It looks like the Tories might have dodged two bullets this week. The expenses stuff and now the NHS ransom-ware. Given nearly all the NHS trusts are back online, there is limited scope for attacking the government handling (although in these situation the role of central government is always overstated both positively and negatively).
Bit difficult to confine it to the NHS when it was a worldwide attack hitting lots of different countries and industries
No attacks in Wales, apparently. The Welsh government did pay for the security upgrade.
What were the security upgrades?
Extra guard-sheep around the temple which holds the Sacred Abacus of Ysbyty Ystwyth?
The BBC are keeping the NHS Cyber Attack front and Centre on their screen. SKY going big on "where is Jeremy Hunt?" There seems to be very little on the fact it was almost worldwide.
It's up up up for Labour. Tories reached their ceiling (48-50), Labour reached their floor (26-30)
Being behind by 14-18% is not something to celebrate.
No, but it encourages all their support to firm up, and save seats that might otherwise be lost, and so prevents the worst possible scenarios.
Getting a bad result rather than a disastrous one is not a win for Labour, but it is better. At the moment the Tories are lazy, assuming that because Corbyn has poor ratings they need say nothing (we keep hearing they are holding back - until when? And why?), and while his allies have messed up Corbyn so far has not, meaning the 'let him tie his own rope' strategy has been ineffective, even if it has not led to a shift that would change the outcome from anything other than a Tory win.
It depends what you mean by disastrous. I expect this year to be 1997 in reverse.
Isn't Corbyn surviving Labour's worst possible scenario according to many soft-leftists/'centrists'?
On Comres at least the Tories would get a majority of just over 100 but Labour 30% which would be enough for Corbyn to probably be re elected Labour leader by the membership, Blairites worst nightmare
Interesting that more think they would pay less tax under Labour. Have they seen their manifesto?
No-one thinks Labour will win. The hypothetical tax increase versus the one that will happen.
Sadly though this may not after all be the end of Labour. It's almost a religion now. Totally irrational nonsense all the time. Even Labour voters have given up defending any sort of intellectual foundation for what they say. They'll trolley out Diane Abbott and Polly Toynbee instead.
#ComRes Most likely to keep Britain safe from terrorism
May 47% Corbyn 14%
#Comres Best to lead Britain’s negotiations over Brexit
May 50% Corbyn 15%
And Labour are at 32%. Right.
Yes, because the missing numbers are DK or neither - most of whom will be left leaning voters who probably know the correct answer to those questions but don't want to accept they should be relevant to how they vote.
You're mistaking your opinion for a fact. Corbyn wishes to negotiate with Daesh. Daesh have said they wish to negotiate with the west. Daesh are an obscenely barbaric murdering death cult, but the British government's first responsibility is supposed to be to this country.
No, I'm just explaining why a majority of Corbyn's voters can't bring themselves to say they think he'd be better for security or Brexit, but are still saying they will vote Labour - because they won't want to accept those are the right questions to ask. They're entitled to think that.
As for the minority of Labour voters who did think he's best on these issues, well, good luck to them.
#ComRes Most likely to keep Britain safe from terrorism
May 47% Corbyn 14%
#Comres Best to lead Britain’s negotiations over Brexit
May 50% Corbyn 15%
And Labour are at 32%. Right.
The uptick has to be students...has to be. Labour aren't even ahead with public sector workers or the working class.
Is that not pilling up votes in areas they are already well ahead
It's one possible scenario.
a - Polls are just wrong - there is some reason for believing this might be the case, given anecdata and Labour struggles in many areas in locals and mayoralties
b - Piling up votes in safe seats, losing elsewhere - Similar to a), but would mean polls could be right even as Labour's struggles are genuine and would be repeated at a GE
c - There is a surge for Labour and Corbyn for some reason (fear of a big Tory majority, nonvoters saying they will vote Labour, popular policies overcoming doubts over Corbyn, sclerotic LD vote).
My theory is:
a) They are picking up around 1% of the electorate from the Lib Dems; b) They are picking up around 2% of the electorate from the Greens; c) They are picking up around 1% of the electorate from Plaid; d) They are picking up DNVs who will not actually vote when it comes to it; e) These votes are in overwhelmingly safe seats - Labour Urbans/Tory suburbans
I don't think there is any significant swing to the Tories in SE/SW or East.
The BBC are keeping the NHS Cyber Attack front and Centre on their screen. SKY going big on "where is Jeremy Hunt?" There seems to be very little on the fact it was almost worldwide.
People have been after Hunt for years, and he always seems to stick around. Unless he begs May to put him somewhere else (and I cannot imagine the Health brief is a popular one), I'll assume he's going nowhere because of his lack of appearance around a global attack.
#ComRes Most likely to keep Britain safe from terrorism
May 47% Corbyn 14%
#Comres Best to lead Britain’s negotiations over Brexit
May 50% Corbyn 15%
And Labour are at 32%. Right.
The uptick has to be students...has to be. Labour aren't even ahead with public sector workers or the working class.
Is that not pilling up votes in areas they are already well ahead
It's one possible scenario.
a - Polls are just wrong - there is some reason for believing this might be the case, given anecdata and Labour struggles in many areas in locals and mayoralties
b - Piling up votes in safe seats, losing elsewhere - Similar to a), but would mean polls could be right even as Labour's struggles are genuine and would be repeated at a GE
c - There is a surge for Labour and Corbyn for some reason (fear of a big Tory majority, nonvoters saying they will vote Labour, popular policies overcoming doubts over Corbyn, sclerotic LD vote).
My theory is:
a) They are picking up around 1% of the electorate from the Lib Dems; b) They are picking up around 2% of the electorate from the Greens; c) They are picking up around 1% of the electorate from Plaid; d) They are picking up DNVs who will not actually vote when it comes to it; e) These votes are in overwhelmingly safe seats - Labour Urbans/Tory suburbans
I don't think there is any significant swing to the Tories in SE/SW or East.
Well, in fairness, they don't need a swing to them in those areas. If there is a swing in those areas, Labour would be left with something like 4 or fewer seats across the entire south outside London.
The BBC are keeping the NHS Cyber Attack front and Centre on their screen. SKY going big on "where is Jeremy Hunt?" There seems to be very little on the fact it was almost worldwide.
So other countries have incompetent governments too. German invasions were almost Europe-wide in WW2. How politicians can talk about "defence"...when here is a very clear case of crap defence. Yet the Tories are so wonderful and trustworthy on "defence"? Got to wonder how much of this is going to sink into people's bonces. Possibly more than they let on to pollsters.
Next time it could be the railways, or the payment of public sector salaries, or the electricity grid.
Intriguing that the 14% who believe Labour will win ("true believers") and the 13% who don't want May to have too large a majority ("NASATTTAs") are so close to the Labour total
Labour claim to not raise taxes on those earning less than £80,000.
However they also want to reclassify "workers", such as Uber drivers, as employees. This will result in higher employee NIC being paid by the workers/employees.
An example of the draft Labour manifesto not properly being thought through.
Tories still ahead, 41-35 but Labour picked up 4pts on last time.
Even this one is at variance with the local election polls.
The yougov welsh local elections poll way underestimated labour (28%) theyactually got 35% and way overestimated tories (26%) they actually got 13%, so half of what yougov were predicting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_local_elections,_2017
Whoa .... In Welsh Local elections, the Independents are usually Tories. To get the Tory vote, a simple thing to do is to take 80 per cent of the Independent vote and put it in the Tory column.
This gives Labour 472 councillors, and the Tories on 184 + 0.8 * 322 = 441 councillors.
I.e. Labour slightly ahead in the Locals, which is what the polling predicted for the Locals (from memory, Labour 28 per cent, Tories 26 per cent).
In that case, shouldn't the pollsters also have asked about Independents if they are so numerous ?
But, how could the pollsters do that? Independent means different things in different wards. In my ward in Wales, the Independent was an Extreme Welsh Nationalist, more nationalist than Plaid Cymru.
As a rough rule of thumb, 80 percent of the Welsh Independents are Tories. The local election results in Wales were consistent with the polls for the local elections, once this is taken into account.
To be honest, the results were not too disastrous for Labour in Wales. I think Wrexham, Clwyd South, Alyn & Deeside, Delyn and Bridgend are already lost.
The next batch of vulnerable seats are the Newport and Cardiff ones.
Labour did well in the cities in Wales -- Newport, Cardiff, Swansea & Llanelli. Labour lost seats outside the cities.
So, it looks to me as though the Tory tide will stop at Bridgend. The Tories won’t take the Newport seats.
Considering the allegations of bullying and infighting in Cardiff Labour, I am surprised they didn’t lose control of the Council. It was a very good result for Labour. I see now though they have deposed the old leader Phil Bale and have installed Huw ‘Tippex’ Thomas as the new leader.
“Tippex” Thomas was the Labour student who wanted the Welsh to spatter English cars with Tippex. He was one of the participants in the incredibly dirty Ceredigion election in 2015.
The last Comres/SM poll had LDs at 11 so they are only down 1 not down 2 . Bit depressing that a pollster cannot subtract 10 from 11 and give the correct answer .
Apparently there has been an 8 point swing to Labour in the South since the GE. Conservative unchanged, Labour up 8.
Well we know it isn't racking up the vote in London based on the London Yougov poll, so where is this supposed swing coming from? Home counties UKIP going all to Labour?
The last Comres/SM poll had LDs at 11 so they are only down 1 not down 2 . Bit depressing that a pollster cannot subtract 10 from 11 and give the correct answer .
Labour claim to not raise taxes on those earning less than £80,000.
However they also want to reclassify "workers", such as Uber drivers, as employees. This will result in higher employee NIC being paid by the workers/employees.
An example of the draft Labour manifesto not properly being thought through.
Didn't Uber drivers lose a court case classified as self-employed ?
Apparently there has been an 8 point swing to Labour in the South since the GE. Conservative unchanged, Labour up 8.
Well we know it isn't racking up the vote in London based on the London Yougov poll, so where is this supposed swing coming from? Home counties UKIP going all to Labour?
Don't forget ORB, the third poll of the day that has seen the Tory lead cut.
It is more a move from Blair landslide 1997 to Thatcher landslide 1987 for May than anything really significant
The Tories are doing better than Blair, in terms of vote share.
Yes but I think while May can match Thatcher's 1987 majority it will be difficult for her to match Blair's 1997 majority because of the size of the Labour majorities in its safest seats
Back in 1997, we thought seats like Southgate, Brent North, Harrow West, Romford were impregnable, due to their majorities.
The last Comres/SM poll had LDs at 11 so they are only down 1 not down 2 . Bit depressing that a pollster cannot subtract 10 from 11 and give the correct answer .
Without looking - rounding, perhaps?
Nope , simply taking their own figures . It was the March poll that had the LDs at 12 not the April one .
It looks like the Tories might have dodged two bullets this week. The expenses stuff and now the NHS ransom-ware. Given nearly all the NHS trusts are back online, there is limited scope for attacking the government handling (although in these situation the role of central government is always overstated both positively and negatively).
Bit difficult to confine it to the NHS when it was a worldwide attack hitting lots of different countries and industries
No attacks in Wales, apparently. The Welsh government did pay for the security upgrade.
I suspect the truth of your statement is akin to the truth of the viz article linked earlier. The security upgrade is of course free.
If it weren't free to obtain, it would be Microsoft who were holding organisations to ransom. But surely installation costs money in administration?
Automatic upgrades are mostly done automatically. Some firms spend a fortune on people that actually hold back the upgrades from Microsoft etc so that their IT guys can 'test' them. In almost all cases this is just stupid. There is basically zero cost in letting Microsoft do this for you. They're good at it, and if you're fully up to date then you can have a bit of a gripe at them. Running versions of Internet Explorer that are around 6 versions behind the current one (as my company did) isn't wise.
Unless your business is operating systems and the like there's not a chance in hell that your support guys are even 10% as good as the people at Microsoft. There's a good chance that you can buy in some help that is nearly to that standard - install some sort of anti-virus thing, but even better tell your staff to stop clicking on links.
Apparently there has been an 8 point swing to Labour in the South since the GE. Conservative unchanged, Labour up 8.
Well we know it isn't racking up the vote in London based on the London Yougov poll, so where is this supposed swing coming from? Home counties UKIP going all to Labour?
Why are you taking the subsets seriously ?
If they're completely worthless then pollsters should stop releasing the detail.
The last Comres/SM poll had LDs at 11 so they are only down 1 not down 2 . Bit depressing that a pollster cannot subtract 10 from 11 and give the correct answer .
Without looking - rounding, perhaps?
You know it's bad for the LDs when they are squabbling over whether or not they are down by 1 or 2.
It's up up up for Labour. Tories reached their ceiling (48-50), Labour reached their floor (26-30)
Being behind by 14-18% is not something to celebrate.
No, but it encourages all their support to firm up, and save seats that might otherwise be lost, and so prevents the worst possible scenarios.
Getting a bad result rather than a disastrous one is not a win for Labour, but it is better. At the moment the Tories are lazy, assuming that because Corbyn has poor ratings they need say nothing (we keep hearing they are holding back - until when? And why?), and while his allies have messed up Corbyn so far has not, meaning the 'let him tie his own rope' strategy has been ineffective, even if it has not led to a shift that would change the outcome from anything other than a Tory win.
It depends what you mean by disastrous. I expect this year to be 1997 in reverse.
Isn't Corbyn surviving Labour's worst possible scenario according to many soft-leftists/'centrists'?
On Comres at least the Tories would get a majority of just over 100 but Labour 30% which would be enough for Corbyn to probably be re elected Labour leader by the membership, Blairites worst nightmare
Corbyn will be out unless Labour wins, at least, 210 seats. In Cooper, we trust!
Apparently there has been an 8 point swing to Labour in the South since the GE. Conservative unchanged, Labour up 8.
Well we know it isn't racking up the vote in London based on the London Yougov poll, so where is this supposed swing coming from? Home counties UKIP going all to Labour?
Why are you taking the subsets seriously ?
It is a considerably larger subset than the ones setting off the SCon Klaxon...
Apparently there has been an 8 point swing to Labour in the South since the GE. Conservative unchanged, Labour up 8.
Well we know it isn't racking up the vote in London based on the London Yougov poll, so where is this supposed swing coming from? Home counties UKIP going all to Labour?
Take London out and the Tories are on 55 in the Comres compared to 49 in 2015.
Labour will be hoovering up Greens. They were 4.9 in London, 5.2 in the SE and 5.9 in the SW last time out.
Don't forget ORB, the third poll of the day that has seen the Tory lead cut.
It is more a move from Blair landslide 1997 to Thatcher landslide 1987 for May than anything really significant
The Tories are doing better than Blair, in terms of vote share.
Yes but I think while May can match Thatcher's 1987 majority it will be difficult for her to match Blair's 1997 majority because of the size of the Labour majorities in its safest seats
Back in 1997, we thought seats like Southgate, Brent North, Harrow West, Romford were impregnable, due to their majorities.
All were suburban seats which were winnable for Labour on the national swing, Blair didn't really win many rural seats which are the real Tory safe seats and there are more inner city seats than rural seats and they are the equivalent safe seats for Labour. While on the national swing May will likely win some working class seats like Walsall and Bishop Auckland she is unlikely to win many actual inner city seats, even Thatcher won few of them
It's up up up for Labour. Tories reached their ceiling (48-50), Labour reached their floor (26-30)
Being behind by 14-18% is not something to celebrate.
No, but it encourages all their support to firm up, and save seats that might otherwise be lost, and so prevents the worst possible scenarios.
Getting a bad result rather than a disastrous one is not a win for Labour, but it is better. At the moment the Tories are lazy, assuming that because Corbyn has poor ratings they need say nothing (we keep hearing they are holding back - until when? And why?), and while his allies have messed up Corbyn so far has not, meaning the 'let him tie his own rope' strategy has been ineffective, even if it has not led to a shift that would change the outcome from anything other than a Tory win.
It depends what you mean by disastrous. I expect this year to be 1997 in reverse.
Isn't Corbyn surviving Labour's worst possible scenario according to many soft-leftists/'centrists'?
On Comres at least the Tories would get a majority of just over 100 but Labour 30% which would be enough for Corbyn to probably be re elected Labour leader by the membership, Blairites worst nightmare
Corbyn will be out unless Labour wins, at least, 210 seats. In Cooper, we trust!
Not anything over 200? It's a nice round number, feels significant even if it is, obviously, losing seats to the Tories.
Tories still ahead, 41-35 but Labour picked up 4pts on last time.
Even this one is at variance with the local election polls.
The yougov ,_2017
Whoa .... In Welsh Local elections, the Independents are usually Tories. To get the Tory vote, a simple thing to do is to take 80 per cent of the Independent vote and put it in the Tory column.
This gives Labour 472 councillors, and the Tories on 184 + 0.8 * 322 = 441 councillors.
I.e. Labour slightly ahead in the Locals, which is what the polling predicted for the Locals (from memory, Labour 28 per cent, Tories 26 per cent).
In that case, shouldn't the pollsters also have asked about Independents if they are so numerous ?
But, how could the pollsters do that? Independent means different things in different wards. In my ward in Wales, the Independent was an Extreme Welsh Nationalist, more nationalist than Plaid Cymru.
As a rough rule of thumb, 80 percent of the Welsh Independents are Tories. The local election results in Wales were consistent with the polls for the local elections, once this is taken into account.
To be honest, the results were not too disastrous for Labour in Wales. I think Wrexham, Clwyd South, Alyn & Deeside, Delyn and Bridgend are already lost.
The next batch of vulnerable seats are the Newport and Cardiff ones.
Labour did well in the cities in Wales -- Newport, Cardiff, Swansea & Llanelli. Labour lost seats outside the cities.
So, it looks to me as though the Tory tide will stop at Bridgend. The Tories won’t take the Newport seats.
Considering the allegations of bullying and infighting in Cardiff Labour, I am surprised they didn’t lose control of the Council. It was a very good result for Labour. I see now though they have deposed the old leader Phil Bale and have installed Huw ‘Tippex’ Thomas as the new leader.
“Tippex” Thomas was the Labour student who wanted the Welsh to spatter English cars with Tippex. He was one of the participants in the incredibly dirty Ceredigion election in 2015.
Labour's Welsh vote was flattered by fielding more candidates than the other parties.
It's very difficult to attribute votes for Independents to other parties. My guess is that in places like Bridgend, Pembroke, Powys, Vale of Glamorgan , many Independents are Conservatives, whereas in the Valleys they're Labour supporters who've fallen out with the local party.
Apparently there has been an 8 point swing to Labour in the South since the GE. Conservative unchanged, Labour up 8.
Well we know it isn't racking up the vote in London based on the London Yougov poll, so where is this supposed swing coming from? Home counties UKIP going all to Labour?
Take London out and the Tories are on 55 in the Comres compared to 49 in 2015.
Labour will be hoovering up Greens. They were 4.9 in London, 5.2 in the SE and 5.9 in the SW last time out.
Oops, I got my figures muddled with South w/o London. So Labour are up 5 Con up 4 in the South.
Don't forget ORB, the third poll of the day that has seen the Tory lead cut.
It is more a move from Blair landslide 1997 to Thatcher landslide 1987 for May than anything really significant
The Tories are doing better than Blair, in terms of vote share.
Yes but I think while May can match Thatcher's 1987 majority it will be difficult for her to match Blair's 1997 majority because of the size of the Labour majorities in its safest seats
June 8th is going to be massively unpredictable. Some 1997 seats fell to Labour where they hadn't even thought possible. Similarly, 2015 with the SNP.
The only areas that are going to remotely hold for Labour are London and the North West, primarily because of the popularity of high profile Mayors. Elsewhere I see only disaster and desolation to the party I have been a member of since the age of 16.
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
The last Comres/SM poll had LDs at 11 so they are only down 1 not down 2 . Bit depressing that a pollster cannot subtract 10 from 11 and give the correct answer .
Without looking - rounding, perhaps?
You know it's bad for the LDs when they are squabbling over whether or not they are down by 1 or 2.
Don't forget ORB, the third poll of the day that has seen the Tory lead cut.
It is more a move from Blair landslide 1997 to Thatcher landslide 1987 for May than anything really significant
The Tories are doing better than Blair, in terms of vote share.
Yes but I think while May can match Thatcher's 1987 majority it will be difficult for her to match Blair's 1997 majority because of the size of the Labour majorities in its safest seats
June 8th is going to be massively unpredictable. Some 1997 seats fell to Labour where they hadn't even thought possible. Similarly, 2015 with the SNP.
The only areas that are going to remotely hold for Labour are London and the North West, primarily because of the popularity of high profile Mayors. Elsewhere I see only disaster and desolation to the party I have been a member of since the age of 16.
What's your worst case scenario for the party in terms of seats? I've not seen anyone predicting seriously that it likely that they'd go below 150.
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
The LD's are chasing the intelligentsia......being the only party raising refugees and cannabis isn't so stupid really especially since they are fishing in the same pond as Labour and Greens.
May, bringing up fox hunting was strategically inept....anyone who supports this barbaric nonsense is hardly going to look anywhere else than the Tory (unmentionables)....
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
Refugees cost 100k each (or thereabouts)?
What do you prefer - take 50k Syrians and give them 100k each or take 50k British people and give them 100k each?...
Labour claim to not raise taxes on those earning less than £80,000.
However they also want to reclassify "workers", such as Uber drivers, as employees. This will result in higher employee NIC being paid by the workers/employees.
An example of the draft Labour manifesto not properly being thought through.
Didn't Uber drivers lose a court case classified as self-employed ?
The Uber drivers won the case confirming them as workers and not self employed for employment law purposes. There are three categories for employment law purposes: employee, worker, and self-employed. The middle category derives from EU law. However for tax and NIC purposes there are only two : employee and self-employed, and workers are taxed as self-employed. This is where the tax implications of Labour's proposed recharacterisation derive from.
For information, members of a professional LLP are also workers, so this change could result in significantly larger NIC bills for most professional firms.
Labour's Welsh vote was flattered by fielding more candidates than the other parties.
It's very difficult to attribute votes for Independents to other parties. My guess is that in places like Bridgend, Pembroke, Powys, Vale of Glamorgan , many Independents are Conservatives, whereas in the Valleys they're Labour supporters who've fallen out with the local party.
I think that is correct. 80 per cent is a rough rule.
Labour did well in the cities -- they even gained seats in Swansea and Llanelli, and the losses in Cardiff were less than they should have been. Plaid Cymru did well in the rural areas.
I think this points to 6 Lab losses: Ynys Mon -> PC or Tory, and the 4 Welsh NE seats & Bridgend -> Tories.
I think Ceredigion is TCTC, and my bet for a surprise result would be the Rhondda where Chris Bryant has lost votes in every election.
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
The Tories are shooting for as broad a campaign as possible, appealing to as many people as possible, and fox hunting is not popular generally (though it is not really significant enough either to change that many peoples' votes). The LDs want to increase their vote as much as possible, I am sure, but are shooting for a more targeted and concentrated audience, one that they hope wants to differentiate from the Brexity, Tory mainstream as much as possible, and for whom those policies will be a benefit.
I've not seen figures, but I would also be surprised if either of those policies is as unpopular with the general public as fox hunting (less so on the refugee one though).
The last Comres/SM poll had LDs at 11 so they are only down 1 not down 2 . Bit depressing that a pollster cannot subtract 10 from 11 and give the correct answer .
Without looking - rounding, perhaps?
You know it's bad for the LDs when they are squabbling over whether or not they are down by 1 or 2.
In either case we are up 2 on 2015 !!
If we're picking random moments from history - you're 23 points down on YouGov April 2010
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
The Tories are shooting for as broad a campaign as possible, appealing to as many people as possible, and fox hunting is not popular generally (though it is not really significant enough either to change that many peoples' votes). The LDs want to increase their vote as much as possible, I am sure, but are shooting for a more targeted and concentrated audience, one that they hope wants to differentiate from the Brexity, Tory mainstream as much as possible, and for whom those policies will be a benefit.
I've not seen figures, but I would also be surprised if either of those policies is as unpopular with the general public as fox hunting (less so on the refugee one though).
I would have thought Fox hunting supporters vote Tory anyway.
This guy is no John 'speaks his mind' Buchan, but I'm sure Angus will appreciate his support.
'Moray Brexit leader backs Robertson in general election
The man who led Moray to the brink of a Brexit vote has backed the SNP’s Angus Robertson in the general election. Last year, Paul Briggs and Mr Robertson clashed bitterly over the UK’s place in Europe. Despite being an SNP member, Mr Briggs encouraged people to vote against the wishes of the party. And in June, 49.9% of voters in Moray said they wanted out of the European Union. The Remain camp triumphed by only 122 votes. Mr Briggs still supports Brexit, but says he has grown disillusioned with Prime Minister Theresa May’s “hard” approach.'
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
The Tories are shooting for as broad a campaign as possible, appealing to as many people as possible, and fox hunting is not popular generally (though it is not really significant enough either to change that many peoples' votes). The LDs want to increase their vote as much as possible, I am sure, but are shooting for a more targeted and concentrated audience, one that they hope wants to differentiate from the Brexity, Tory mainstream as much as possible, and for whom those policies will be a benefit.
I've not seen figures, but I would also be surprised if either of those policies is as unpopular with the general public as fox hunting (less so on the refugee one though).
I would have thought Fox hunting supporters vote Tory anyway.
I don't know why the Tories are so obsessed with the issue, since you're probably right, and plenty of Tories also oppose it.
This guy is no John 'speaks his mind' Buchan, but I'm sure Angus will appreciate his support.
'Moray Brexit leader backs Robertson in general election
The man who led Moray to the brink of a Brexit vote has backed the SNP’s Angus Robertson in the general election. Last year, Paul Briggs and Mr Robertson clashed bitterly over the UK’s place in Europe. Despite being an SNP member, Mr Briggs encouraged people to vote against the wishes of the party. And in June, 49.9% of voters in Moray said they wanted out of the European Union. The Remain camp triumphed by only 122 votes. Mr Briggs still supports Brexit, but says he has grown disillusioned with Prime Minister Theresa May’s “hard” approach.'
The evidence of what'#s happening is really pretty clear, confirmed by polls, canvassing and anecdotal evidence - there's almost no confusion:
1. Tories have a huge swing from UKIP 2. Labour is close to where they were in 2015. 3.The LibDems are drifting 4. UKIP is plunging.
I see there are still posters denying it all - Labour must be below 25%, etc. But without evidence to the contrry, it seems reasonable to believe the polls.
Whether this will change when the manifestos appear and the Tories start showing some ankle is an interesting question. It appears so far that May really wanted a pretty blank cheque - we might raise taxes, or not; we may chip away the pension lock, or not; we will have Brexit, but who knows on what basis. That was to be delivered by an "eek the alternative is Corbyn" campaign. I think that that is already factored in, though - Labour voters are well aware of Corbyn's alleged defects, and either disagree or are inclined to vote Labour anyway.
It's also striking that the LibDem campaign is invisible so far. They're in favour of a new referendum, Farron's decided on balance that gay sex is not a sin, and that's all I'm aware of. Less engaged voters probably have hardly noticed them at all so far.
But i wouldn't bet on the spreads on any of this just yet!
Labour claim to not raise taxes on those earning less than £80,000.
However they also want to reclassify "workers", such as Uber drivers, as employees. This will result in higher employee NIC being paid by the workers/employees.
An example of the draft Labour manifesto not properly being thought through.
Didn't Uber drivers lose a court case classified as self-employed ?
The Uber drivers won the case confirming them as workers and not self employed for employment law purposes. There are three categories for employment law purposes: employee, worker, and self-employed. The middle category derives from EU law. However for tax and NIC purposes there are only two : employee and self-employed, and workers are taxed as self-employed. This is where the tax implications of Labour's proposed recharacterisation derive from.
For information, members of a professional LLP are also workers, so this change could result in significantly larger NIC bills for most professional firms.
This guy is no John 'speaks his mind' Buchan, but I'm sure Angus will appreciate his support.
'Moray Brexit leader backs Robertson in general election
The man who led Moray to the brink of a Brexit vote has backed the SNP’s Angus Robertson in the general election. Last year, Paul Briggs and Mr Robertson clashed bitterly over the UK’s place in Europe. Despite being an SNP member, Mr Briggs encouraged people to vote against the wishes of the party. And in June, 49.9% of voters in Moray said they wanted out of the European Union. The Remain camp triumphed by only 122 votes. Mr Briggs still supports Brexit, but says he has grown disillusioned with Prime Minister Theresa May’s “hard” approach.'
Labour's Welsh vote was flattered by fielding more candidates than the other parties.
It's very difficult to attribute votes for Independents to other parties. My guess is that in places like Bridgend, Pembroke, Powys, Vale of Glamorgan , many Independents are Conservatives, whereas in the Valleys they're Labour supporters who've fallen out with the local party.
I think that is correct. 80 per cent is a rough rule.
Labour did well in the cities -- they even gained seats in Swansea and Llanelli, and the losses in Cardiff were less than they should have been. Plaid Cymru did well in the rural areas.
I think this points to 6 Lab losses: Ynys Mon -> PC or Tory, and the 4 Welsh NE seats & Bridgend -> Tories.
I think Ceredigion is TCTC, and my bet for a surprise result would be the Rhondda where Chris Bryant has lost votes in every election.
Had first communication from Plaid candidate in Ceredigion today - says the only Lib Dem in Wales wont have the influence to change Brexit but a rump of 3 or 4 Plaid Cymru members can!
Don't forget ORB, the third poll of the day that has seen the Tory lead cut.
It is more a move from Blair landslide 1997 to Thatcher landslide 1987 for May than anything really significant
The Tories are doing better than Blair, in terms of vote share.
Yes but I think while May can match Thatcher's 1987 majority it will be difficult for her to match Blair's 1997 majority because of the size of the Labour majorities in its safest seats
June 8th is going to be massively unpredictable. Some 1997 seats fell to Labour where they hadn't even thought possible. Similarly, 2015 with the SNP.
The only areas that are going to remotely hold for Labour are London and the North West, primarily because of the popularity of high profile Mayors. Elsewhere I see only disaster and desolation to the party I have been a member of since the age of 16.
What's your worst case scenario for the party in terms of seats? I've not seen anyone predicting seriously that it likely that they'd go below 150.
150 seems to be about where I'd put it....a low turnout and soft support is going to hit the party hard.
That said, I was a amazed how resilient the Labour vote fared under Brown, but that was down to people liking their local MP's (like Nick Palmer) on the whole.
It looks like the Tories might have dodged two bullets this week. The expenses stuff and now the NHS ransom-ware. Given nearly all the NHS trusts are back online, there is limited scope for attacking the government handling (although in these situation the role of central government is always overstated both positively and negatively).
Bit difficult to confine it to the NHS when it was a worldwide attack hitting lots of different countries and industries
No attacks in Wales, apparently. The Welsh government did pay for the security upgrade.
I suspect the truth of your statement is akin to the truth of the viz article linked earlier. The security upgrade is of course free.
It's not free. For EOL operating systems like XP, extended support needs to be paid for. If Wales paid and England stopped paying in 2014, it explains Jeremy Hunt's disappearing act as well as why Wales was not hit. (Actually Microsoft has now made the patch free.)
Labour claim to not raise taxes on those earning less than £80,000.
However they also want to reclassify "workers", such as Uber drivers, as employees. This will result in higher employee NIC being paid by the workers/employees.
An example of the draft Labour manifesto not properly being thought through.
Didn't Uber drivers lose a court case classified as self-employed ?
The Uber drivers won the case confirming them as workers and not self employed for employment law purposes. There are three categories for employment law purposes: employee, worker, and self-employed. The middle category derives from EU law. However for tax and NIC purposes there are only two : employee and self-employed, and workers are taxed as self-employed. This is where the tax implications of Labour's proposed recharacterisation derive from.
For information, members of a professional LLP are also workers, so this change could result in significantly larger NIC bills for most professional firms.
The evidence of what'#s happening is really pretty clear, confirmed by polls, canvassing and anecdotal evidence - there's almost no confusion:
1. Tories have a huge swing from UKIP 2. Labour is close to where they were in 2015. 3.The LibDems are drifting 4. UKIP is plunging.
I see there are still posters denying it all - Labour must be below 25%, etc. But without evidence to the contrry, it seems reasonable to believe the polls.
Whether this will change when the manifestos appear and the Tories start showing some ankle is an interesting question. It appears so far that May really wanted a pretty blank cheque - we might raise taxes, or not; we may chip away the pension lock, or not; we will have Brexit, but who knows on what basis. That was to be delivered by an "eek the alternative is Corbyn" campaign. I think that that is already factored in, though - Labour voters are well aware of Corbyn's alleged defects, and either disagree or are inclined to vote Labour anyway.
It's also striking that the LibDem campaign is invisible so far. They're in favour of a new referendum, Farron's decided on balance that gay sex is not a sin, and that's all I'm aware of. Less engaged voters probably have hardly noticed them at all so far.
But i wouldn't bet on the spreads on any of this just yet!
Surely Nick your instinct must tell you that Labour is not going to stay steady from 2015? We had the Council elections last week which were worse than those for Michael Foot in a similar position. This has all the hallmarks of your tick tock prediction.
Labour's Welsh vote was flattered by fielding more candidates than the other parties.
It's very difficult to attribute votes for Independents to other parties. My guess is that in places like Bridgend, Pembroke, Powys, Vale of Glamorgan , many Independents are Conservatives, whereas in the Valleys they're Labour supporters who've fallen out with the local party.
I think that is correct. 80 per cent is a rough rule.
Labour did well in the cities -- they even gained seats in Swansea and Llanelli, and the losses in Cardiff were less than they should have been. Plaid Cymru did well in the rural areas.
I think this points to 6 Lab losses: Ynys Mon -> PC or Tory, and the 4 Welsh NE seats & Bridgend -> Tories.
I think Ceredigion is TCTC, and my bet for a surprise result would be the Rhondda where Chris Bryant has lost votes in every election.
Had first communication from Plaid candidate in Ceredigion today - says the only Lib Dem in Wales wont have the influence to change Brexit but a rump of 3 or 4 Plaid Cymru members can!
Interesting idea, since I assume (correct me if this is wrong) their usual message is about how London ignores anything that comes out of Wales, meaning another MP would make no difference.
Don't forget ORB, the third poll of the day that has seen the Tory lead cut.
It is more a move from Blair landslide 1997 to Thatcher landslide 1987 for May than anything really significant
The Tories are doing better than Blair, in terms of vote share.
Yes but I think while May can match Thatcher's 1987 majority it will be difficult for her to match Blair's 1997 majority because of the size of the Labour majorities in its safest seats
Back in 1997, we thought seats like Southgate, Brent North, Harrow West, Romford were impregnable, due to their majorities.
All were suburban seats which were winnable for Labour on the national swing, Blair didn't really win many rural seats which are the real Tory safe seats and there are more inner city seats than rural seats and they are the equivalent safe seats for Labour. While on the national swing May will likely win some working class seats like Walsall and Bishop Auckland she is unlikely to win many actual inner city seats, even Thatcher won few of them
They all fell to Labour on well above the national swing. The national swing swing, had it been uniform, would have left the Tories with about 200 seats. I'm not expecting Inner City seats to fall, though.
The evidence of what'#s happening is really pretty clear, confirmed by polls, canvassing and anecdotal evidence - there's almost no confusion:
1. Tories have a huge swing from UKIP 2. Labour is close to where they were in 2015. 3.The LibDems are drifting 4. UKIP is plunging.
I see there are still posters denying it all - Labour must be below 25%, etc. But without evidence to the contrry, it seems reasonable to believe the polls.
Whether this will change when the manifestos appear and the Tories start showing some ankle is an interesting question. It appears so far that May really wanted a pretty blank cheque - we might raise taxes, or not; we may chip away the pension lock, or not; we will have Brexit, but who knows on what basis. That was to be delivered by an "eek the alternative is Corbyn" campaign. I think that that is already factored in, though - Labour voters are well aware of Corbyn's alleged defects, and either disagree or are inclined to vote Labour anyway.
It's also striking that the LibDem campaign is invisible so far. They're in favour of a new referendum, Farron's decided on balance that gay sex is not a sin, and that's all I'm aware of. Less engaged voters probably have hardly noticed them at all so far.
But i wouldn't bet on the spreads on any of this just yet!
The spreads are similar to 2010, I believe. It was 208 - 213, I believe near the end. Labour won 258 seats.
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
As errors go, I scarcely think anything ranks in the same league as targeting Vauxhall, where the Lib Dems are starting from 4th place and 47 percentage points behind the incumbent.
Based on the coloured bar chart at the top of this thread, the Baxterised numbers are as follows:
Con .......... 381
Labour ..... 188
LibDem ....... 5
UKIP ........... 0
Green ......... 0
Is now the time to SELL the Tories with Spreadex at 397 seats, or to BUY Labour with Sporting or Spreadex at 162 seats? As the chap on Big Brother is apt to say ..... You decide! (I placed my spread bets yesterday)
Is there a day you haven't either laid or sold the Tories yet ?
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
The Tories are shooting for as broad a campaign as possible, appealing to as many people as possible, and fox hunting is not popular generally (though it is not really significant enough either to change that many peoples' votes). The LDs want to increase their vote as much as possible, I am sure, but are shooting for a more targeted and concentrated audience, one that they hope wants to differentiate from the Brexity, Tory mainstream as much as possible, and for whom those policies will be a benefit.
I've not seen figures, but I would also be surprised if either of those policies is as unpopular with the general public as fox hunting (less so on the refugee one though).
I would have thought Fox hunting supporters vote Tory anyway.
The President of the Countryside Alliance says "Hi" from the Labour benches of the Lords.
It looks like the Tories might have dodged two bullets this week. The expenses stuff and now the NHS ransom-ware. Given nearly all the NHS trusts are back online, there is limited scope for attacking the government handling (although in these situation the role of central government is always overstated both positively and negatively).
Bit difficult to confine it to the NHS when it was a worldwide attack hitting lots of different countries and industries
No attacks in Wales, apparently. The Welsh government did pay for the security upgrade.
I suspect the truth of your statement is akin to the truth of the viz article linked earlier. The security upgrade is of course free.
It's not free. For EOL operating systems like XP, extended support needs to be paid for. If Wales paid and England stopped paying in 2014, it explains Jeremy Hunt's disappearing act as well as why Wales was not hit. (Actually Microsoft has now made the patch free.)
Since, most NHS computers apparently are XP, did the government take a decision not to go for extended support ? Even my company is covered.
It looks like the Tories might have dodged two bullets this week. The expenses stuff and now the NHS ransom-ware. Given nearly all the NHS trusts are back online, there is limited scope for attacking the government handling (although in these situation the role of central government is always overstated both positively and negatively).
Bit difficult to confine it to the NHS when it was a worldwide attack hitting lots of different countries and industries
No attacks in Wales, apparently. The Welsh government did pay for the security upgrade.
I suspect the truth of your statement is akin to the truth of the viz article linked earlier. The security upgrade is of course free.
It's not free. For EOL operating systems like XP, extended support needs to be paid for. If Wales paid and England stopped paying in 2014, it explains Jeremy Hunt's disappearing act as well as why Wales was not hit. (Actually Microsoft has now made the patch free.)
Microsoft offered a free upgrade to windows 10 for everyone.
Don't forget ORB, the third poll of the day that has seen the Tory lead cut.
It is more a move from Blair landslide 1997 to Thatcher landslide 1987 for May than anything really significant
The Tories are doing better than Blair, in terms of vote share.
Yes but I think while May can match Thatcher's 1987 majority it will be difficult for her to match Blair's 1997 majority because of the size of the Labour majorities in its safest seats
June 8th is going to be massively unpredictable. Some 1997 seats fell to Labour where they hadn't even thought possible. Similarly, 2015 with the SNP.
The only areas that are going to remotely hold for Labour are London and the North West, primarily because of the popularity of high profile Mayors. Elsewhere I see only disaster and desolation to the party I have been a member of since the age of 16.
The highest majority the Tories have ever had since WW2 was the 144 seat Majority Thatcher got in 1983, so I can see May getting a majority of more than 100 but not more than 150. By contrast the highest majority Labour have ever had since WW2 was the 179 seat majority Blair won in 1997, so I think Labour has a slightly higher floor in terms of UK wide seats than the Tories (albeit not in national voteshare) purely because of the huge majorities Labour MPs have in inner city seats and there are more of them than ultra safe Tory rural seats
This guy is no John 'speaks his mind' Buchan, but I'm sure Angus will appreciate his support.
'Moray Brexit leader backs Robertson in general election
The man who led Moray to the brink of a Brexit vote has backed the SNP’s Angus Robertson in the general election. Last year, Paul Briggs and Mr Robertson clashed bitterly over the UK’s place in Europe. Despite being an SNP member, Mr Briggs encouraged people to vote against the wishes of the party. And in June, 49.9% of voters in Moray said they wanted out of the European Union. The Remain camp triumphed by only 122 votes. Mr Briggs still supports Brexit, but says he has grown disillusioned with Prime Minister Theresa May’s “hard” approach.'
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
The Tories are shooting for as broad a campaign as possible, appealing to as many people as possible, and fox hunting is not popular generally (though it is not really significant enough either to change that many peoples' votes). The LDs want to increase their vote as much as possible, I am sure, but are shooting for a more targeted and concentrated audience, one that they hope wants to differentiate from the Brexity, Tory mainstream as much as possible, and for whom those policies will be a benefit.
I've not seen figures, but I would also be surprised if either of those policies is as unpopular with the general public as fox hunting (less so on the refugee one though).
I would have thought Fox hunting supporters vote Tory anyway.
The President of the Countryside Alliance says "Hi" from the Labour benches of the Lords.
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
The Tories are shooting for as broad a campaign as possible, appealing to as many people as possible, and fox hunting is not popular generally (though it is not really significant enough either to change that many peoples' votes). The LDs want to increase their vote as much as possible, I am sure, but are shooting for a more targeted and concentrated audience, one that they hope wants to differentiate from the Brexity, Tory mainstream as much as possible, and for whom those policies will be a benefit.
I've not seen figures, but I would also be surprised if either of those policies is as unpopular with the general public as fox hunting (less so on the refugee one though).
I would have thought Fox hunting supporters vote Tory anyway.
The President of the Countryside Alliance says "Hi" from the Labour benches of the Lords.
He/she must be the only one.
Melvyn Bragg, Kate Hoey just to name two more without any effort.
Automatic upgrades are mostly done automatically. Some firms spend a fortune on people that actually hold back the upgrades from Microsoft etc so that their IT guys can 'test' them. In almost all cases this is just stupid. There is basically zero cost in letting Microsoft do this for you. They're good at it, and if you're fully up to date then you can have a bit of a gripe at them. Running versions of Internet Explorer that are around 6 versions behind the current one (as my company did) isn't wise.
Unless your business is operating systems and the like there's not a chance in hell that your support guys are even 10% as good as the people at Microsoft. There's a good chance that you can buy in some help that is nearly to that standard - install some sort of anti-virus thing, but even better tell your staff to stop clicking on links.
I'm fairly certain you're wrong about that. As a slightly silly example, MS cannot test the connection to the hospital's Therac-25 (*) machine, which is connected to the PC via an ancient serial bus. Or the slightly odd way the network's configured because a slightly obscure machine designed in the Windows XP - era requires string and beeswax to operate.
It isn't just the specialist software that's being run on the PC (though that can be difficult enough): it's the peripherals that are connected to the PCs. When I was working in the tech industry, we'd see all sorts of problems caused by OS updates, from GPIB cards suddenly breaking (stopping all testing) to design data suddenly being inaccessible (stopping all design work).
This probably isn't the case for a GP surgery, and in many cases there is probably an over-abundance of caution. However for large organisations, or those using uncommon equipment, or where failures could cost vast sums of money or even lives, testing is vital.
(*) Extra points for people who realise the relevance of this.
It looks like the Tories might have dodged two bullets this week. The expenses stuff and now the NHS ransom-ware. Given nearly all the NHS trusts are back online, there is limited scope for attacking the government handling (although in these situation the role of central government is always overstated both positively and negatively).
Bit difficult to confine it to the NHS when it was a worldwide attack hitting lots of different countries and industries
No attacks in Wales, apparently. The Welsh government did pay for the security upgrade.
I suspect the truth of your statement is akin to the truth of the viz article linked earlier. The security upgrade is of course free.
If it weren't free to obtain, it would be Microsoft who were holding organisations to ransom. But surely installation costs money in administration?
Automatic upgrades are mostly done automatically. Some firms spend a fortune on people that actually hold back the upgrades from Microsoft etc so that their IT guys can 'test' them. In almost all cases this is just stupid. There is basically zero cost in letting Microsoft do this for you. They're good at it, and if you're fully up to date then you can have a bit of a gripe at them. Running versions of Internet Explorer that are around 6 versions behind the current one (as my company did) isn't wise.
Unless your business is operating systems and the like there's not a chance in hell that your support guys are even 10% as good as the people at Microsoft. There's a good chance that you can buy in some help that is nearly to that standard - install some sort of anti-virus thing, but even better tell your staff to stop clicking on links.
It is now rare for automatic patches to render systems unusable but it did used to happen and still does from time to time, which is a reason for testing patches first, or of starting with test systems. There are other ways round it.
Another reason for not automatically updating is that older versions are essential to run particular programs, or more often, that said program will run quite happily on updated systems but is only certified or supported on the older version.
Yet another reason is that patching software is hard given that management insists on no downtime but has already shut down the redundant systems in the name of financial efficiency.
It looks like the Tories might have dodged two bullets this week. The expenses stuff and now the NHS ransom-ware. Given nearly all the NHS trusts are back online, there is limited scope for attacking the government handling (although in these situation the role of central government is always overstated both positively and negatively).
Bit difficult to confine it to the NHS when it was a worldwide attack hitting lots of different countries and industries
No attacks in Wales, apparently. The Welsh government did pay for the security upgrade.
I suspect the truth of your statement is akin to the truth of the viz article linked earlier. The security upgrade is of course free.
It's not free. For EOL operating systems like XP, extended support needs to be paid for. If Wales paid and England stopped paying in 2014, it explains Jeremy Hunt's disappearing act as well as why Wales was not hit. (Actually Microsoft has now made the patch free.)
Microsoft offered a free upgrade to windows 10 for everyone.
Enterprise edition didn't qualify for free upgrades. That was to get the general public / home users on a modern, secure, operation system...
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
The Tories are shooting for as broad a campaign as possible, appealing to as many people as possible, and fox hunting is not popular generally (though it is not really significant enough either to change that many peoples' votes). The LDs want to increase their vote as much as possible, I am sure, but are shooting for a more targeted and concentrated audience, one that they hope wants to differentiate from the Brexity, Tory mainstream as much as possible, and for whom those policies will be a benefit.
I've not seen figures, but I would also be surprised if either of those policies is as unpopular with the general public as fox hunting (less so on the refugee one though).
I would have thought Fox hunting supporters vote Tory anyway.
The President of the Countryside Alliance says "Hi" from the Labour benches of the Lords.
He/she must be the only one.
Melvyn Bragg, Kate Hoey just to name two more without any effort.
Is Kate Hoey Labour ? Melvyn Bragg is a Luvvie, will not vote Tory in a million years.
It looks like the Tories might have dodged two bullets this week. The expenses stuff and now the NHS ransom-ware. Given nearly all the NHS trusts are back online, there is limited scope for attacking the government handling (although in these situation the role of central government is always overstated both positively and negatively).
Bit difficult to confine it to the NHS when it was a worldwide attack hitting lots of different countries and industries
No attacks in Wales, apparently. The Welsh government did pay for the security upgrade.
I suspect the truth of your statement is akin to the truth of the viz article linked earlier. The security upgrade is of course free.
It's not free. For EOL operating systems like XP, extended support needs to be paid for. If Wales paid and England stopped paying in 2014, it explains Jeremy Hunt's disappearing act as well as why Wales was not hit. (Actually Microsoft has now made the patch free.)
Microsoft offered a free upgrade to windows 10 for everyone.
Which may well not be guaranteed to work with much of the equipment in the hospital, as the suppliers only tested it on an ancient OS ten years ago. That kit will probably work fine under Windows 10, but they won't guarantee it, and any deaths that occur are your fault for not using the OS they've tested it with ...
Unless you want to give them £x for the latest version, which is guaranteed to work with Windows 10.
By the way, do we have "made up my mind" figures broken down by party?
Dr P - have you made up your mind? You've often expressed support for Corbyn, but (and I find this contradictory) you've also often said wise things. I'm sure you know without doubt that were Mr Corbyn to be elected we'd immediately be in a financial crisis. That crisis in itself will disable his plans. His plans though are so raddled that even if the markets greeted him with joy they'd be unworkable. You have to know this - you're far too clever not to. Care to comment?
Rather scary for the Lib Dems that the national polls are now showing swings away from them to both the Tories and Labour.
I suspect the LD swing is to Labour not Tory, and it is the tactical vote effect as the question who will you vote for ? becomes more real and specific.
There are many more Con/Lab marginals than Con/LD marginals so if there is an anti-Tory vote, it will show up as an increase in the Labour share (from tactical LDs) in Con/Lab marginals, and an increase in the LibDem share (from tactical Lab) in the Con/LD marginals. Good news for Lab and LD in terms of seats. But in terms of national vote share, it would mean an increased share for Lab and a decrease for LD.
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
The Tories are shooting for as broad a campaign as possible, appealing to as many people as possible, and fox hunting is not popular generally (though it is not really significant enough either to change that many peoples' votes). The LDs want to increase their vote as much as possible, I am sure, but are shooting for a more targeted and concentrated audience, one that they hope wants to differentiate from the Brexity, Tory mainstream as much as possible, and for whom those policies will be a benefit.
I've not seen figures, but I would also be surprised if either of those policies is as unpopular with the general public as fox hunting (less so on the refugee one though).
I would have thought Fox hunting supporters vote Tory anyway.
The President of the Countryside Alliance says "Hi" from the Labour benches of the Lords.
He/she must be the only one.
Melvyn Bragg, Kate Hoey just to name two more without any effort.
Is Kate Hoey Labour ? Melvyn Bragg is a Luvvie, will not vote Tory in a million years.
Automatic upgrades are mostly done automatically. Some firms spend a fortune on people that actually hold back the upgrades from Microsoft etc so that their IT guys can 'test' them. In almost all cases this is just stupid. There is basically zero cost in letting Microsoft do this for you. They're good at it, and if you're fully up to date then you can have a bit of a gripe at them. Running versions of Internet Explorer that are around 6 versions behind the current one (as my company did) isn't wise.
Unless your business is operating systems and the like there's not a chance in hell that your support guys are even 10% as good as the people at Microsoft. There's a good chance that you can buy in some help that is nearly to that standard - install some sort of anti-virus thing, but even better tell your staff to stop clicking on links.
I'm fairly certain you're wrong about that. As a slightly silly example, MS cannot test the connection to the hospital's Therac-25 (*) machine, which is connected to the PC via an ancient serial bus. Or the slightly odd way the network's configured because a slightly obscure machine designed in the Windows XP - era requires string and beeswax to operate.
It isn't just the specialist software that's being run on the PC (though that can be difficult enough): it's the peripherals that are connected to the PCs. When I was working in the tech industry, we'd see all sorts of problems caused by OS updates, from GPIB cards suddenly breaking (stopping all testing) to design data suddenly being inaccessible (stopping all design work).
This probably isn't the case for a GP surgery, and in many cases there is probably an over-abundance of caution. However for large organisations, or those using uncommon equipment, or where failures could cost vast sums of money or even lives, testing is vital.
(*) Extra points for people who realise the relevance of this.
Oracle is an example of a common program that doesn't support modern browsers. As you mention, there's also the hardware, which in hospitals can be highly specialised tech long since abandoned by the creators.
LD campaign so far seems to have consisted of legalising cannabis and taking in another 50,000 refugees at a cost of £4.3 billion. Regardless of the merits of these policies they don't seem likely to improve their popularity.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
As errors go, I scarcely think anything ranks in the same league as targeting Vauxhall, where the Lib Dems are starting from 4th place and 47 percentage points behind the incumbent.
They could hoover up quite a few Remain voters and hand the seat to the.......Tories
As a Hull City fan it pains to mention that they were relegated from the Premier League in 2010 and 2015. They may be a pattern here involving increased numbers of Tory MPs.
It looks like the Tories might have dodged two bullets this week. The expenses stuff and now the NHS ransom-ware. Given nearly all the NHS trusts are back online, there is limited scope for attacking the government handling (although in these situation the role of central government is always overstated both positively and negatively).
Bit difficult to confine it to the NHS when it was a worldwide attack hitting lots of different countries and industries
No attacks in Wales, apparently. The Welsh government did pay for the security upgrade.
I suspect the truth of your statement is akin to the truth of the viz article linked earlier. The security upgrade is of course free.
It's not free. For EOL operating systems like XP, extended support needs to be paid for. If Wales paid and England stopped paying in 2014, it explains Jeremy Hunt's disappearing act as well as why Wales was not hit. (Actually Microsoft has now made the patch free.)
Microsoft offered a free upgrade to windows 10 for everyone.
Which may well not be guaranteed to work with much of the equipment in the hospital, as the suppliers only tested it on an ancient OS ten years ago. That kit will probably work fine under Windows 10, but they won't guarantee it, and any deaths that occur are your fault for not using the OS they've tested it with ...
Unless you want to give them £x for the latest version, which is guaranteed to work with Windows 10.
These software related deaths that you're alluding to. Care to list them?
The evidence of what'#s happening is really pretty clear, confirmed by polls, canvassing and anecdotal evidence - there's almost no confusion:
1. Tories have a huge swing from UKIP 2. Labour is close to where they were in 2015. 3.The LibDems are drifting 4. UKIP is plunging.
I see there are still posters denying it all - Labour must be below 25%, etc. But without evidence to the contrry, it seems reasonable to believe the polls.
Whether this will change when the manifestos appear and the Tories start showing some ankle is an interesting question. It appears so far that May really wanted a pretty blank cheque - we might raise taxes, or not; we may chip away the pension lock, or not; we will have Brexit, but who knows on what basis. That was to be delivered by an "eek the alternative is Corbyn" campaign. I think that that is already factored in, though - Labour voters are well aware of Corbyn's alleged defects, and either disagree or are inclined to vote Labour anyway.
It's also striking that the LibDem campaign is invisible so far. They're in favour of a new referendum, Farron's decided on balance that gay sex is not a sin, and that's all I'm aware of. Less engaged voters probably have hardly noticed them at all so far.
But i wouldn't bet on the spreads on any of this just yet!
"Labour voters are well aware of Corbyn's alleged defects, and either disagree or are inclined to vote Labour anyway. "
Or alternatively a section of the Labour vote finds the idea of Corbyn defending the nation and Diane Abbott in charge of the Police to be frightening, but as long as the polls show this as remote they don't have a decision to make and can stick with supporting Labour.
The evidence of what'#s happening is really pretty clear, confirmed by polls, canvassing and anecdotal evidence - there's almost no confusion:
1. Tories have a huge swing from UKIP 2. Labour is close to where they were in 2015. 3.The LibDems are drifting 4. UKIP is plunging.
I see there are still posters denying it all - Labour must be below 25%, etc. But without evidence to the contrry, it seems reasonable to believe the polls.
Whether this will change when the manifestos appear and the Tories start showing some ankle is an interesting question. It appears so far that May really wanted a pretty blank cheque - we might raise taxes, or not; we may chip away the pension lock, or not; we will have Brexit, but who knows on what basis. That was to be delivered by an "eek the alternative is Corbyn" campaign. I think that that is already factored in, though - Labour voters are well aware of Corbyn's alleged defects, and either disagree or are inclined to vote Labour anyway.
It's also striking that the LibDem campaign is invisible so far. They're in favour of a new referendum, Farron's decided on balance that gay sex is not a sin, and that's all I'm aware of. Less engaged voters probably have hardly noticed them at all so far.
But i wouldn't bet on the spreads on any of this just yet!
"Labour voters are well aware of Corbyn's alleged defects, and either disagree or are inclined to vote Labour anyway. "
Or alternatively a section of the Labour vote finds the idea of Corbyn defending the nation and Diane Abbott in charge of the Police to be frightening, but as long as the polls show this as remote they don't have a decision to make and can stick with supporting Labour.
Either way, it means Labour won't get wiped out anywhere near as bad as once seemed possible.
The evidence of what'#s happening is really pretty clear, confirmed by polls, canvassing and anecdotal evidence - there's almost no confusion:
1. Tories have a huge swing from UKIP 2. Labour is close to where they were in 2015. 3.The LibDems are drifting 4. UKIP is plunging.
I see there are still posters denying it all - Labour must be below 25%, etc. But without evidence to the contrry, it seems reasonable to believe the polls.
Whether this will change when the manifestos appear and the Tories start showing some ankle is an interesting question. It appears so far that May really wanted a pretty blank cheque - we might raise taxes, or not; we may chip away the pension lock, or not; we will have Brexit, but who knows on what basis. That was to be delivered by an "eek the alternative is Corbyn" campaign. I think that that is already factored in, though - Labour voters are well aware of Corbyn's alleged defects, and either disagree or are inclined to vote Labour anyway.
It's also striking that the LibDem campaign is invisible so far. They're in favour of a new referendum, Farron's decided on balance that gay sex is not a sin, and that's all I'm aware of. Less engaged voters probably have hardly noticed them at all so far.
But i wouldn't bet on the spreads on any of this just yet!
The LibDem campaign is highly visible in Richmond Park and I suspect that is true in all the LibDem target seats.
By the way, do we have "made up my mind" figures broken down by party?
Dr P - have you made up your mind? You've often expressed support for Corbyn, but (and I find this contradictory) you've also often said wise things. I'm sure you know without doubt that were Mr Corbyn to be elected we'd immediately be in a financial crisis. That crisis in itself will disable his plans. His plans though are so raddled that even if the markets greeted him with joy they'd be unworkable. You have to know this - you're far too clever not to. Care to comment?
One of the strengths of the Labour Party in this campaign is that nobody expects Labour to win. Therefore, all these "costing" nonsense which Labour has to answer and the Tories don't will not make much of an impact this time.
Many Labour voters who do not like Corbyn particularly, will still vote Labour to stop the landslide.
As a Hull City fan it pains to mention that they were relegated from the Premier League in 2010 and 2015. They may be a pattern here involving increased numbers of Tory MPs.
Why is it that team from Leave areas get relegated ?
Comments
*knows who is more likely to have a Gillian Duffy moment, out of May and Corbyn*
Extra guard-sheep around the temple which holds the Sacred Abacus of Ysbyty Ystwyth?
As for the minority of Labour voters who did think he's best on these issues, well, good luck to them.
a) They are picking up around 1% of the electorate from the Lib Dems;
b) They are picking up around 2% of the electorate from the Greens;
c) They are picking up around 1% of the electorate from Plaid;
d) They are picking up DNVs who will not actually vote when it comes to it;
e) These votes are in overwhelmingly safe seats - Labour Urbans/Tory suburbans
I don't think there is any significant swing to the Tories in SE/SW or East.
Ive seen that surge in Ayrshire
Next time it could be the railways, or the payment of public sector salaries, or the electricity grid.
Yeah right.
However they also want to reclassify "workers", such as Uber drivers, as employees. This will result in higher employee NIC being paid by the workers/employees.
An example of the draft Labour manifesto not properly being thought through.
As a rough rule of thumb, 80 percent of the Welsh Independents are Tories. The local election results in Wales were consistent with the polls for the local elections, once this is taken into account.
To be honest, the results were not too disastrous for Labour in Wales. I think Wrexham, Clwyd South, Alyn & Deeside, Delyn and Bridgend are already lost.
The next batch of vulnerable seats are the Newport and Cardiff ones.
Labour did well in the cities in Wales -- Newport, Cardiff, Swansea & Llanelli. Labour lost seats outside the cities.
So, it looks to me as though the Tory tide will stop at Bridgend. The Tories won’t take the Newport seats.
Considering the allegations of bullying and infighting in Cardiff Labour, I am surprised they didn’t lose control of the Council. It was a very good result for Labour. I see now though they have deposed the old leader Phil Bale and have installed Huw ‘Tippex’ Thomas as the new leader.
“Tippex” Thomas was the Labour student who wanted the Welsh to spatter English cars with Tippex. He was one of the participants in the incredibly dirty Ceredigion election in 2015.
Bit depressing that a pollster cannot subtract 10 from 11 and give the correct answer .
Apparently there has been an 8 point swing to Labour in the South since the GE. Conservative unchanged, Labour up 8.
Well we know it isn't racking up the vote in London based on the London Yougov poll, so where is this supposed swing coming from? Home counties UKIP going all to Labour?
Nor Brown. Foot, maybe.
Now? Possibly.
Unless your business is operating systems and the like there's not a chance in hell that your support guys are even 10% as good as the people at Microsoft. There's a good chance that you can buy in some help that is nearly to that standard - install some sort of anti-virus thing, but even better tell your staff to stop clicking on links.
Labour will be hoovering up Greens. They were 4.9 in London, 5.2 in the SE and 5.9 in the SW last time out.
It's very difficult to attribute votes for Independents to other parties. My guess is that in places like Bridgend, Pembroke, Powys, Vale of Glamorgan , many Independents are Conservatives, whereas in the Valleys they're Labour supporters who've fallen out with the local party.
Greens are on 4%, so down only 1.
June 8th is going to be massively unpredictable. Some 1997 seats fell to Labour where they hadn't even thought possible. Similarly, 2015 with the SNP.
The only areas that are going to remotely hold for Labour are London and the North West, primarily because of the popularity of high profile Mayors. Elsewhere I see only disaster and desolation to the party I have been a member of since the age of 16.
Some posters on here thought that the PM talking about fox hunting was an error. Is talking about legalising drug use and letting in refugees a political error in a Brexity election? Just asking.
May, bringing up fox hunting was strategically inept....anyone who supports this barbaric nonsense is hardly going to look anywhere else than the Tory (unmentionables)....
What do you prefer - take 50k Syrians and give them 100k each or take 50k British people and give them 100k each?...
The Uber drivers won the case confirming them as workers and not self employed for employment law purposes. There are three categories for employment law purposes: employee, worker, and self-employed. The middle category derives from EU law. However for tax and NIC purposes there are only two : employee and self-employed, and workers are taxed as self-employed. This is where the tax implications of Labour's proposed recharacterisation derive from.
For information, members of a professional LLP are also workers, so this change could result in significantly larger NIC bills for most professional firms.
Labour did well in the cities -- they even gained seats in Swansea and Llanelli, and the losses in Cardiff were less than they should have been. Plaid Cymru did well in the rural areas.
I think this points to 6 Lab losses: Ynys Mon -> PC or Tory, and the 4 Welsh NE seats & Bridgend -> Tories.
I think Ceredigion is TCTC, and my bet for a surprise result would be the Rhondda where Chris Bryant has lost votes in every election.
I've not seen figures, but I would also be surprised if either of those policies is as unpopular with the general public as fox hunting (less so on the refugee one though).
'Moray Brexit leader backs Robertson in general election
The man who led Moray to the brink of a Brexit vote has backed the SNP’s Angus Robertson in the general election. Last year, Paul Briggs and Mr Robertson clashed bitterly over the UK’s place in Europe.
Despite being an SNP member, Mr Briggs encouraged people to vote against the wishes of the party. And in June, 49.9% of voters in Moray said they wanted out of the European Union.
The Remain camp triumphed by only 122 votes. Mr Briggs still supports Brexit, but says he has grown disillusioned with Prime Minister Theresa May’s “hard” approach.'
https://tinyurl.com/lwnoba6
1. Tories have a huge swing from UKIP
2. Labour is close to where they were in 2015.
3.The LibDems are drifting
4. UKIP is plunging.
I see there are still posters denying it all - Labour must be below 25%, etc. But without evidence to the contrry, it seems reasonable to believe the polls.
Whether this will change when the manifestos appear and the Tories start showing some ankle is an interesting question. It appears so far that May really wanted a pretty blank cheque - we might raise taxes, or not; we may chip away the pension lock, or not; we will have Brexit, but who knows on what basis. That was to be delivered by an "eek the alternative is Corbyn" campaign. I think that that is already factored in, though - Labour voters are well aware of Corbyn's alleged defects, and either disagree or are inclined to vote Labour anyway.
It's also striking that the LibDem campaign is invisible so far. They're in favour of a new referendum, Farron's decided on balance that gay sex is not a sin, and that's all I'm aware of. Less engaged voters probably have hardly noticed them at all so far.
But i wouldn't bet on the spreads on any of this just yet!
Colour me shocked.
That said, I was a amazed how resilient the Labour vote fared under Brown, but that was down to people liking their local MP's (like Nick Palmer) on the whole.
84% Con, 75% Lab, 54% Lib, 55% UKIP
Oh no, definitely not.
It isn't just the specialist software that's being run on the PC (though that can be difficult enough): it's the peripherals that are connected to the PCs. When I was working in the tech industry, we'd see all sorts of problems caused by OS updates, from GPIB cards suddenly breaking (stopping all testing) to design data suddenly being inaccessible (stopping all design work).
This probably isn't the case for a GP surgery, and in many cases there is probably an over-abundance of caution. However for large organisations, or those using uncommon equipment, or where failures could cost vast sums of money or even lives, testing is vital.
(*) Extra points for people who realise the relevance of this.
Another reason for not automatically updating is that older versions are essential to run particular programs, or more often, that said program will run quite happily on updated systems but is only certified or supported on the older version.
Yet another reason is that patching software is hard given that management insists on no downtime but has already shut down the redundant systems in the name of financial efficiency.
Unless you want to give them £x for the latest version, which is guaranteed to work with Windows 10.
There are many more Con/Lab marginals than Con/LD marginals so if there is an anti-Tory vote, it will show up as an increase in the Labour share (from tactical LDs) in Con/Lab marginals, and an increase in the LibDem share (from tactical Lab) in the Con/LD marginals. Good news for Lab and LD in terms of seats. But in terms of national vote share, it would mean an increased share for Lab and a decrease for LD.
Or alternatively a section of the Labour vote finds the idea of Corbyn defending the nation and Diane Abbott in charge of the Police to be frightening, but as long as the polls show this as remote they don't have a decision to make and can stick with supporting Labour.
Many Labour voters who do not like Corbyn particularly, will still vote Labour to stop the landslide.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/863450105910841344