhmmm I'll be generous and give Labour 8 million.
CON 407 LAB 166 L DEM 7 UKIP 0 GREEN 1 SNP 47 PLAID 3 OTHER 1
would be my guess on those figures.
That looks about right to me. So it's 1997 all over again, not 1992. My mistake.
Just looking at the election figures on wikipedia, it is astonishing to see the seats to votes proportionality in 97 and 01. Massive advantages to Labour, which appear to have almost disappeared.
When the Tories implement the boundary changes, Labour's once mighty electoral advantage will be completely extinct. Chortles!!
Is this complete, because there are only 288 UKIP candidates...
it's confirmed for me that they are standing in rochdale which is what I've been trying to find out, thanks.
Are you betting in that particular tar pit ?
Danczuk when he was 12-1 was OK I think, but a market for the very brave in my opinion...
I have a small investment on the Blues, hoping for a favourable split in the opposition.
Yes, was thinking the same. If Danczuk standing as an Indy splits the red vote, the blues could conceivably come through the middle. I guess the key if he is actually going to campaign, or figured that a £500 deposit was a good price to pay for three months' Parliamentary salary as a redundancy payment?
The conservatives really do need to up their game because I feel Jeremy Corbyn is going to hog the headlines "again".
I think the opposite. His views will horrify the vast majority of every right thinking person in this country, and bashing America will not appeal to anyone outside of his personal core vote.
Plenty of people like the idea of standing up to america, even if they are not as overtly anti-american as Corbyn. The Tories are being complacent, assuming people will automatically dislike anything Corbyn says because he is the one saying it. I don't doubt he will find it harder to get a message across because he is not trusted or liked, but at the moment he is not making gaffes, he personally seems reasonable and affable when speaking, and he is moderating what he says to appear reasonable.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn.
I didn't say that. But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date, and in terms of firming up the Labour vote that could be the difference in plenty of seats. Appearing more reasonable may not win him many extra votes, because he is not trusted or liked, but there is a battle over whether Labour voters will turnout and how many might dislike him enough to vote for someone else. If the Tories give him a free hand those people might give him a chance, and that could be the difference between a bad night and a disastrous night.
I'm sure the Tories have loads lined up against him, and I'm not voting for any Labour candidate at any level while Corbyn is leader, but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.
'...But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date,'
I think we both know that is wishful thinking, especially if the pollsters are overestimating Labour again - and I believe they are. 30% is above what Brown got and only a fraction below Miliband's performance. It does not seem credible to me that Corbyn is doing that well.
'...but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.'
Here's where I completely disagree. I think they are underestimating.
I stick by what I said - 1992 all over again, without Labour's massively disproportionate electoral advantage.
It has been a good week for Corbyn. Media and public criticism of May for avoiding journalists and punters, then Labour cleverly leaking its own manifesto to make its content more of a story, and the content has been reasonably well received. (The BBC seem to have been surprised by this.) The overall narrative is still Loony Lefties v Terrific Theresa, but it's progress at least. Labour might still scrape 30% of the votes. The Tories and Mail will push the "Labour is too dangerous to vote for" message but that's not exactly new, and it had some, but somewhat limited, effect in the past.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
It's bad enough with Labour wanting to take us back to the politics of the 1970's. You want to take us back to the politics of the 1930's for heaven's sake.
In what way are they seeking to take us back to the 1970s?
Giving power to the Unions. Clueless management of the country. Uncosted spending. The 1976 IMF crisis (where we took the largest loan from the IMF that had been requested up to that time)
I lived through it and it was not pretty.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
Oh......
The point is that the Daily Mail has a longstanding hitory of rightwing extremism and is no more to be trusted for objective reporting than the Morning Star.
Saying that might be relevant, pointing to how it does it today. Bringing something from 80 years ago to make the point, suggesting that in effect they are no different now than then, would be duplicitous bullshit.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
Oh......
The point is that the Daily Mail has a longstanding hitory of rightwing extremism and is no more to be trusted for objective reporting than the Morning Star.
Who reads the Daily Mail for objective reporting though? If people want objective reporting they mostly go to the BBC (which is why the Beeb is still the most trusted news outlet. I'm not particularly a fan of BBC journalism but there's no doubt that people trust it). What they want from the Mail is entertainment.
Besides, complaining the Mail is biased against Corbyn is stating the blindingly obvious. It's like complaining the tide is coming in. If team Corbyn tried that people would just point and laugh.
For all of the boffins out there - if the Tories did replicate 1992 and achieved 14 million votes - how would that translate into seats?
How many million are we giving to Corbyn ?
Hhmmm I'll be generous and give Labour 8 million.
CON 407 LAB 166 L DEM 7 UKIP 0 GREEN 1 SNP 47 PLAID 3 OTHER 1
would be my guess on those figures.
That looks about right to me. So it's 1997 all over again, not 1992. My mistake.
Just looking at the election figures on wikipedia, it is astonishing to see the seats to votes proportionality in 97 and 01. Massive advantages to Labour, which appear to have almost disappeared.
When the Tories implement the boundary changes, Labour's once mighty electoral advantage will be completely extinct. Chortles!!
At least we will no longer hear about how the boundary changes will never happen due to the size of the majority.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
Oh......
The point is that the Daily Mail has a longstanding hitory of rightwing extremism and is no more to be trusted for objective reporting than the Morning Star.
Justin listen just please keep going. Don't be put off by all the PB Tories. I for one am fascinated by what makes a real live Corbynista tick so anything that you post is of huge interest.
Out of interest, do you think the manifesto spending commitments will be matched by the announced tax increases? If not are you happy for the deficit to increase? The Cons have all but abandoned austerity so I would be interested to know your views.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
It's bad enough with Labour wanting to take us back to the politics of the 1970's. You want to take us back to the politics of the 1930's for heaven's sake.
In what way are they seeking to take us back to the 1970s?
Giving power to the Unions. Clueless management of the country. Uncosted spending. The 1976 IMF crisis (where we took the largest loan from the IMF that had been requested up to that time)
I lived through it and it was not pretty.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
It's bad enough with Labour wanting to take us back to the politics of the 1970's. You want to take us back to the politics of the 1930's for heaven's sake.
In what way are they seeking to take us back to the 1970s?
Giving power to the Unions. Clueless management of the country. Uncosted spending. The 1976 IMF crisis (where we took the largest loan from the IMF that had been requested up to that time)
I lived through it and it was not pretty.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Amusingly, the 1974-9 Labour government was also the only government since the War to actually cut public spending.
Well, once again with Corbyn his headline message 'Force is sometimes needed as a last resort, but UK shouldn't just toe the US line' is something that superficially will appeal to a great many people. He's having a good campaign so far, insofar as his own discipline at least, though I doubt he's making inroads, and that the uptick is more to do with Labour returners in support of the brand more than anything else.
I wrote a blog about the issue today which has had a good response so far:
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
That was a long long time ago for heaven's sake. When most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead, who cares? If someone tells me the Mail is a hotbed of extremist and offensive nonsense, that's relevant, but because is supported Osward Mosley? What does that have to do with anything today?
"when most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead ..."
Most?! It was 80 years and more ago. I would have thought that not only are all those involved dead but that they died well before many people posting on PBC were even born.
Well, I didn't want to rule out some long lived intern. Some of these fascists last a long time.
No need for interns: you could leave school at 14 then - and quite probably some very junior roles were filled by boys of that age. Even if they were, they'd be 97 or 98 now (and of course, would have been 17 or 18 in September 1939, with all the risks that implies.
Except they won't all go to the Tories, a lot will return to Labour or not vote at all.
That's why not all those seats will be a severe risk for Labour. But take Bishop Auckland, if half the UKIP votes goes Tory, say a quarter to LAB and a quarter stay at home, the Tories have a great chance if they have upped their support even slightly and Lab staying still.
Now, nationally that seems a reasonable guess at proportions and where the party support stands, and it might be different in that seat, but it means its fair to suggest most of those seats are viable targets for Tories at the least.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
Oh......
The point is that the Daily Mail has a longstanding hitory of rightwing extremism and is no more to be trusted for objective reporting than the Morning Star.
Justin listen just please keep going. Don't be put off by all the PB Tories. I for one am fascinated by what makes a real live Corbynista tick so anything that you post is of huge interest.
Out of interest, do you think the manifesto spending commitments will be matched by the announced tax increases? If not are you happy for the deficit to increase? The Cons have all but abandoned austerity so I would be interested to know your views.
I wouldn't say abandoned, the deficit is still dropping.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
It's bad enough with Labour wanting to take us back to the politics of the 1970's. You want to take us back to the politics of the 1930's for heaven's sake.
In what way are they seeking to take us back to the 1970s?
Giving power to the Unions. Clueless management of the country. Uncosted spending. The 1976 IMF crisis (where we took the largest loan from the IMF that had been requested up to that time)
I lived through it and it was not pretty.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
For all of the boffins out there - if the Tories did replicate 1992 and achieved 14 million votes - how would that translate into seats?
How many million are we giving to Corbyn ?
Hhmmm I'll be generous and give Labour 8 million.
CON 407 LAB 166 L DEM 7 UKIP 0 GREEN 1 SNP 47 PLAID 3 OTHER 1
would be my guess on those figures.
That looks about right to me. So it's 1997 all over again, not 1992. My mistake.
Just looking at the election figures on wikipedia, it is astonishing to see the seats to votes proportionality in 97 and 01. Massive advantages to Labour, which appear to have almost disappeared.
When the Tories implement the boundary changes, Labour's once mighty electoral advantage will be completely extinct. Chortles!!
At least we will no longer hear about how the boundary changes will never happen due to the size of the majority.
The boundary changes actually get more politically difficult now surely? A load of retirements have happened now, before the changes take effect, and with more Tories to accommodate the promise that every existing MP who wants one can get a seat with a notional majority becomes a lot more tricky for the whips to arrange.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Is he going to have a go at Barclays for facilitating slavery as well?
If Barclays were to become actively involved in the campaign , it would be entirely reasonable to throw such stuff back at them.
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
Oh......
The point is that the Daily Mail has a longstanding hitory of rightwing extremism and is no more to be trusted for objective reporting than the Morning Star.
Justin listen just please keep going. Don't be put off by all the PB Tories. I for one am fascinated by what makes a real live Corbynista tick so anything that you post is of huge interest.
Out of interest, do you think the manifesto spending commitments will be matched by the announced tax increases? If not are you happy for the deficit to increase? The Cons have all but abandoned austerity so I would be interested to know your views.
I wouldn't say abandoned, the deficit is still dropping.
True. Postponed shall we say, or watered down due to circumstances dictated by 17.4m people.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
That was a long long time ago for heaven's sake. When most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead, who cares? If someone tells me the Mail is a hotbed of extremist and offensive nonsense, that's relevant, but because is supported Osward Mosley? What does that have to do with anything today?
"when most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead ..."
Most?! It was 80 years and more ago. I would have thought that not only are all those involved dead but that they died well before many people posting on PBC were even born.
Well, I didn't want to rule out some long lived intern. Some of these fascists last a long time.
No need for interns: you could leave school at 14 then - and quite probably some very junior roles were filled by boys of that age. Even if they were, they'd be 97 or 98 now (and of course, would have been 17 or 18 in September 1939, with all the risks that implies.
And if they were 17 or 18 in 1939 then there's a decent chance their war service would more than make up for their pre-war Nazi tea-making activities.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
It's bad enough with Labour wanting to take us back to the politics of the 1970's. You want to take us back to the politics of the 1930's for heaven's sake.
In what way are they seeking to take us back to the 1970s?
Giving power to the Unions. Clueless management of the country. Uncosted spending. The 1976 IMF crisis (where we took the largest loan from the IMF that had been requested up to that time)
I lived through it and it was not pretty.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
For all of the boffins out there - if the Tories did replicate 1992 and achieved 14 million votes - how would that translate into seats?
How many million are we giving to Corbyn ?
Hhmmm I'll be generous and give Labour 8 million.
CON 407 LAB 166 L DEM 7 UKIP 0 GREEN 1 SNP 47 PLAID 3 OTHER 1
would be my guess on those figures.
That looks about right to me. So it's 1997 all over again, not 1992. My mistake.
Just looking at the election figures on wikipedia, it is astonishing to see the seats to votes proportionality in 97 and 01. Massive advantages to Labour, which appear to have almost disappeared.
When the Tories implement the boundary changes, Labour's once mighty electoral advantage will be completely extinct. Chortles!!
I'm not entirely sure she will implement with a very large majority. Although proportionally the review takes out more Labour than Tory, with the sort of imbalance of seats you're talking about, the musical chairs inevitably takes out a LOT of Tory MPs - more, I suspect, than Labour. It all suddenly becomes much less attractive if you look around and see the prospect of four colleagues scrapping for selection to three seats.
For all of the boffins out there - if the Tories did replicate 1992 and achieved 14 million votes - how would that translate into seats?
How many million are we giving to Corbyn ?
Hhmmm I'll be generous and give Labour 8 million.
CON 407 LAB 166 L DEM 7 UKIP 0 GREEN 1 SNP 47 PLAID 3 OTHER 1
would be my guess on those figures.
That looks about right to me. So it's 1997 all over again, not 1992. My mistake.
Just looking at the election figures on wikipedia, it is astonishing to see the seats to votes proportionality in 97 and 01. Massive advantages to Labour, which appear to have almost disappeared.
When the Tories implement the boundary changes, Labour's once mighty electoral advantage will be completely extinct. Chortles!!
At least we will no longer hear about how the boundary changes will never happen due to the size of the majority.
The boundary changes actually get more politically difficult now surely? A load of retirements have happened now, before the changes take effect, and with more Tories to accommodate the promise that every existing MP who wants one can get a seat with a notional majority becomes a lot more tricky for the whips to arrange.
As long as the size of the majority is larger than the number of Con seats lost I don't see it being a problem.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
It's bad enough with Labour wanting to take us back to the politics of the 1970's. You want to take us back to the politics of the 1930's for heaven's sake.
In what way are they seeking to take us back to the 1970s?
Giving power to the Unions. Clueless management of the country. Uncosted spending. The 1976 IMF crisis (where we took the largest loan from the IMF that had been requested up to that time)
I lived through it and it was not pretty.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Wasn't Labour bequeathed a surplus in 97?
No it was not - the last Budget Surplus under a Tory Government was in the late 1980s when North Sea Oil revenues were at their peak and Privatisation receipts were flowing.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
"However" the General continued, "I have developed a strategy that I believe you will find is sufficiently eco-friendly. The XI Panzer will move forward by bicycle on the left flank, the SS Mountain Corps will take the right flank using public transport - there is still a regular bus service from Lűbben after 10 o'clock- and we will sent a small diversionary unit through the forest. But I must spell out one important message for them: keep to the paths and no shooting!".
For all of the boffins out there - if the Tories did replicate 1992 and achieved 14 million votes - how would that translate into seats?
How many million are we giving to Corbyn ?
Hhmmm I'll be generous and give Labour 8 million.
CON 407 LAB 166 L DEM 7 UKIP 0 GREEN 1 SNP 47 PLAID 3 OTHER 1
would be my guess on those figures.
That looks about right to me. So it's 1997 all over again, not 1992. My mistake.
Just looking at the election figures on wikipedia, it is astonishing to see the seats to votes proportionality in 97 and 01. Massive advantages to Labour, which appear to have almost disappeared.
When the Tories implement the boundary changes, Labour's once mighty electoral advantage will be completely extinct. Chortles!!
I'm not entirely sure she will implement with a very large majority. Although proportionally the review takes out more Labour than Tory, with the sort of imbalance of seats you're talking about, the musical chairs inevitably takes out a LOT of Tory MPs - more, I suspect, than Labour. It all suddenly becomes much less attractive if you look around and see the prospect of four colleagues scrapping for selection to three seats.
Putting aside the reduction of seat numbers, there just had to be a boundary review. The current ones are getting rather old.
Is this complete, because there are only 288 UKIP candidates...
it's confirmed for me that they are standing in rochdale which is what I've been trying to find out, thanks.
Are you betting in that particular tar pit ?
Danczuk when he was 12-1 was OK I think, but a market for the very brave in my opinion...
I have a small investment on the Blues, hoping for a favourable split in the opposition.
Yes, was thinking the same. If Danczuk standing as an Indy splits the red vote, the blues could conceivably come through the middle. I guess the key if he is actually going to campaign, or figured that a £500 deposit was a good price to pay for three months' Parliamentary salary as a redundancy payment?
I was hoping he wants to cause his former bosses as much trouble as possible. I'm on at 6/1 and labour are currently 2/5 so I can back that side too depending on how things look like they're panning out.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
"However" the General continued, "I have developed a strategy that I believe you will find is sufficiently eco-friendly. The XI Panzer will move forward by bicycle on the left flank, the SS Mountain Corps will take the right flank using public transport - there is still a regular bus service from Lűbben after 10 o'clock- and we will sent a small diversionary unit through the forest. But I must spell out one important message for them: keep to the paths and no shooting!".
I'm not entirely sure she will implement with a very large majority. Although proportionally the review takes out more Labour than Tory, with the sort of imbalance of seats you're talking about, the musical chairs inevitably takes out a LOT of Tory MPs - more, I suspect, than Labour. It all suddenly becomes much less attractive if you look around and see the prospect of four colleagues scrapping for selection to three seats.
A large majority nullifies both the Anna Soubrys and the Phillip Davies of the Tory party, control becomes alot easier - as to whether the boundary review is passed, I think it needs the Tories to explicitly stop it. Perhaps a return to 650 seats (Bearing in mind we'll have no MEPs soon so extra workload for MPs anyway) will be in the manifesto.
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
I disagree. I think it's about pumping up the richer and nastier Tory activists, by playing the "don't let the bearded commie oiks take away our fun" and "let's kill sentimentalism and the Labour party forever" card. The kind of cap doffer working class person who might be persuaded to vote Tory by Theresa May's support for foxhunting probably wouldn't dream of voting Labour.
Or it could possibly be a cockup, as SirNorfolkPassmore says.
I could make a killer Labour broadcast:
FILM OF THERESA MAY SAYING "You know what some people call us – the Nasty Party."
CUT TO A REDCOAT CARRYING THE TWITCHING BODY OF A SAVAGED FOX soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
CUT TO A CHILD AT A FOXHUNT WITH BLOOD SMEARED ON ITS FACE soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
I could make a killer Tory broadcast
FILM OF Jeremy Corbyn SAYING "You know we oppose immigration controls and want a multicultural Britain"
CUT TO A newspaper article saying "at least 1400 young children were abused at Rotherham and the Local Labour Party and Labour MP and Labour council not only did nothing but turned a blind eyes to all complaints"
Cut to the picture of a young child in distress with caption "Failed by Labour's multicultrism"
Of course, the Labour Party appear to be more concerned about teh lives of foxes than young children in the UK..
There you are.. which would resonate betetr?
Whilst you're talking about turning a blind eye - PB's crime correspondents, always on the lookout for child abuse stories, seem to have missed this story this week:
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
A huge misapprehension about hunting is that it is toffs in red coats. 90% of a typical field in a typical hunt will be normal people.
But you are getting dangerously close to pointing out the facts there with that observation.
The Banwen Miners Hunt are called that for a reason. And I agree - barring the Beaufort on a Saturday most hunts are well under 50% toff, and that includes the mounted field. I hunt with my builder, my tree surgeon and the lady behind the till at the local petrol station.
And without wishing to throw anyone else to the wolves, do these people not know about organized pheasant shooting? Harmless birds bred solely to be shot in numbers of 100s per day (more than most hunts killed foxes per season when they killed foxes), the remains sold to go in tinned cat food if they get utilised at all, and the cost of a day beyond anyone without a hedge fund.
There maybe shoots as your describe, Mr. Z, but they are far from the majority. I, and my son once he was old enough, used to beat for the local shoot and none of the birds went to waste let alone cat food. Once the guns had taken what they wanted the rest was divided amongst the beaters and it was a rare Saturday in the season that I did not come home with a brace of pheasants for Sunday lunch three weeks later. On the odd occasion that there was a surplus the local butcher would always buy them and sell them on for a profit.
As to harmless birds being bred solely to be killed, what is the difference between a pheasant and a male sheep or beef cattle? Breeding animals for slaughter is what a lot of farming is all about. The pheasant, if it is shot, probably has a swifter and more merciful end than do those cuddly baa-lambs.
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
A huge misapprehension about hunting is that it is toffs in red coats. 90% of a typical field in a typical hunt will be normal people.
But you are getting dangerously close to pointing out the facts there with that observation.
The Banwen Miners Hunt are called that for a reason. And I agree - barring the Beaufort on a Saturday most hunts are well under 50% toff, and that includes the mounted field. I hunt with my builder, my tree surgeon and the lady behind the till at the local petrol station.
And without wishing to throw anyone else to the wolves, do these people not know about organized pheasant shooting? Harmless birds bred solely to be shot in numbers of 100s per day (more than most hunts killed foxes per season when they killed foxes), the remains sold to go in tinned cat food if they get utilised at all, and the cost of a day beyond anyone without a hedge fund.
There maybe shoots as your describe, Mr. Z, but they are far from the majority. I, and my son once he was old enough, used to beat for the local shoot and none of the birds went to waste let alone cat food. Once the guns had taken what they wanted the rest was divided amongst the beaters and it was a rare Saturday in the season that I did not come home with a brace of pheasants for Sunday lunch three weeks later. On the odd occasion that there was a surplus the local butcher would always buy them and sell them on for a profit.
As to harmless birds being bred solely to be killed, what is the difference between a pheasant and a male sheep or beef cattle? Breeding animals for slaughter is what a lot of farming is all about. The pheasant, if it is shot, probably has a swifter and more merciful end than do those cuddly baa-lambs.
You're kidding about the shoots, right? Shoots bury thousands of birds every season.
I know this is off topic but it may be of interest to those who fly regularly
I received an e mail from BA introducing their bag collection service from London Hotels. I booked the service for my wife and I and they called at our Hotel and effectively performed the departure check in bag drop, providing e mail confirmation and text updates.
We went to Heathrow later and went straight through security and into the lounge for 3 hours before going to the gate. While in the lounge I received a text confirmation of the hand over of the bags to BA and their luggage receipt numbers.
When we arrived in Vancouver the bags came safely off the carousel.
It was a great service and saved us the hastle of waiting for the bag drop desk to open and we only needed to look after our cabin bags. At our age every little helps.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn.
I didn't say that. But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date, and in terms of firming up the Labour vote that could be the difference in plenty of seats. Appearing more reasonable may not win him many extra votes, because he is not trusted or liked, but there is a battle over whether Labour voters will turnout and how many might dislike him enough to vote for someone else. If the Tories give him a free hand those people might give him a chance, and that could be the difference between a bad night and a disastrous night.
I'm sure the Tories have loads lined up against him, and I'm not voting for any Labour candidate at any level while Corbyn is leader, but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.
'...But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date,'
I think we both know that is wishful thinking, especially if the pollsters are overestimating Labour again - and I believe they are. 30% is above what Brown got and only a fraction below Miliband's performance. It does not seem credible to me that Corbyn is doing that well.
'...but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.'
Here's where I completely disagree. I think they are underestimating.
I stick by what I said - 1992 all over again, without Labour's massively disproportionate electoral advantage.
It has been a good week for Corbyn. Media and public criticism of May for avoiding journalists and punters, then Labour cleverly leaking its own manifesto to make its content more of a story, and the content has been reasonably well received. (The BBC seem to have been surprised by this.) The overall narrative is still Loony Lefties v Terrific Theresa, but it's progress at least. Labour might still scrape 30% of the votes. The Tories and Mail will push the "Labour is too dangerous to vote for" message but that's not exactly new, and it had some, but somewhat limited, effect in the past.
For all of the boffins out there - if the Tories did replicate 1992 and achieved 14 million votes - how would that translate into seats?
How many million are we giving to Corbyn ?
Hhmmm I'll be generous and give Labour 8 million.
CON 407 LAB 166 L DEM 7 UKIP 0 GREEN 1 SNP 47 PLAID 3 OTHER 1
would be my guess on those figures.
That looks about right to me. So it's 1997 all over again, not 1992. My mistake.
Just looking at the election figures on wikipedia, it is astonishing to see the seats to votes proportionality in 97 and 01. Massive advantages to Labour, which appear to have almost disappeared.
When the Tories implement the boundary changes, Labour's once mighty electoral advantage will be completely extinct. Chortles!!
At least we will no longer hear about how the boundary changes will never happen due to the size of the majority.
The boundary changes actually get more politically difficult now surely? A load of retirements have happened now, before the changes take effect, and with more Tories to accommodate the promise that every existing MP who wants one can get a seat with a notional majority becomes a lot more tricky for the whips to arrange.
As long as the size of the majority is larger than the number of Con seats lost I don't see it being a problem.
But there will still be places with six MPs fighting for five seats. - from 400 MPs there could well be around 35 retirements needed and a lot of the oldies have gone at this election.
Needs to happen though, the old boundaries are a decade and a half out of date.
For all of the boffins out there - if the Tories did replicate 1992 and achieved 14 million votes - how would that translate into seats?
How many million are we giving to Corbyn ?
Hhmmm I'll be generous and give Labour 8 million.
CON 407 LAB 166 L DEM 7 UKIP 0 GREEN 1 SNP 47 PLAID 3 OTHER 1
would be my guess on those figures.
That looks about right to me. So it's 1997 all over again, not 1992. My mistake.
Just looking at the election figures on wikipedia, it is astonishing to see the seats to votes proportionality in 97 and 01. Massive advantages to Labour, which appear to have almost disappeared.
When the Tories implement the boundary changes, Labour's once mighty electoral advantage will be completely extinct. Chortles!!
At least we will no longer hear about how the boundary changes will never happen due to the size of the majority.
The boundary changes actually get more politically difficult now surely? A load of retirements have happened now, before the changes take effect, and with more Tories to accommodate the promise that every existing MP who wants one can get a seat with a notional majority becomes a lot more tricky for the whips to arrange.
As long as the size of the majority is larger than the number of Con seats lost I don't see it being a problem.
But there will still be places with six MPs fighting for five seats. - from 400 MPs there could well be around 35 retirements needed and a lot of the oldies have gone at this election.
Needs to happen though, the old boundaries are a decade and a half out of date.
Might be easier to do it without the reduction, but that would require the commission to go back to the drawing board (for the third time)
Is this complete, because there are only 288 UKIP candidates...
it's confirmed for me that they are standing in rochdale which is what I've been trying to find out, thanks.
Are you betting in that particular tar pit ?
Danczuk when he was 12-1 was OK I think, but a market for the very brave in my opinion...
I have a small investment on the Blues, hoping for a favourable split in the opposition.
Yes, was thinking the same. If Danczuk standing as an Indy splits the red vote, the blues could conceivably come through the middle. I guess the key if he is actually going to campaign, or figured that a £500 deposit was a good price to pay for three months' Parliamentary salary as a redundancy payment?
I was hoping he wants to cause his former bosses as much trouble as possible. I'm on at 6/1 and labour are currently 2/5 so I can back that side too depending on how things look like they're panning out.
Careful, the Tories may well get around 30% of the vote there. So you'll be laying them at around 11-2 basically. Not telling you what to do, just something to bear in mind. Demographically I think its less favourable to the Tories than the straight models imply so you'll probably be fine but there is potential for them to come through the middle bearing in mind the latent Lib Dem vote present also.
I'm not entirely sure she will implement with a very large majority. Although proportionally the review takes out more Labour than Tory, with the sort of imbalance of seats you're talking about, the musical chairs inevitably takes out a LOT of Tory MPs - more, I suspect, than Labour. It all suddenly becomes much less attractive if you look around and see the prospect of four colleagues scrapping for selection to three seats.
A large majority nullifies both the Anna Soubrys and the Phillip Davies of the Tory party, control becomes alot easier - as to whether the boundary review is passed, I think it needs the Tories to explicitly stop it. Perhaps a return to 650 seats (Bearing in mind we'll have no MEPs soon so extra workload for MPs anyway) will be in the manifesto.
Very true. I am not entirely sure how May will see the prospect of local spats over seats.
It can get very unpleasant, and there are headaches about finding seats for people you either want around or who it's important to keep sweet. On the other hand, it keeps them busy in the constituency rather than being a pain in the arse in Westminster.
Norman Lamont's incredibly pompous and self-justifying autobiography is unintentionally hilarious on his travails finding a seat after Kingston-upon-Thames took the opportunity to ditch him. At one point he lays into Hague, who must have pulled a hell of a lot of strings and called in many old favours to land the silly old bugger Harrogate, for giving him a seat that was, "not as safe as William assured me it was". He then discovers a Lib Dem (Phil Willis) who is, "not well liked... but well entrenched" and comes up with some form of sophistry to explain why a mere 16% swing against was an heroic triumph in the circumstances.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Yeah, and we went over the million unemployed mark in the fag end of the Callaghan Government (remember the Lib-Lab pact) and I was out of work for a long time.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Its nonsense in the context of it won't do anything except excite the cult. It is ancient history, shown by the fact that people continue to long onto the Mail website in droves and many are not extreme right wingers. They have a business model the can only Guardian dream of.
But it is a fact that most readers are totally unaware of! By highlighting its past Corbyn could hope to counter the credibility of attacks on him by a newspaper from a neofascist stable.He should seek to label the paper as the rightwing equivalent of the Morning Star on the left!
Do you really, really believe this? It's just that it comes over as rather sad and pathetic barrel-scraping.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Is he going to have a go at Barclays for facilitating slavery as well?
If Barclays were to become actively involved in the campaign , it would be entirely reasonable to throw such stuff back at them.
And how about Germany using its current leading position in Europe to influence events to its own benefit?
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
It's bad enough with Labour wanting to take us back to the politics of the 1970's. You want to take us back to the politics of the 1930's for heaven's sake.
In what way are they seeking to take us back to the 1970s?
Giving power to the Unions. Clueless management of the country. Uncosted spending. The 1976 IMF crisis (where we took the largest loan from the IMF that had been requested up to that time)
I lived through it and it was not pretty.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Wasn't Labour bequeathed a surplus in 97?
No.
Although it was bequeathed plans and policies - which it stuck to - that delivered one shortly afterwards.
Is this complete, because there are only 288 UKIP candidates...
it's confirmed for me that they are standing in rochdale which is what I've been trying to find out, thanks.
Are you betting in that particular tar pit ?
Danczuk when he was 12-1 was OK I think, but a market for the very brave in my opinion...
I have a small investment on the Blues, hoping for a favourable split in the opposition.
Yes, was thinking the same. If Danczuk standing as an Indy splits the red vote, the blues could conceivably come through the middle. I guess the key if he is actually going to campaign, or figured that a £500 deposit was a good price to pay for three months' Parliamentary salary as a redundancy payment?
I was hoping he wants to cause his former bosses as much trouble as possible. I'm on at 6/1 and labour are currently 2/5 so I can back that side too depending on how things look like they're panning out.
Careful, the Tories may well get around 30% of the vote there. So you'll be laying them at around 11-2 basically. Not telling you what to do, just something to bear in mind. Demographically I think its less favourable to the Tories than the straight models imply so you'll probably be fine but there is potential for them to come through the middle bearing in mind the latent Lib Dem vote present also.
A punter's swamp
the hard ones are more fun. (ooh err). If things were easy to forecast there would never be any attractive odds to be found. I'm also on the blues in Bristol West and I know that needs a split of unbelieveably kind proportions but i know i won't be able to stop grinning if it does come in.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Yeah, and we went over the million unemployed mark in the fag end of the Callaghan Government (remember the Lib-Lab pact) and I was out of work for a long time.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
Yep I remember those times well . Labout hit 1 million unemployed , Thatcher came in and before long it was 3 million and without her doctoring the figures it would have been 4 million .
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
A huge misapprehension about hunting is that it is toffs in red coats. 90% of a typical field in a typical hunt will be normal people.
But you are getting dangerously close to pointing out the facts there with that observation.
The Banwen Miners Hunt are called that for a reason. And I agree - barring the Beaufort on a Saturday most hunts are well under 50% toff, and that includes the mounted field. I hunt with my builder, my tree surgeon and the lady behind the till at the local petrol station.
And without wishing to throw anyone else to the wolves, do these people not know about organized pheasant shooting? Harmless birds bred solely to be shot in numbers of 100s per day (more than most hunts killed foxes per season when they killed foxes), the remains sold to go in tinned cat food if they get utilised at all, and the cost of a day beyond anyone without a hedge fund.
There maybe shoots as your describe, Mr. Z, but they are far from the majority. I, and my son once he was old enough, used to beat for the local shoot and none of the birds went to waste let alone cat food. Once the guns had taken what they wanted the rest was divided amongst the beaters and it was a rare Saturday in the season that I did not come home with a brace of pheasants for Sunday lunch three weeks later. On the odd occasion that there was a surplus the local butcher would always buy them and sell them on for a profit.
As to harmless birds being bred solely to be killed, what is the difference between a pheasant and a male sheep or beef cattle? Breeding animals for slaughter is what a lot of farming is all about. The pheasant, if it is shot, probably has a swifter and more merciful end than do those cuddly baa-lambs.
You're kidding about the shoots, right? Shoots bury thousands of birds every season.
They may do, Mr. Topping, but I have never come across such practices. Aside from my local shoot I know the keepers of several others in the area along with the local butcher (who always has a ready market for game). I speak as I find, no more.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Yeah, and we went over the million unemployed mark in the fag end of the Callaghan Government (remember the Lib-Lab pact) and I was out of work for a long time.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
Unemployment actually fell by 100,000 in the last year of the Callaghan Government.And yes -I did live through those times and was a Labour PPC at the 1979 election. I left the party at the end of 1996 and have only voted Labour at one of the last six Parliamentary contests in my constituency.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Its nonsense in the context of it won't do anything except excite the cult. It is ancient history, shown by the fact that people continue to long onto the Mail website in droves and many are not extreme right wingers. They have a business model the can only Guardian dream of.
But it is a fact that most readers are totally unaware of! By highlighting its past Corbyn could hope to counter the credibility of attacks on him by a newspaper from a neofascist stable.He should seek to label the paper as the rightwing equivalent of the Morning Star on the left!
Do you really, really believe this? It's just that it comes over as rather sad and pathetic barrel-scraping.
Watching Corbyn get into an angry spat with a newspaper or two would be grounds for topping up the popcorn supplies.
The Mail will happily print the picture of him shaking hands with the IRA - the week after the Brighton bomb - on their front page every day between now and 8th June.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Yeah, and we went over the million unemployed mark in the fag end of the Callaghan Government (remember the Lib-Lab pact) and I was out of work for a long time.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
Unemployment actually fell by 100,000 in the last year of the Callaghan Government.And yes -I did live through those times and was a Labouur PPC at the 1979 election. I left the party at the end of 1996 and have only voted Labour at one of the last six Parliamentary contests in my constituency.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Yeah, and we went over the million unemployed mark in the fag end of the Callaghan Government (remember the Lib-Lab pact) and I was out of work for a long time.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
Yep I remember those times well . Labout hit 1 million unemployed , Thatcher came in and before long it was 3 million and without her doctoring the figures it would have been 4 million .
Which was one of the reasons that I never voted Thatcher. In fact in those days I voted Liberal!
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Yeah, and we went over the million unemployed mark in the fag end of the Callaghan Government (remember the Lib-Lab pact) and I was out of work for a long time.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
Unemployment actually fell by 100,000 in the last year of the Callaghan Government.And yes -I did live through those times and was a Labouur PPC at the 1979 election. I left the party at the end of 1996 and have only voted Labour at one of the last six Parliamentary contests in my constituency.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Yeah, and we went over the million unemployed mark in the fag end of the Callaghan Government (remember the Lib-Lab pact) and I was out of work for a long time.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
Yep I remember those times well . Labout hit 1 million unemployed , Thatcher came in and before long it was 3 million and without her doctoring the figures it would have been 4 million .
Which was one of the reasons that I never voted Thatcher. In fact in those days I voted Liberal!
I hope you'll consider voting for the yellows in the forthcoming election, but I can well understand why many won't. Farron has massively underwhelmed this GE campaign I'm afraid.
Is this complete, because there are only 288 UKIP candidates...
it's confirmed for me that they are standing in rochdale which is what I've been trying to find out, thanks.
Are you betting in that particular tar pit ?
Danczuk when he was 12-1 was OK I think, but a market for the very brave in my opinion...
I have a small investment on the Blues, hoping for a favourable split in the opposition.
Yes, was thinking the same. If Danczuk standing as an Indy splits the red vote, the blues could conceivably come through the middle. I guess the key if he is actually going to campaign, or figured that a £500 deposit was a good price to pay for three months' Parliamentary salary as a redundancy payment?
I was hoping he wants to cause his former bosses as much trouble as possible. I'm on at 6/1 and labour are currently 2/5 so I can back that side too depending on how things look like they're panning out.
Careful, the Tories may well get around 30% of the vote there. So you'll be laying them at around 11-2 basically. Not telling you what to do, just something to bear in mind. Demographically I think its less favourable to the Tories than the straight models imply so you'll probably be fine but there is potential for them to come through the middle bearing in mind the latent Lib Dem vote present also.
A punter's swamp
the hard ones are more fun. (ooh err). If things were easy to forecast there would never be any attractive odds to be found. I'm also on the blues in Bristol West and I know that needs a split of unbelieveably kind proportions but i know i won't be able to stop grinning if it does come in.
You must have a lot of money to waste , why not give it to charity instead of the bookies ?
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
A huge misapprehension about hunting is that it is toffs in red coats. 90% of a typical field in a typical hunt will be normal people.
But you are getting dangerously close to pointing out the facts there with that observation.
The Banwen Miners Hunt are called that for a reason. And I agree - barring the Beaufort on a Saturday most hunts are well under 50% toff, and that includes the mounted field. I hunt with my builder, my tree surgeon and the lady behind the till at the local petrol station.
And without wishing to throw anyone else to the wolves, do these people not know about organized pheasant shooting? Harmless birds bred solely to be shot in numbers of 100s per day (more than most hunts killed foxes per season when they killed foxes), the remains sold to go in tinned cat food if they get utilised at all, and the cost of a day beyond anyone without a hedge fund.
There maybe shoots as your describe, Mr. Z, but they are far from the majority. I, and my son once he was old enough, used to beat for the local shoot and none of the birds went to waste let alone cat food. Once the guns had taken what they wanted the rest was divided amongst the beaters and it was a rare Saturday in the season that I did not come home with a brace of pheasants for Sunday lunch three weeks later. On the odd occasion that there was a surplus the local butcher would always buy them and sell them on for a profit.
As to harmless birds being bred solely to be killed, what is the difference between a pheasant and a male sheep or beef cattle? Breeding animals for slaughter is what a lot of farming is all about. The pheasant, if it is shot, probably has a swifter and more merciful end than do those cuddly baa-lambs.
You're kidding about the shoots, right? Shoots bury thousands of birds every season.
They may do, Mr. Topping, but I have never come across such practices. Aside from my local shoot I know the keepers of several others in the area along with the local butcher (who always has a ready market for game). I speak as I find, no more.
just checked with my stepdaughter who picks up at a couple of shoots. at the small one everyone gets to take home a brace and the larger one it all gets sent to be processed for supermarkets, including M&S. can't say what happens everywhere else tho.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Yeah, and we went over the million unemployed mark in the fag end of the Callaghan Government (remember the Lib-Lab pact) and I was out of work for a long time.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
Unemployment actually fell by 100,000 in the last year of the Callaghan Government.And yes -I did live through those times and was a Labour PPC at the 1979 election. I left the party at the end of 1996 and have only voted Labour at one of the last six Parliamentary contests in my constituency.
Why did you leave in 1996? For me an electable Social Democratic Reformist party (without the taint of left-wing lunacy) and a credible opposition to the Tories was very attractive.
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
A huge misapprehension about hunting is that it is toffs in red coats. 90% of a typical field in a typical hunt will be normal people.
But you are getting dangerously close to pointing out the facts there with that observation.
There maybe shoots as your describe, Mr. Z, but they are far from the majority. I, and my son once he was old enough, used to beat for the local shoot and none of the birds went to waste let alone cat food. Once the guns had taken what they wanted the rest was divided amongst the beaters and it was a rare Saturday in the season that I did not come home with a brace of pheasants for Sunday lunch three weeks later. On the odd occasion that there was a surplus the local butcher would always buy them and sell them on for a profit.
As to harmless birds being bred solely to be killed, what is the difference between a pheasant and a male sheep or beef cattle? Breeding animals for slaughter is what a lot of farming is all about. The pheasant, if it is shot, probably has a swifter and more merciful end than do those cuddly baa-lambs.
You're kidding about the shoots, right? Shoots bury thousands of birds every season.
I discussed this recently with a senior official of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (in the context of the Labour animal welfare proposals which I helped draft [http://www.labouranimalwelfaresociety.org.uk/2016/12/major-new-draft-animal-welfare-manifesto-launched/]). BASC tries to follow the principle that anything that is shot gets eaten, and conversely I know vegans who prefer shooters who do that than people who cheerfully eat factory-farmed meat.
But he did say that he wasn't convinced that the big estates follow the practice since their commercial interest was to have lots to shoot rather than the by-product of selling or giving away the dead birds. And he also agreed that the factory farming of pheasants for killing which goes on in a big way here and in France was deeply unpleasant.
Is this complete, because there are only 288 UKIP candidates...
it's confirmed for me that they are standing in rochdale which is what I've been trying to find out, thanks.
Are you betting in that particular tar pit ?
Danczuk when he was 12-1 was OK I think, but a market for the very brave in my opinion...
I have a small investment on the Blues, hoping for a favourable split in the opposition.
Yes, was thinking the same. If Danczuk standing as an Indy splits the red vote, the blues could conceivably come through the middle. I guess the key if he is actually going to campaign, or figured that a £500 deposit was a good price to pay for three months' Parliamentary salary as a redundancy payment?
I was hoping he wants to cause his former bosses as much trouble as possible. I'm on at 6/1 and labour are currently 2/5 so I can back that side too depending on how things look like they're panning out.
Careful, the Tories may well get around 30% of the vote there. So you'll be laying them at around 11-2 basically. Not telling you what to do, just something to bear in mind. Demographically I think its less favourable to the Tories than the straight models imply so you'll probably be fine but there is potential for them to come through the middle bearing in mind the latent Lib Dem vote present also.
A punter's swamp
the hard ones are more fun. (ooh err). If things were easy to forecast there would never be any attractive odds to be found. I'm also on the blues in Bristol West and I know that needs a split of unbelieveably kind proportions but i know i won't be able to stop grinning if it does come in.
You must have a lot of money to waste , why not give it to charity instead of the bookies ?
Mark, with respect he's not yet laid Lucas at 8s in Brighton.
Interesting article. To the three areas suggested by Lord Hayward above, I'd add a fourth: the southern north east: Bishop Auckland, Darlington and MSEC are all reasonable Tory targets this election; Redcar, Hartlepool, Stockton North, Hartlepool and even Sedgefield somewhat more fanciful ones. This is an area whose instinctive loyalty to the Labour Party has vanished over the last three decades - for similar reasons to the Mansfield-Doncaster corridor. But it's only in times of extreme Tory high tides (or Labour low tides) such as now that you start to notice. Long term shifts in political geography: fascinating stuff for the eextremely patient. Of course, there have been shifts the other way too: it would have seemed inconceivable thirty years ago that the Conservatives could hold Copeland and Crewe while Labour hold Hove and Hampstead.
I'm always suspicious of predictions that are adjusted in the short term due to changing circumstances, which leave the medium term predictions where they were (Feb 17 to May17 adjustment).
Interesting article. To the three areas suggested by Lord Hayward above, I'd add a fourth: the southern north east: Bishop Auckland, Darlington and MSEC are all reasonable Tory targets this election; Redcar, Hartlepool, Stockton North, Hartlepool and even Sedgefield somewhat more fanciful ones. This is an area whose instinctive loyalty to the Labour Party has vanished over the last three decades - for similar reasons to the Mansfield-Doncaster corridor. But it's only in times of extreme Tory high tides (or Labour low tides) such as now that you start to notice. Long term shifts in political geography: fascinating stuff for the eextremely patient. Of course, there have been shifts the other way too: it would have seemed inconceivable thirty years ago that the Conservatives could hold Copeland and Crewe while Labour hold Hove and Hampstead.
the blues are actually favs to take hartlepool and sedgefield. i'm sure they'd be particularly pleased if they got the latter.
On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399
"Thatcher came in and before long it was 3 million and without her doctoring the figures it would have been 4 million"
If memory serves one of the ways that the government of that time was accused of massaging the unemployment figures was creating the "permanently sick" category of claimant. Those who were too unwell to work should obviously not be included in the unemployed figures. Then lots of people were supposedly encouraged to get on "the the sick [registrar]". Thus unemployment was managed down by wicked Conservatives. Boo, Hiss.
In recent years, back into the enlightened days of the the last Labour government, there has been an attempt to get those who should not be registered as unfit for work back into the workforce; to unwind the inequities of the Thatcher years. This has, recently, been portrayed as the wicked Tories etc. etc. Boo, Hiss.
Interesting article. To the three areas suggested by Lord Hayward above, I'd add a fourth: the southern north east: Bishop Auckland, Darlington and MSEC are all reasonable Tory targets this election; Redcar, Hartlepool, Stockton North, Hartlepool and even Sedgefield somewhat more fanciful ones. This is an area whose instinctive loyalty to the Labour Party has vanished over the last three decades - for similar reasons to the Mansfield-Doncaster corridor. But it's only in times of extreme Tory high tides (or Labour low tides) such as now that you start to notice. Long term shifts in political geography: fascinating stuff for the eextremely patient. Of course, there have been shifts the other way too: it would have seemed inconceivable thirty years ago that the Conservatives could hold Copeland and Crewe while Labour hold Hove and Hampstead.
the blues are actually favs to take hartlepool and sedgefield. i'm sure they'd be particularly pleased if they got the latter.
Sedgefield looks the trickier of the two gains to me. Didn't look any sort of value at 5-6...
My long shot bet (For the pennies I was allowed) in the North-East is Blyth Valley @ 4-1.
Is this complete, because there are only 288 UKIP candidates...
it's confirmed for me that they are standing in rochdale which is what I've been trying to find out, thanks.
Are you betting in that particular tar pit ?
Danczuk when he was 12-1 was OK I think, but a market for the very brave in my opinion...
I have a small investment on the Blues, hoping for a favourable split in the opposition.
Yes, was thinking the same. If Danczuk standing as an Indy splits the red vote, the blues could conceivably come through the middle. I guess the key if he is actually going to campaign, or figured that a £500 deposit was a good price to pay for three months' Parliamentary salary as a redundancy payment?
I was hoping he wants to cause his former bosses as much trouble as possible. I'm on at 6/1 and labour are currently 2/5 so I can back that side too depending on how things look like they're panning out.
Careful, the Tories may well get around 30% of the vote there. So you'll be laying them at around 11-2 basically. Not telling you what to do, just something to bear in mind. Demographically I think its less favourable to the Tories than the straight models imply so you'll probably be fine but there is potential for them to come through the middle bearing in mind the latent Lib Dem vote present also.
A punter's swamp
the hard ones are more fun. (ooh err). If things were easy to forecast there would never be any attractive odds to be found. I'm also on the blues in Bristol West and I know that needs a split of unbelieveably kind proportions but i know i won't be able to stop grinning if it does come in.
You must have a lot of money to waste , why not give it to charity instead of the bookies ?
Mark, with respect he's not yet laid Lucas at 8s in Brighton.
havent really looked at that one. tipped up con hold at 4/9 and 4/11 next door in brighton kemptown but that was just bad pricing by the bookies. looking at that one again there are some big price variations. Laddy's go 1/4 Con, 11/4 Lab. but Paddy's go 1/25 Con, 9's the reds.
havent really looked at that one. tipped up con hold at 4/9 and 4/11 next door in brighton kemptown but that was just bad pricing by the bookies. looking at that one again there are some big price variations. Laddy's go 1/4 Con, 11/4 Lab. but Paddy's go 1/25 Con, 9's the reds.
Hah I opened an account with Marathonbet just for Brighton Kemptown. 1-4 probably a good price still.
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Yeah, and we went over the million unemployed mark in the fag end of the Callaghan Government (remember the Lib-Lab pact) and I was out of work for a long time.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
Yep I remember those times well . Labout hit 1 million unemployed , Thatcher came in and before long it was 3 million and without her doctoring the figures it would have been 4 million .
Which was one of the reasons that I never voted Thatcher. In fact in those days I voted Liberal!
I hope you'll consider voting for the yellows in the forthcoming election, but I can well understand why many won't. Farron has massively underwhelmed this GE campaign I'm afraid.
Entirely predictable and indeed, predicted.
Farron has a reputation as a fine local political campaigner and his results in W&L are testament to that. But leading a national party is a different ball game and requires a different skill-set; one he doesn't have. To be an effective leader of the Lib Dems, you need to be seen by the public as at least a credible cabinet minister, not a politicised community activist.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
"However" the General continued, "I have developed a strategy that I believe you will find is sufficiently eco-friendly. The XI Panzer will move forward by bicycle on the left flank, the SS Mountain Corps will take the right flank using public transport - there is still a regular bus service from Lűbben after 10 o'clock- and we will sent a small diversionary unit through the forest. But I must spell out one important message for them: keep to the paths and no shooting!".
Half of the 1970s was under Tory Governments. Moreover , the 1976 IMF loan only proved accurate due to inaccurate statistical data. Denis Healey pointed out that subsequent revisions to the PSBR figures showed there had actually been no reason to call in IMF at all. As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Yeah, and we went over the million unemployed mark in the fag end of the Callaghan Government (remember the Lib-Lab pact) and I was out of work for a long time.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
Unemployment actually fell by 100,000 in the last year of the Callaghan Government.And yes -I did live through those times and was a Labour PPC at the 1979 election. I left the party at the end of 1996 and have only voted Labour at one of the last six Parliamentary contests in my constituency.
Why did you leave in 1996? For me an electable Social Democratic Reformist party (without the taint of left-wing lunacy) and a credible opposition to the Tories was very attractive.
I had already seen through Blair - and later came to despise him more than Thatcher. She was never a war criminal whatever other criticisms that might be made of her - but Blair I have long seen as a thoroughly odious human being who deserves the fate of Bin Laden in the absence of any possibility of hauling him before the International Criminal Court.
Interesting article. To the three areas suggested by Lord Hayward above, I'd add a fourth: the southern north east: Bishop Auckland, Darlington and MSEC are all reasonable Tory targets this election; Redcar, Hartlepool, Stockton North, Hartlepool and even Sedgefield somewhat more fanciful ones. This is an area whose instinctive loyalty to the Labour Party has vanished over the last three decades - for similar reasons to the Mansfield-Doncaster corridor. But it's only in times of extreme Tory high tides (or Labour low tides) such as now that you start to notice. Long term shifts in political geography: fascinating stuff for the eextremely patient. Of course, there have been shifts the other way too: it would have seemed inconceivable thirty years ago that the Conservatives could hold Copeland and Crewe while Labour hold Hove and Hampstead.
the blues are actually favs to take hartlepool and sedgefield. i'm sure they'd be particularly pleased if they got the latter.
Sedgefield looks the trickier of the two gains to me. Didn't look any sort of value at 5-6...
My long shot bet (For the pennies I was allowed) in the North-East is Blyth Valley @ 4-1.
that looks doable. but only 13/8 now so I'll pass on that one. I only have accounts with 365 and coral and they were slow putting their seat markets out.
Interesting article. To the three areas suggested by Lord Hayward above, I'd add a fourth: the southern north east: Bishop Auckland, Darlington and MSEC are all reasonable Tory targets this election; Redcar, Hartlepool, Stockton North, Hartlepool and even Sedgefield somewhat more fanciful ones. This is an area whose instinctive loyalty to the Labour Party has vanished over the last three decades - for similar reasons to the Mansfield-Doncaster corridor. But it's only in times of extreme Tory high tides (or Labour low tides) such as now that you start to notice. Long term shifts in political geography: fascinating stuff for the eextremely patient. Of course, there have been shifts the other way too: it would have seemed inconceivable thirty years ago that the Conservatives could hold Copeland and Crewe while Labour hold Hove and Hampstead.
the blues are actually favs to take hartlepool and sedgefield. i'm sure they'd be particularly pleased if they got the latter.
Astonishing. I keep looking at odds for seats which really, really should be completely out of reach for the Tories and seeing them as favourites, or at least second favourites by not much. I hadn't seen these odds though. Well though the Tories are doing, Labour are surely good value in Hartlepool and Sedgefield at anything over evens?
F1: I hope the Mercedes pace is overstated. Another Silver Arrows year would be a disappointment, especially if it's not even close.
From watching today it's clear Mercedes have moved the game on somewhat. The rumour is that they've managed to get 20kg out of the car, and it's now under the minimum so they can use ballast to put it back in the right places for performance.
Lewis is value at 2.1 for the title, should really be odds-on now.
On another subject, has this man been discussed? There's clearly a market for anti-Tory voting. But I'd suggest there is also a market for anti-Labour voting. Many Lib Dems don't seem to recognise the latter, and the potential pitfalls of lining up with someone as voter-repellent as Jeremy Corbyn. I can't imagine the voters of Ramsbottom and Tottington are crying out for Corbynism; they might though be quite enthusiastic about a bit of Lancashire liberalism. Maybe not from this fella though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399
As an LD, I think Richard has been silly. He has of course hit on an uncomfortable truth that millions of votes will be "wasted" in safe seats on candidates who cannot win (my vote in East Ham falls into that category).
I doubt the fact he won't be doing any campaigning in Bury North will come as a huge surprise to anyone. There is a financial reality about standing candidates in seats where a lost deposit is the most likely outcome but as Richard also says "it's important that people can vote for the Party they want to vote for" (I would qualify that by saying most people want a party they can vote against). The LDs will lose a lot of deposits again this time (hopefully not as many as 2015).
I do think it foolish he has publicly endorsed tactical voting for Labour in his constituency. He's entitled to that view though it plays to the narrative that somehow the LDs want to support Corbyn and Labour. He shouldn't have expressed it. Not wanting to campaign in a seat where you are standing is your and your Party's choice - I've been a paper candidate before in local elections. That doesn't imply a preference for any other candidate (nor should it).
Interesting article. To the three areas suggested by Lord Hayward above, I'd add a fourth: the southern north east: Bishop Auckland, Darlington and MSEC are all reasonable Tory targets this election; Redcar, Hartlepool, Stockton North, Hartlepool and even Sedgefield somewhat more fanciful ones. This is an area whose instinctive loyalty to the Labour Party has vanished over the last three decades - for similar reasons to the Mansfield-Doncaster corridor. But it's only in times of extreme Tory high tides (or Labour low tides) such as now that you start to notice. Long term shifts in political geography: fascinating stuff for the eextremely patient. Of course, there have been shifts the other way too: it would have seemed inconceivable thirty years ago that the Conservatives could hold Copeland and Crewe while Labour hold Hove and Hampstead.
the blues are actually favs to take hartlepool and sedgefield. i'm sure they'd be particularly pleased if they got the latter.
Astonishing. I keep looking at odds for seats which really, really should be completely out of reach for the Tories and seeing them as favourites, or at least second favourites by not much. I hadn't seen these odds though. Well though the Tories are doing, Labour are surely good value in Hartlepool and Sedgefield at anything over evens?
I'm really not sure. some people on here have been talking about labour sub-150 seats and to go that low these are among the seats that would have to fall I think.
I had already seen through Blair - and later came to despise him more than Thatcher. She was never a war criminal whatever other criticisms that might be made of her - but Blair I have long seen as a thoroughly odious human being who deserves the fate of Bin Laden in the absence of any possibility of hauling him before the International Criminal Court.
Thought we had gone a few days without people wishing politicians dead....somebody has fallen off the wagon.
Comments
Just looking at the election figures on wikipedia, it is astonishing to see the seats to votes proportionality in 97 and 01. Massive advantages to Labour, which appear to have almost disappeared.
When the Tories implement the boundary changes, Labour's once mighty electoral advantage will be completely extinct. Chortles!!
As for economic management , Labour bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories in 1970 - no Tory Government has managed to do either! In March 1974 Labour inherited circa 13% inflation which was rising rapidly and a huge Balance of Payments Deficit. By May 1979 inflation was in single figures and the Balance of Payments was much stronger.
Besides, complaining the Mail is biased against Corbyn is stating the blindingly obvious. It's like complaining the tide is coming in. If team Corbyn tried that people would just point and laugh.
https://twitter.com/itma_miked/status/862738190947495936
Out of interest, do you think the manifesto spending commitments will be matched by the announced tax increases? If not are you happy for the deficit to increase? The Cons have all but abandoned austerity so I would be interested to know your views.
www.nickpalmer.org.uk
Now, nationally that seems a reasonable guess at proportions and where the party support stands, and it might be different in that seat, but it means its fair to suggest most of those seats are viable targets for Tories at the least.
It's tricky to pin down precisely but there is definite downside for Labour with pretty much all the models in my opinion.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2009/09chap2.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/misc/titles_listener_suggestions_20070312.shtml
Perhaps a return to 650 seats (Bearing in mind we'll have no MEPs soon so extra workload for MPs anyway) will be in the manifesto.
http://labourlist.org/2009/10/theres-no-place-for-blair-as-european-president/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-39850119
I wonder why it escaped their eagle eyes?
As to harmless birds being bred solely to be killed, what is the difference between a pheasant and a male sheep or beef cattle? Breeding animals for slaughter is what a lot of farming is all about. The pheasant, if it is shot, probably has a swifter and more merciful end than do those cuddly baa-lambs.
I received an e mail from BA introducing their bag collection service from London Hotels. I booked the service for my wife and I and they called at our Hotel and effectively performed the departure check in bag drop, providing e mail confirmation and text updates.
We went to Heathrow later and went straight through security and into the lounge for 3 hours before going to the gate. While in the lounge I received a text confirmation of the hand over of the bags to BA and their luggage receipt numbers.
When we arrived in Vancouver the bags came safely off the carousel.
It was a great service and saved us the hastle of waiting for the bag drop desk to open and we only needed to look after our cabin bags. At our age every little helps.
And the cost - £20 per bag
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn.
I didn't say that. But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date, and in terms of firming up the Labour vote that could be the difference in plenty of seats. Appearing more reasonable may not win him many extra votes, because he is not trusted or liked, but there is a battle over whether Labour voters will turnout and how many might dislike him enough to vote for someone else. If the Tories give him a free hand those people might give him a chance, and that could be the difference between a bad night and a disastrous night.
I'm sure the Tories have loads lined up against him, and I'm not voting for any Labour candidate at any level while Corbyn is leader, but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.
'...But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date,'
I think we both know that is wishful thinking, especially if the pollsters are overestimating Labour again - and I believe they are. 30% is above what Brown got and only a fraction below Miliband's performance. It does not seem credible to me that Corbyn is doing that well.
'...but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.'
Here's where I completely disagree. I think they are underestimating.
I stick by what I said - 1992 all over again, without Labour's massively disproportionate electoral advantage.
It has been a good week for Corbyn. Media and public criticism of May for avoiding journalists and punters, then Labour cleverly leaking its own manifesto to make its content more of a story, and the content has been reasonably well received. (The BBC seem to have been surprised by this.) The overall narrative is still Loony Lefties v Terrific Theresa, but it's progress at least. Labour might still scrape 30% of the votes. The Tories and Mail will push the "Labour is too dangerous to vote for" message but that's not exactly new, and it had some, but somewhat limited, effect in the past.
Labour 'cleverly leaking its own manifesto...',
Good one.
Needs to happen though, the old boundaries are a decade and a half out of date.
List: https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/numbers/election/parl.2017-06-08/parties
Spreadsheet: https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/media/candidates-parl.2017-06-08.csv
Not telling you what to do, just something to bear in mind. Demographically I think its less favourable to the Tories than the straight models imply so you'll probably be fine but there is potential for them to come through the middle bearing in mind the latent Lib Dem vote present also.
A punter's swamp
It can get very unpleasant, and there are headaches about finding seats for people you either want around or who it's important to keep sweet. On the other hand, it keeps them busy in the constituency rather than being a pain in the arse in Westminster.
Norman Lamont's incredibly pompous and self-justifying autobiography is unintentionally hilarious on his travails finding a seat after Kingston-upon-Thames took the opportunity to ditch him. At one point he lays into Hague, who must have pulled a hell of a lot of strings and called in many old favours to land the silly old bugger Harrogate, for giving him a seat that was, "not as safe as William assured me it was". He then discovers a Lib Dem (Phil Willis) who is, "not well liked... but well entrenched" and comes up with some form of sophistry to explain why a mere 16% swing against was an heroic triumph in the circumstances.
Then Thatcher came along and scored a direct hit with the "Labour isn't working" poster campaign. Remember that? You did live through those times didn't you?
Extra fun info so you can see my background. I was young and idealistic in those years and actually a Labour Party member. But it was moving to the loony left even then, which only got worse under Foot. I only started supporting Labour again under John Smith (PBUH). I carried on supporting the Party until Blair went mad. I never voted Tory until Cameron. I'll support May for Brexit, then hopefully there will be a decent Social Democratic Party in existence to tempt me to vote for them.
https://order-order.com/2017/05/12/fake-news-foe-barry-gardiners-fake-review-for-his-wife/
Interesting mirror-image positions: TMay tries to hide existence of Conservative Party while Labour Party tries to hide existence of JCorbyn.
The Mail will happily print the picture of him shaking hands with the IRA - the week after the Brighton bomb - on their front page every day between now and 8th June.
Farron has massively underwhelmed this GE campaign I'm afraid.
For me an electable Social Democratic Reformist party (without the taint of left-wing lunacy) and a credible opposition to the Tories was very attractive.
F1: I hope the Mercedes pace is overstated. Another Silver Arrows year would be a disappointment, especially if it's not even close.
I wonder if he'll be making a prediction in terms of expected seats, Con Majority, etc?
Long term shifts in political geography: fascinating stuff for the eextremely patient.
Of course, there have been shifts the other way too: it would have seemed inconceivable thirty years ago that the Conservatives could hold Copeland and Crewe while Labour hold Hove and Hampstead.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/863010662066343938
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39885399
If memory serves one of the ways that the government of that time was accused of massaging the unemployment figures was creating the "permanently sick" category of claimant. Those who were too unwell to work should obviously not be included in the unemployed figures. Then lots of people were supposedly encouraged to get on "the the sick [registrar]". Thus unemployment was managed down by wicked Conservatives. Boo, Hiss.
In recent years, back into the enlightened days of the the last Labour government, there has been an attempt to get those who should not be registered as unfit for work back into the workforce; to unwind the inequities of the Thatcher years. This has, recently, been portrayed as the wicked Tories etc. etc. Boo, Hiss.
My long shot bet (For the pennies I was allowed) in the North-East is Blyth Valley @ 4-1.
1-4 probably a good price still.
Farron has a reputation as a fine local political campaigner and his results in W&L are testament to that. But leading a national party is a different ball game and requires a different skill-set; one he doesn't have. To be an effective leader of the Lib Dems, you need to be seen by the public as at least a credible cabinet minister, not a politicised community activist.
"Labour has created a Minister for Peace..."
He seems to be under some sort of misapprehension.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/jeremy-corbyns-chatham-house-speech-full-text/
Lewis is value at 2.1 for the title, should really be odds-on now.
I doubt the fact he won't be doing any campaigning in Bury North will come as a huge surprise to anyone. There is a financial reality about standing candidates in seats where a lost deposit is the most likely outcome but as Richard also says "it's important that people can vote for the Party they want to vote for" (I would qualify that by saying most people want a party they can vote against). The LDs will lose a lot of deposits again this time (hopefully not as many as 2015).
I do think it foolish he has publicly endorsed tactical voting for Labour in his constituency. He's entitled to that view though it plays to the narrative that somehow the LDs want to support Corbyn and Labour. He shouldn't have expressed it. Not wanting to campaign in a seat where you are standing is your and your Party's choice - I've been a paper candidate before in local elections. That doesn't imply a preference for any other candidate (nor should it).
Verstappen says the Bulls might have a chance in Spain if the four in front all crash...
(edit... Bottas showing encouraging speed; this has always been a good track for him. Possible pole punt ?)
Already green if Raikkonen's top three (bit more if top two) or Bottas top 3. Of course, if Bottas wins, that's a 26.
I have backed this with Hills.
They best not.
Anyone who believes that Corbyn is not a pacifist needs help.