Farron - some talk of potential challenge, particularly in the event of a blue tide, but probably safe Brake - Leave area, but UKIP vote to squeeze. Seems a goner. Lamb - Ditto. Williams - LDs doing badly in Wales, PC candidate strong local candidate apparently. Probably safe though. Carmichael - Very close last time, but historically very safe Liberal, Holyrood result strong for them. Despite liar case probably safe.
Clegg - No tory tacticals to save him, depends if area which traditionally was tory/Liberal for 30 years sheds the big lab vote from last time. Probable hold, but still in danger.
So I think they may need 4-5 gains just to stand still.
Tim Farron got more than 50% of the vote last time around, and the LDs did very well in the constituency in the locals. While there is a meaningful Leave vote, it was still a Remain area. LD hold.
Tom Brake. I've felt this is the most vulnerable LD seat for long time. Big UKIP vote, Leave area. No Heathrow. Brake is locally popular, but likely Con gain.
Williams. Plaid was a long way behind last time. Probably a narrow LD hold.
Carmichael. 67.4% was the LD share in (believe it or not) both Orkney and Shetland last year, with a big swing away from the SNP. LD hold with an increased majority.
Clegg. It'll be a three way marginal won't it? Hallam locals last year were very encouraging for the LDs, so I'd reckon he holds it.
Olney. I mustn't let my dislike of Zac blind me. Likely a Conservative (re)gain. Would be a certain (re)gain with any other Conservative candidate.
So, the LDs on 5/6 in their existing seats. I think Twickenham and Edinburgh West are fairly likely. (Heathrow is a bigger issue in Twickenham than Richmond.) And the locals in Cambridge will have been very encouraging for the LDs. Probably one, possibly two more Scottish seats could fall. (Pick from Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Dumbartonshire East and Fife NE.) And add a wildcard for good measure.
LDs 12 would be my guess.
You discount Cheadle and OXWAB?
There must also be a decent chance in Cornwall, as by Rob D's spreadsheet, the Kipper to Con conversion is below average in SW and SE, and above average in E Mids and NE.
St Ives will be close I think. The previous LD MP was pretty popular as MPs go and he's standing again.
Lol...Jezza just doesn't care does he...Take over the labour party withe entrists.
Can you imagine the uproar if the Tories hired the leader of the nazis.
Why should anyone be surprised that actual communists are welcome in the modern Labour Party? That's what Labour is now, a front for Marxists to take power.
Labour are doomed. They have to split. The communists are the parasite that has now entirely taken over the host.
A creature that 'gestates inside a living human host' — these are your words — 'and has concentrated Communism for blood'.
Not going to be particularly difficult for you to put the cross next to Lucy Powell is it ?
Oh dear! Mrs May is starting to talk bollocks. We may have a hard left government under Corbyn yet.
She's going after patriotic working class voters in Mansfield and Hartlepool. Sod what TSE wants
It's started -lol
I did mention when the tories bring out the social conservative manifesto watch the reactions.
If the Tories nail the marketing of this manifesto, they could top 50% in the polls, and the votes...
Seems incredible, and I think it may be beyond them in votes, but as you say, play things right, get lucky in opposition, and you can appeal to the centre and left while the right doesn't depart, and it is possible. Ambitious, perhaps to ambitious, but the rewards are high if she can hold it together for a month.
Following which she has five years in which to negotiate and cope with the consequences of Brexit.
Good luck with that one.
The higher a majority she gets now, the better chance the party can retain power in five years even if Brexit is a complete disaster.
If Brexit is a complete disaster, it won't matter much who is in power. Unless of course you think it doesn't matter what happens so long as your team is in charge.
As long as Corbyn remains Labour leader and there is no centrist alternative we could have unemployment of 20%+ and May's Tories would probably still be re elected
Seems notable the headlines are talking about this being a push for Labour votes. Not the intention, I'm sure, but it almost feels like a dare to Tory readers to point that out and see if they are still happy with the direction. She's caring about Labour votes chaps, you ok with that?
If the Landslide comes off, then May is going to have a lot of NE and Mids MPs to keep happy. It will alter the dynamics of the party significantly.
A bit like how Blair focussed on the issues in the seats he took in 97, over more traditional Lab srats.
Not going to be particularly difficult for you to put the cross next to Lucy Powell is it ?
Oh dear! Mrs May is starting to talk bollocks. We may have a hard left government under Corbyn yet.
She's going after patriotic working class voters in Mansfield and Hartlepool. Sod what TSE wants
It's started -lol
I did mention when the tories bring out the social conservative manifesto watch the reactions.
If the Tories nail the marketing of this manifesto, they could top 50% in the polls, and the votes...
Seems incredible, and I think it may be beyond them in votes, but as you say, play things right, get lucky in opposition, and you can appeal to the centre and left while the right doesn't depart, and it is possible. Ambitious, perhaps to ambitious, but the rewards are high if she can hold it together for a month.
Following which she has five years in which to negotiate and cope with the consequences of Brexit.
Good luck with that one.
The higher a majority she gets now, the better chance the party can retain power in five years even if Brexit is a complete disaster.
If Brexit is a complete disaster, it won't matter much who is in power. Unless of course you think it doesn't matter what happens so long as your team is in charge.
It's not my team, Peter, never voted Tory in my life (outside a second preference once - might this time, after the locals I don't know there's much point to voting LD). I'm sure she thinks she can make it not a disaster, but also that if it is destined to be one, her party is best placed to deal with that disaster, and so maximising that chance is important. All party members surely do, if they are seeking majorities, because they think their side is the best. It's why they end up confusing party interest with country interest, and excuse their failings as they know, they know, that despite that the other side would always be worse.
It might be difficult to believe now, but apparently in the 1980s one of the selling points of personal computers was precisely that they weren't connected to networks, that they were standalone and unable to be affected by the outside world = security. In other words, the only way for someone to steal your files was by physically breaking into your home. All that was forgotten as soon as the internet became popular.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. There wasn't a great deal of "inter-networking" back in the 1980s. Even computers that had network connections (usually dial-up modems) were on essentially private wide area networks (banks, airlines and so on), and most network connections were terminals to mainframes and minicomputers. PCs in the 1980s, or even the 1970s, had modems for BBS use, it was a relatively common peripheral.
The big step change was the opening of the educational and research "internet" to companies in general and to individuals via ISPs. Private networks declined, perhaps not in terms of hosts but as a fraction of users, and the internet took off like a rocket. Wide area networks went from predominantly private industry specific networks, to a public and global network.
So it wasn't the fact that you weren't networked that was the "safety feature" with PCs, it was that switch from private (you know who you are connecting to) terminal emulation and BBS usage, to public connections to the internet where some random person in China can attack your PC whilst you sleep.
Seems notable the headlines are talking about this being a push for Labour votes. Not the intention, I'm sure, but it almost feels like a dare to Tory readers to point that out and see if they are still happy with the direction. She's caring about Labour votes chaps, you ok with that?
If the Landslide comes off, then May is going to have a lot of NE and Mids MPs to keep happy. It will alter the dynamics of the party significantly.
A bit like how Blair focussed on the issues in the seats he took in 97, over more traditional Lab srats.
Don't forget all those Scottish and Welsh MPs. That damn SCON Klaxon hasn't stopped blaring yet.
Heck, might as well predict one of the NI Conservatives getting in (not seriously), if they're being ambitious.
Farron - some talk of potential challenge, particularly in the event of a blue tide, but probably safe Brake - Leave area, but UKIP vote to squeeze. Seems a goner. Lamb - Ditto. Williams - LDs doing badly in Wales, PC candidate strong local candidate apparently. Probably safe though. Carmichael - Very close last time, but historically very safe Liberal, Holyrood result strong for them. Despite liar case probably safe.
Clegg - No tory tacticals to save him, depends if area which traditionally was tory/Liberal for 30 years sheds the big lab vote from last time. Probable hold, but still in danger.
So I think they may need 4-5 gains just to stand still.
Tim Farron got more than 50% of the vote last time around, and the LDs did very well in the constituency in the locals. While there is a meaningful Leave vote, it was still a Remain area. LD hold.
Tom Brake. I've felt this is the most vulnerable LD seat for long time. Big UKIP vote, Leave area. No Heathrow. Brake is locally popular, but likely Con gain.
Williams. Plaid was a long way behind last time. Probably a narrow LD hold.
Carmichael. 67.4% was the LD share in (believe it or not) both Orkney and Shetland last year, with a big swing away from the SNP. LD hold with an increased majority.
Mulholland. Big Remain constituency and LDs did well in Leeds NW last year and increased their share on both 2014 and 2015, so a likely relatively comfortable LD hold.
Pugh. Conservative + 66% of UKIP well above the LD share. Area voted Remain, which helps, and the locals last year were encouraging for them. But still, a likely Con gain.
Lamb. Con + 66% of UKIP marginally above LD share. Area voted Leave. Very, very close. I think he'll probably hold on (but this may be wishful thinking as I like him).
Clegg. It'll be a three way marginal won't it? Hallam locals last year were very encouraging for the LDs, so I'd reckon he holds it.
Olney. I mustn't let my dislike of Zac blind me. Likely a Conservative (re)gain. Would be a certain (re)gain with any other Conservative candidate.
So, the LDs on 5/6 in their existing seats. I think Twickenham and Edinburgh West are fairly likely. (Heathrow is a bigger issue in Twickenham than Richmond.) And the locals in Cambridge will have been very encouraging for the LDs. Probably one, possibly two more Scottish seats could fall. (Pick from Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Dumbartonshire East and Fife NE.) And add a wildcard for good measure.
LDs 12 would be my guess.
You discount Cheadle and OXWAB?
They're my wildcards. You could add Bath or Lewes as possibles too, if you like. And the LDs are out in massive force in Hornsey and Wood green.
I think you are naive. The US has FTAs with about a dozen countries (see: http://www.trade.gov/fta/). In each case, the US has insisted on the removal of barriers on the import of US products. Now, personally, I am pretty relaxed about this. As long as food is properly labeled, that is fine by me.
Agriculture is one of the few areas where the US has run a consistent trade surplus in the last 60 years. The US runs a substantial trade deficit with us. I do not believe there is any trade deal on the table that does not involve us accepting any and all US agricultural produce.
Now - as I said - I think that's a worthwhile trade. It would likely mean meaningfully cheaper produce. But it equally means the UK government loses its ability to regulate agriculture, because it will become politically unacceptable to cost disadvantage domestic production.
British farmers will be screwed. Not only do they have to compete against an influx of cheap imports but they could lose their main export market when Britain ends up on the other side of the EU tariff quotas. The complication for the EU is that they would like to keep us in because they have an agricultural trade surplus with us and don't want to compete against a lot of cheaper non-EU produce. Adding WTO regulations to the mix in addition to the point you have already made about third party FTAs not being signed without liberalisation of agricultural imports, I expect it to go ahead.
Edit. In fact the WTO rules could mean third party countries could force us to liberalise agricultural imports WITHOUT those countries signing an FTA with us.
Who will subsidise our farmers [ the biggest moaners of them all ] when they are right royally screwed by any US FTA ?
It might be difficult to believe now, but apparently in the 1980s one of the selling points of personal computers was precisely that they weren't connected to networks, that they were standalone and unable to be affected by the outside world = security. In other words, the only way for someone to steal your files was by physically breaking into your home. All that was forgotten as soon as the internet became popular.
So it wasn't the fact that you weren't networked that was the "safety feature" with PCs, it was that switch from private (you know who you are connecting to) terminal emulation and BBS usage, to public connections to the internet where some random person in China can attack your PC whilst you sleep.
Farron - some talk of potential challenge, particularly in the event of a blue tide, but probably safe Brake - Leave area, but UKIP vote to squeeze. Seems a goner. Lamb - Ditto. Williams - LDs doing badly in Wales, PC candidate strong local candidate apparently. Probably safe though. Carmichael - Very close last time, but historically very safe Liberal, Holyrood result strong for them. Despite liar case probably safe.
Clegg - No tory tacticals to save him, depends if area which traditionally was tory/Liberal for 30 years sheds the big lab vote from last time. Probable hold, but still in danger.
So I think they may need 4-5 gains just to stand still.
Tim Farron got more than 50% of the vote last time around, and the LDs did very well in the const So, the LDs on 5/6 in their existing seats. I think Twickenham and Edinburgh West are fairly likely. (Heathrow is a bigger issue in Twickenham than Richmond.) And the locals in Cambridge will have been very encouraging for the LDs. Probably one, possibly two more Scottish seats could fall. (Pick from Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Dumbartonshire East and Fife NE.) And add a wildcard for good measure.
LDs 12 would be my guess.
You discount Cheadle and OXWAB?
They're my wildcards. You could add Bath or Lewes as possibles too, if you like. And the LDs are out in massive force in Hornsey and Wood green.
For some reason I have £1 on them to win at 300/1 in Derby South (they got 32% there 12 years ago I guess?), so if there are any totally out of left field LD surges, I hope it is there.
Farron - some talk of potential challenge, particularly in the event of a blue tide, but probably safe Brake - Leave area, but UKIP vote to squeeze. Seems a goner. Lamb - Ditto. Williams - LDs doing badly in Wales, PC candidate strong local candidate apparently. Probably safe though. Carmichael - Very close last time, but historically very safe Liberal, Holyrood result strong for them. Despite liar case probably safe.
Clegg - No tory tacticals to save him, depends if area which traditionally was tory/Liberal for 30 years sheds the big lab vote from last time. Probable hold, but still in danger.
So I think they may need 4-5 gains just to stand still.
Tim Farron got more than 50% of the vote last time around, and the LDs did very well in the constituency in the locals. While there is a meaningful Leave vote, it was still a Remain area. LD hold.
Tom Brake. I've felt this is the most vulnerable LD seat for long time. Big UKIP vote, Leave area. No Heathrow. Brake is locally popular, but likely Con gain.
Williams. Plaid was a long way behind last time. Probably a narrow LD hold.
Carmichael. 67.4% was the LD share in (believe it or not) both Orkney and Shetland last year, with a big swing away from the SNP. LD hold with an increased majority.
Mulholland. Big Remain constituency and LDs did well in Leeds NW last year and increased their share on both 2014 and 2015, so a likely relatively comfortable LD hold.
Pugh. Conservative + 66% of UKIP well above the LD share. Area voted Remain, which helps, and the locals last year were encouraging for them. But still, a likely Con gain.
Lamb. Con + 66% of UKIP marginally above LD share. Area voted Leave. Very, very close. I think he'll probably hold on (but this may be wishful thinking as I like him).
Clegg. It'll be a three way marginal won't it? Hallam locals last year were very encouraging for the LDs, so I'd reckon he holds it.
Olney. I mustn't let my dislike of Zac blind me. Likely a Conservative (re)gain. Would be a certain (re)gain with any other Conservative candidate.
So, the LDs on 5/6 in their existing seats. I think Twickenham and Edinburgh West are fairly likely. (Heathrow is a bigger issue in Twickenham than Richmond.) And the locals in Cambridge will have been very encouraging for the LDs. Probably one, possibly two more Scottish seats could fall. (Pick from Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Dumbartonshire East and Fife NE.) And add a wildcard for good measure.
LDs 12 would be my guess.
You discount Cheadle and OXWAB?
They're my wildcards. You could add Bath or Lewes as possibles too, if you like. And the LDs are out in massive force in Hornsey and Wood green.
As long as they are under 15.5 I'm a happy punter.
I think you are naive. The US has FTAs with about a dozen countries (see: http://www.trade.gov/fta/). In each case, the US has insisted on the removal of barriers on the import of US products. Now, personally, I am pretty relaxed about this. As long as food is properly labeled, that is fine by me. Agriculture is one of the few areas where the US has run a consistent trade surplus in the last 60 years. The US runs a substantial trade deficit with us. I do not believe there is any trade deal on the table that does not involve us accepting any and all US agricultural produce. Now - as I said - I think that's a worthwhile trade. It would likely mean meaningfully cheaper produce. But it equally means the UK government loses its ability to regulate agriculture, because it will become politically unacceptable to cost disadvantage domestic production.
British farmers will be screwed. Not only do they have to compete against an influx of cheap imports but they could lose their main export market when Britain ends up on the other side of the EU tariff quotas. The complication for the EU is that they would like to keep us in because they have an agricultural trade surplus with us and don't want to compete against a lot of cheaper non-EU produce. Adding WTO regulations to the mix in addition to the point you have already made about third party FTAs not being signed without liberalisation of agricultural imports, I expect it to go ahead. Edit. In fact the WTO rules could mean third party countries could force us to liberalise agricultural imports WITHOUT those countries signing an FTA with us.
Who will subsidise our farmers [ the biggest moaners of them all ] when they are right royally screwed by any US FTA ?
Do we want a FTA agreement with the USA? I think Mrs May does, because she would be prepared to sell her soul and even her grandmother to get any kind of agreement out of Trump. But then she is a desperate and very weak woman.
Should a charity really be referring to it so boldly by the name given to it by critics (I support it in principle, but colloquially do refer to it as the bedroom tax too), rather than its actual name?
I think you are naive. The US has FTAs with about a dozen countries (see: http://www.trade.gov/fta/). In each case, the US has insisted on the removal of barriers on the import of US products. Now, personally, I am pretty relaxed about this. As long as food is properly labeled, that is fine by me. Agriculture is one of the few areas where the US has run a consistent trade surplus in the last 60 years. The US runs a substantial trade deficit with us. I do not believe there is any trade deal on the table that does not involve us accepting any and all US agricultural produce. Now - as I said - I think that's a worthwhile trade. It would likely mean meaningfully cheaper produce. But it equally means the UK government loses its ability to regulate agriculture, because it will become politically unacceptable to cost disadvantage domestic production.
British farmers will be screwed. Not only do they have to compete against an influx of cheap imports but they could lose their main export market when Britain ends up on the other side of the EU tariff quotas. The complication for the EU is that they would like to keep us in because they have an agricultural trade surplus with us and don't want to compete against a lot of cheaper non-EU produce. Adding WTO regulations to the mix in addition to the point you have already made about third party FTAs not being signed without liberalisation of agricultural imports, I expect it to go ahead. Edit. In fact the WTO rules could mean third party countries could force us to liberalise agricultural imports WITHOUT those countries signing an FTA with us.
Who will subsidise our farmers [ the biggest moaners of them all ] when they are right royally screwed by any US FTA ?
Do we want a FTA agreement with the USA? I think Mrs May does, because she would be prepared to sell her soul and even her grandmother to get any kind of agreement out of Trump. But then she is a desperate and very weak woman.
The Tories will see as a triumph an FTA with Papua and New Guinea !
Well, PBers will be shocked to know that I like May's new policy announcements. But then I'm a liberal-leftie, who has a lot of time for social democratic ideas, so that should be no surprise.
You don`t believe her, do you? Whatever she says.....
Beginning to think that May and Crosby have realised that they can take the party much further to the left to gain more votes since there is nowhere for the people on the right of the party to go to now. The biggest danger in the medium term to Mrs May's premiership is likely to come from within her party and not from outside it.
Should a charity really be referring to it so boldly by the name given to it by critics (I support it in principle, but colloquially do refer to it as the bedroom tax too), rather than its actual name?
Do you remember the Community charge or the Poll Tax ?
i know what would help even more for the con's in labour area's,get rid of the bedroom tax (spare room subsidy)
That would send out a message of a different kind of Tory leader.
I thought that they ran away from that in the end and it never happened?
I think that was a u-turn on tax credits? Or maybe the subsidy was watered down as it applied to certain groups?
I suspect that you are a lot closer in your recollection than me. I'm sure that there was *some* retreat on this which vaguely annoyed me at the time. Cheers - appreciated.
Well, PBers will be shocked to know that I like May's new policy announcements. But then I'm a liberal-leftie, who has a lot of time for social democratic ideas, so that should be no surprise.
You don`t believe her, do you? Whatever she says.....
If it is a manifesto commitment, that doesn't mean it definitely will happen, but it makes not doing it (or rather doing the opposite) much more politically inconvenient, and liable to cause negative press, which we saw how she reacted to the NI stuff in the budget. So making it a promise doesn't lock her in, but no one sets out to break all their promises, better to not promise at all if you can, so it means they are not worthless.
I think you are naive. The US has FTAs with about a dozen countries (see: http://www.trade.gov/fta/). In each case, the US has insisted on the removal of barriers on the import of US products. Now, personally, I am pretty relaxed about this. As long as food is properly labeled, that is fine by me. Agriculture is one of the few areas where the US has run a consistent trade surplus in the last 60 years. The US runs a substantial trade deficit with us. I do not believe there is any trade deal on the table that does not involve us accepting any and all US agricultural produce. Now - as I said - I think that's a worthwhile trade. It would likely mean meaningfully cheaper produce. But it equally means the UK government loses its ability to regulate agriculture, because it will become politically unacceptable to cost disadvantage domestic production.
British farmers will be screwed. Not only do they have to compete against an influx of cheap imports but they could lose their main export market when Britain ends up on the other side of the EU tariff quotas. The complication for the EU is that they would like to keep us in because they have an agricultural trade surplus with us and don't want to compete against a lot of cheaper non-EU produce. Adding WTO regulations to the mix in addition to the point you have already made about third party FTAs not being signed without liberalisation of agricultural imports, I expect it to go ahead. Edit. In fact the WTO rules could mean third party countries could force us to liberalise agricultural imports WITHOUT those countries signing an FTA with us.
Who will subsidise our farmers [ the biggest moaners of them all ] when they are right royally screwed by any US FTA ?
Do we want a FTA agreement with the USA? I think Mrs May does, because she would be prepared to sell her soul and even her grandmother to get any kind of agreement out of Trump. But then she is a desperate and very weak woman.
The Tories will see as a triumph an FTA with Papua and New Guinea !
We'll probably sign with New Guinea rather than Papua first as it's traditional to complete FTAs in alphabetical order.
I think you are naive. The US has FTAs with about a dozen countries (see: http://www.trade.gov/fta/). In each case, the US has insisted on the removal of barriers on the import of US products. Now, personally, I am pretty relaxed about this. As long as food is properly labeled, that is fine by me. Agriculture is one of the few areas where the US has run a consistent trade surplus in the last 60 years. The US runs a substantial trade deficit with us. I do not believe there is any trade deal on the table that does not involve us accepting any and all US agricultural produce. Now - as I said - I think that's a worthwhile trade. It would likely mean meaningfully cheaper produce. But it equally means the UK government loses its ability to regulate agriculture, because it will become politically unacceptable to cost disadvantage domestic production.
British farmers will be screwed. Not only do they have to compete against an influx of cheap imports but they could lose their main export market when Britain ends up on the other side of the EU tariff quotas. The complication for the EU is that they would like to keep us in because they have an agricultural trade surplus with us and don't want to compete against a lot of cheaper non-EU produce. Adding WTO regulations to the mix in addition to the point you have already made about third party FTAs not being signed without liberalisation of agricultural imports, I expect it to go ahead. Edit. In fact the WTO rules could mean third party countries could force us to liberalise agricultural imports WITHOUT those countries signing an FTA with us.
Who will subsidise our farmers [ the biggest moaners of them all ] when they are right royally screwed by any US FTA ?
Do we want a FTA agreement with the USA? I think Mrs May does, because she would be prepared to sell her soul and even her grandmother to get any kind of agreement out of Trump. But then she is a desperate and very weak woman.
The Tories will see as a triumph an FTA with Papua New Guinea !
Should a charity really be referring to it so boldly by the name given to it by critics (I support it in principle, but colloquially do refer to it as the bedroom tax too), rather than its actual name?
Do you remember the Community charge or the Poll Tax ?
Well I've only heard of the latter, which I suppose makes your point since they are the same thing
'Do we want a FTA agreement with the USA? I think Mrs May does, because she would be prepared to sell her soul and even her grandmother to get any kind of agreement out of Trump. But then she is a desperate and very weak woman'
Should a charity really be referring to it so boldly by the name given to it by critics (I support it in principle, but colloquially do refer to it as the bedroom tax too), rather than its actual name?
Do you remember the Community charge or the Poll Tax ?
I remember the Community Charge. What was the other one about?
All this stuff on workers rights is just tittle tattle. We are all waiting for the pronouncement on the FTPA.
I want to know how she plans to crush those saboteurs in the House of Lords. They were one of her reasons for calling the election, and they can frustrate even if she wins an election, so I'm sure she must have a plan for them, surely?
Not going to be particularly difficult for you to put the cross next to Lucy Powell is it ?
Oh dear! Mrs May is starting to talk bollocks. We may have a hard left government under Corbyn yet.
She's going after patriotic working class voters in Mansfield and Hartlepool. Sod what TSE wants
(Snip)
It's not my team, Peter, never voted Tory in my life (outside a second preference once - might this time, after the locals I don't know there's much point to voting LD). I'm sure she thinks she can make it not a disaster, but also that if it is destined to be one, her party is best placed to deal with that disaster, and so maximising that chance is important. All party members surely do, if they are seeking majorities, because they think their side is the best. It's why they end up confusing party interest with country interest, and excuse their failings as they know, they know, that despite that the other side would always be worse.
Excuse my demotic language, Kle. I didn't mean you specifically but the type of poster (any color) that thinks as long as his or her team win it really doesn't matter if we all go to hell in a handcart. I wouldn't have thought that applied to you, and if you say it doesn't, that's good enough for me.
I'd like to share the belief that it doesn't have to be a disaster, but evidence in support is terribly thin on the ground. As to the argument that the Party which led us into the disaster is the best one to negotiate our way through it and deal with the consequences.....well, it's an odd kind of logic.
It's the career-orientation of Party members and Party Politicians alike that prevents them from seeing their own interests as in any way distinguishable from the country's interests. I am sure this is as true of Corbyn as it is of May, but if you wanted any evidence in respect of the latter you have only to contemplate her journey from Remain to Brexiteer - all in the country's best interest, of course.
Our job as bystanders and voters is to spot and decry humbug when we see it. There's a lot of it around.
Should a charity really be referring to it so boldly by the name given to it by critics (I support it in principle, but colloquially do refer to it as the bedroom tax too), rather than its actual name?
Do you remember the Community charge or the Poll Tax ?
I remember the Community Charge. What was the other one about?
The proposed tax on opinion polls. Thankfully it never passed.
All this stuff on workers rights is just tittle tattle. We are all waiting for the pronouncement on the FTPA.
I want to know how she plans to crush those saboteurs in the House of Lords. They were one of her reasons for calling the election, and they can frustrate even if she wins an election, so I'm sure she must have a plan for them, surely?
Is it true that the team that finishes 4th in the premier league and qualifies for the champions league will be replaced by Manchester United in that competition if Man U win's the Europa league ?
AB195, you are not alone. As a One Nation Tory and Leave campaigner I am currently very satisfied with Mrs May's broad direction of travel.
Me too.
Theresa has realized that Brexit was much more than just leaving the EU per se. It was a cry of anguish from the "forgotten" against the elites and it's set this country on an entirely new path.
It may all end up a total disaster but it'll be fun to see what happens...
As to the argument that the Party which led us into the disaster is the best one to negotiate our way through it and deal with the consequences.....well, it's an odd kind of logic.
Our job as bystanders and voters is to spot and decry humbug when we see it. There's a lot of it around.
It's the logic of the partisan. I always recall something Gordon Brown and his team once said about it not being a time for political novices to take over, or words to that effect at any rate, the logic being times were difficult, no time to be shaking the boat up with an untested crew and captain. But of course if things are going well why would you want to switch to a new captain and crew either? So in essence they were saying there was no need to ever change government.
Is it true that the team that finishes 4th in the premier league and qualifies for the champions league will be replaced by Manchester United in that competition if Man U win's the Europa league ?
Is it true that the team that finishes 4th in the premier league and qualifies for the champions league will be replaced by Manchester United in that competition if Man U win's the Europa league ?
I think you are naive. The US has FTAs with about a dozen countries (see: http://www.trade.gov/fta/). In each case, the US has insisted on the removal of barriers on the import of US products. Now, personally, I am pretty relaxed about this. As long as food is properly labeled, that is fine by me.
Agriculture is one of the few areas where the US has run a consistent trade surplus in the last 60 years. The US runs a substantial trade deficit with us. I do not believe there is any trade deal on the table that does not involve us accepting any and all US agricultural produce.
Now - as I said - I think that's a worthwhile trade. It would likely mean meaningfully cheaper produce. But it equally means the UK government loses its ability to regulate agriculture, because it will become politically unacceptable to cost disadvantage domestic production.
British farmers will be screwed. Not only do they have to compete against an influx of cheap imports but they could lose their main export market when Britain ends up on the other side of the EU tariff quotas. The complication for the EU is that they would like to keep us in because they have an agricultural trade surplus with us and don't want to compete against a lot of cheaper non-EU produce. Adding WTO regulations to the mix in addition to the point you have already made about third party FTAs not being signed without liberalisation of agricultural imports, I expect it to go ahead.
Edit. In fact the WTO rules could mean third party countries could force us to liberalise agricultural imports WITHOUT those countries signing an FTA with us.
Who will subsidise our farmers [ the biggest moaners of them all ] when they are right royally screwed by any US FTA ?
The government can probably still subsidise farmers but I don't see it doing anything about the loss of their internal and external markets. Farmers are a powerful lobby with rural Conservative MPs, but they will be collateral damage from Brexit , I think.
As to the argument that the Party which led us into the disaster is the best one to negotiate our way through it and deal with the consequences.....well, it's an odd kind of logic.
Our job as bystanders and voters is to spot and decry humbug when we see it. There's a lot of it around.
It's the logic of the partisan. I always recall something Gordon Brown and his team once said about it not being a time for political novices to take over, or words to that effect at any rate, the logic being times were difficult, no time to be shaking the boat up with an untested crew and captain. But of course if things are going well why would you want to switch to a new captain and crew either? So in essence they were saying there was no need to ever change government.
As you say, it's a game of spot the humbug.
Agreed.
And on that consensual note I will wish you and all PBers a good nite. Let's hope all our puters are still working in the morning.
Is it true that the team that finishes 4th in the premier league and qualifies for the champions league will be replaced by Manchester United in that competition if Man U win's the Europa league ?
So it wasn't the fact that you weren't networked that was the "safety feature" with PCs, it was that switch from private (you know who you are connecting to) terminal emulation and BBS usage, to public connections to the internet where some random person in China can attack your PC whilst you sleep.
The Morris worm is famous but even before then there was a lot of exploration of this new "inter-net" where you didn't necessarily know who was connected or reachable. Kremvax was a hoax that played on that, "the Russians are on the internet!", but there were all sorts of lists of sites, logins and rumours that used to circulate before that.
We tend to think networking means global reach nowadays by default, but before the internet opened up networking simply meant you could connect to the mainframe, or head office, or other branches. You didn't think about hostile users, because all users were on the same "side".
Is it true that the team that finishes 4th in the premier league and qualifies for the champions league will be replaced by Manchester United in that competition if Man U win's the Europa league ?
Is it true that the team that finishes 4th in the premier league and qualifies for the champions league will be replaced by Manchester United in that competition if Man U win's the Europa league ?
Don't think so. Maximum of five places in European Cup - top four plus one extra if English club wins Europa League.
Is it true that the team that finishes 4th in the premier league and qualifies for the champions league will be replaced by Manchester United in that competition if Man U win's the Europa league ?
Don't think so. Maximum of five places in European Cup - top four plus one extra if English club wins Europa League.
I think you are naive. The US has FTAs with about a dozen countries (see: http://www.trade.gov/fta/). In each case, the US has insisted on the removal of barriers on the import of US products. Now, personally, I am pretty relaxed about this. As long as food is properly labeled, that is fine by me.
Agriculture is one of the few areas where the US has run a consistent trade surplus in the last 60 years. The US runs a substantial trade deficit with us. I do not believe there is any trade deal on the table that does not involve us accepting any and all US agricultural produce.
Now - as I said - I think that's a worthwhile trade. It would likely mean meaningfully cheaper produce. But it equally means the UK government loses its ability to regulate agriculture, because it will become politically unacceptable to cost disadvantage domestic production.
British farmers will be screwed. Not only do they have to compete against an influx of cheap imports but they could lose their main export market when Britain ends up on the other side of the EU tariff quotas. The complication for the EU is that they would like to keep us in because they have an agricultural trade surplus with us and don't want to compete against a lot of cheaper non-EU produce. Adding WTO regulations to the mix in addition to the point you have already made about third party FTAs not being signed without liberalisation of agricultural imports, I expect it to go ahead.
Edit. In fact the WTO rules could mean third party countries could force us to liberalise agricultural imports WITHOUT those countries signing an FTA with us.
Who will subsidise our farmers [ the biggest moaners of them all ] when they are right royally screwed by any US FTA ?
The government can probably still subsidise farmers but I don't see it doing anything about the loss of their internal and external markets. Farmers are a powerful lobby with rural Conservative MPs, but they will be collateral damage from Brexit , I think.
The effect will vary a lot by sector. Cereal producers less so, but 60% of our lamb is exported for example. Lamb farmers will be particularly hard hit if we strike an FTA with NZ and Oz. Grain also with Canada.
Is it true that the team that finishes 4th in the premier league and qualifies for the champions league will be replaced by Manchester United in that competition if Man U win's the Europa league ?
Is it true that the team that finishes 4th in the premier league and qualifies for the champions league will be replaced by Manchester United in that competition if Man U win's the Europa league ?
Is it true that the team that finishes 4th in the premier league and qualifies for the champions league will be replaced by Manchester United in that competition if Man U win's the Europa league ?
I think you are naive. The US has FTAs with about a dozen countries (see: http://www.trade.gov/fta/). In each case, the US has insisted on the removal of barriers on the import of US products. Now, personally, I am pretty relaxed about this. As long as food is properly labeled, that is fine by me.
Agriculture is one of the few areas where the US has run a consistent trade surplus in the last 60 years. The US runs a substantial trade deficit with us. I do not believe there is any trade deal on the table that does not involve us accepting any and all US agricultural produce.
Now - as I said - I think that's a worthwhile trade. It would likely mean meaningfully cheaper produce. But it equally means the UK government loses its ability to regulate agriculture, because it will become politically unacceptable to cost disadvantage domestic production.
British farmers will be screwed. Not only do they have to compete against an influx of cheap imports but they could lose their main export market when Britain ends up on the other side of the EU tariff quotas. The complication for the EU is that they would like to keep us in because they have an agricultural trade surplus with us and don't want to compete against a lot of cheaper non-EU produce. Adding WTO regulations to the mix in addition to the point you have already made about third party FTAs not being signed without liberalisation of agricultural imports, I expect it to go ahead.
Edit. In fact the WTO rules could mean third party countries could force us to liberalise agricultural imports WITHOUT those countries signing an FTA with us.
Who will subsidise our farmers [ the biggest moaners of them all ] when they are right royally screwed by any US FTA ?
The government can probably still subsidise farmers but I don't see it doing anything about the loss of their internal and external markets. Farmers are a powerful lobby with rural Conservative MPs, but they will be collateral damage from Brexit , I think.
The effect will vary a lot by sector. Cereal producers less so, but 60% of our lamb is exported for example. Lamb farmers will be particularly hard hit if we strike an FTA with NZ and Oz. Grain also with Canada.
Not sure. They will no be longer protected in the UK market from cheap imports, probably excluded by tariff quotas from their main export market in the EU and trying to compete with efficient third parties in the RoW (that bit doesn't change). I think that goes across the board.
'Do we want a FTA agreement with the USA? I think Mrs May does, because she would be prepared to sell her soul and even her grandmother to get any kind of agreement out of Trump. But then she is a desperate and very weak woman'
It's the way you tell'em, pure comedy gold.
I've learned something about the word "desperate" when used by partisans against opponents.
It invariably means that the person using it is the desperate one.
All this stuff on workers rights is just tittle tattle. We are all waiting for the pronouncement on the FTPA.
I want to know how she plans to crush those saboteurs in the House of Lords. They were one of her reasons for calling the election, and they can frustrate even if she wins an election, so I'm sure she must have a plan for them, surely?
Simples. Repeal HoL act 1999.
In all honesty, as someone who broadly speaking supports the principle of an advisory, largely appointed upper chamber, there are a few changes that could be brought in to improve some matters without delay.
1) Anyone who hasn't attended X days annually in X years should be excluded from the House - even if we still want to appoint experts and notables who might not otherwise contribute to legislation as they wouldn't seek election, they actually need to contribute. 2) No person who has within X years been a member of the House of Commons may be created a Peer - it's not a place to be used as an inducement to retire from your Commons seat, and if you still want to be involved in politics in the upper house you can wait. 3) An upper limit of X members to be imposed/A maximum of X years may be served in the upper house - lengthy, for steady government, but to ensure decent turnover.
Of course, I recognise even if TMay wants to reform the upper house, she would not, without loads of discussion and consultation, put such specific scenarios in her manifesto.
But does anyone know why specifically 90 hereditary peers were chosen to remain (plus the Earl Marshall and Lord Great Chamberlain)?
So it wasn't the fact that you weren't networked that was the "safety feature" with PCs, it was that switch from private (you know who you are connecting to) terminal emulation and BBS usage, to public connections to the internet where some random person in China can attack your PC whilst you sleep.
The Morris worm is famous but even before then there was a lot of exploration of this new "inter-net" where you didn't necessarily know who was connected or reachable. Kremvax was a hoax that played on that, "the Russians are on the internet!", but there were all sorts of lists of sites, logins and rumours that used to circulate before that.
We tend to think networking means global reach nowadays by default, but before the internet opened up networking simply meant you could connect to the mainframe, or head office, or other branches. You didn't think about hostile users, because all users were on the same "side".
Perhaps a short introduction to the internet will calm nerves:
AB195, you are not alone. As a One Nation Tory and Leave campaigner I am currently very satisfied with Mrs May's broad direction of travel.
Is it too much to hope that the new Midlands and Northern MPs could purge the full blooded Thatcherites, or at least keep them quiet?
the shire vs. the working class constituency MP's dynamic will be very interesting in the next parliament. Their respective constituents will want different things on economic issues. The tories will have to learn from the GOP on how to keep the two groups happy.
MTimM is right we could be seeng a similar realignment as we saw when the south switched in America.
Because there isn't enough trivia in the world - there is a scifi novel called "the Bladerunner" - Ridley Scott bought the rights to the title only (not the story) because he thought it was so cool. I think Scott was right - it trips off the tongue better than the Dick one.
SeanT was discussing perfect book titles a few weeks back, there's a rhythm to them apparently, at least in the bigger selling genres, and it seems notable to me that sci-fi titles are often completely random or metaphorical, and you can get through an entire book with barely a hint why it is called that sometimes.
That said it throws up some interesting ones. Quite an odd little series was titled A Requiem for Homo Sapiens, and featured an organisation called the 'Order of Mystic Mathematicians and Other Seekers of the Ineffable Flame' among others.
The late, great Alan Coren asked a bookseller what sort of books he found sold well, when he was trying to think of a gimme title for his next collection of essays. 'Sports and anything about pets.' He called his book Golfing for Cats.
Page 15 tables. Utterly shocking for Labour. Behind in the North East ffsake !
SNP at 36% too if I'm reading it right. vs Blues 27%.
Not excluding don't knows etc.
thanks. but if Blues can get 75% of SNP that's impressive.
Which party did you vote for in the general election in May 2015?
SNP 40% Con 20%
Actual reality
SNP 50% Con 15%
When you exclude Did Not Vote and refusers, Ashcroft's respondents answered 47% SNP, 23% Con for their 2015 vote. I wondered if people were remembering their constituency vote at Holyrood 2016 (very close to those figures), but it seems like a Con-heavy sample overall: the recall across GB was 41% Con (v 38% actual), 29% Lab (31%), 12% UKIP (13%), 9% LD (8%).
And the published data are not weighted at all - GB respondents were 56% female, for instance. Interestingly, 52% of the GB sample recalls voting Remain in 2016.
This wasn't intended to be a poll as such, but it would be good to see weighted data as it's such a massive sample. The ComRes margin of error calculator reckons about half a point rather than the usual 2-3.
Re the YouGov Sunday Times 49/31/9/3 poll, has anyone commented on the figures for chance of changing mind? They are:
5% of Con say they may change mind 11% of Lab say they may change mind 22% of LD say they may change mind
That makes the 49% Con rating look very solid indeed - even if all 5% of Con supporters changed mind that would still leave Con at 46.5%.
Whereas in fact if people are correctly judging their intentions it would be likely that, if anything, the Con lead would increase from its current 18%.
If the SNP don't get a majority of the vote share in Scotland then TMAy should ignore the SNP.
Why? FPTP doesn't work on vote share it works on seats. Otherwise we could ignore May's mandate unless the tories get over 50% of the vote (a possibility, but unlikely).
Having had to register twice in the past 3 years, there really isn't a barrier to getting your vote. It takes a couple of minutes. By government website standards it is very straightforward.
Students will spend longer writing a caption for their latest Instagram than it takes to sign up.
Having had to register twice in the past 3 years, there really isn't a barrier to getting your vote. It takes a couple of minutes. By government website standards it is very straightforward.
Students will spend longer writing a caption for their latest Instagram than it takes to sign up.
Ditto.
My first election was in 2001 and I was 18 (about to turn 19) and had I not been registered to vote already automatically by my university I would have registered to vote myself manually. However I would not have bothered until there was an election.
I'm surprised any 16 year olds have bothered to vote and don't see why it matters one jot how many 16 year olds have. They're not allowed to vote. It's like worrying how many deaf people are listening to the radio.
It's good for Con as it means an increase in the proportion of people who will have become 18 in the last 6 months who won't be on the register.
You can still register today. You can still register next week. It takes minutes. There's no excuse not to register but there is no need to do it years early.
Surely the voters will smell a rat? Why didn't Ed Miliband promise this much in 2015? Why did the LibDems only promise £6bn a year while taking into account a 1% income tax bump...
Having had to register twice in the past 3 years, there really isn't a barrier to getting your vote. It takes a couple of minutes. By government website standards it is very straightforward.
Students will spend longer writing a caption for their latest Instagram than it takes to sign up.
Ditto.
My first election was in 2001 and I was 18 (about to turn 19) and had I not been registered to vote already automatically by my university I would have registered to vote myself manually. However I would not have bothered until there was an election.
I'm surprised any 16 year olds have bothered to vote and don't see why it matters one jot how many 16 year olds have. They're not allowed to vote. It's like worrying how many deaf people are listening to the radio.
It likes worrying about LGBT smoking...Nobody would have that in their manifesto....
Surely the voters will smell a rat? Why didn't Ed Miliband promise this much in 2015? Why did the LibDems only promise £6bn a year while taking into account a 1% income tax bump...
... because the numbers simply do not add up.
Why 37bn, they should have just rounded it up to 50bn.
Surely the voters will smell a rat? Why didn't Ed Miliband promise this much in 2015? Why did the LibDems only promise £6bn a year while taking into account a 1% income tax bump...
... because the numbers simply do not add up.
Anyone who cares about the numbers adding up already wouldn't be voting for this Labour team.
The current Labour leadership relationship to the electorate is like someone offering sugary sweets to a type 2 diabetic. Some people will be tempted by the sweets no matter how bad an idea it is.
Re the YouGov Sunday Times 49/31/9/3 poll, has anyone commented on the figures for chance of changing mind? They are:
5% of Con say they may change mind 11% of Lab say they may change mind 22% of LD say they may change mind
That makes the 49% Con rating look very solid indeed - even if all 5% of Con supporters changed mind that would still leave Con at 46.5%.
Whereas in fact if people are correctly judging their intentions it would be likely that, if anything, the Con lead would increase from its current 18%.
Interesting, and here's another tidbit from the same survey (p.11):
Imagine that the Conservatives win the general election with a large majority and the Labour Party lose seats. Do you think that Jeremy Corbyn should remain Labour leader, or resign and allow someone else to take over?
I suppose it's not that surprising as a significant proportion of Lab intenders will like JC, but it indicates remarkable churn in the Lab vote, given that the headline VI of 31% matches the score of Miliband.
The LDs are on a sticky wicket if more than a fifth of their voters say they may change their mind, and they're only on 9% to begin with in this poll. If Farron fails to improve on the 8% from last time he will surely be toast. That seems quite counter-intuitive still, but both Opinium and ORB put them on 8% recently, and Survation as low as 7%.
The LDs are on a sticky wicket if more than a fifth of their voters say they may change their mind, and they're only on 9% to begin with in this poll. If Farron fails to improve on the 8% from last time he will surely be toast. That seems quite counter-intuitive still, but both Opinium and ORB put them on 8% recently, and Survation as low as 7%.
It's funny - we've been hearing for the last 20 years about the declining share of the big two parties (combined) - yet now it looks as if there is going to be a complete reversal with Con + Lab getting approx 80%.
The LDs are on a sticky wicket if more than a fifth of their voters say they may change their mind, and they're only on 9% to begin with in this poll. If Farron fails to improve on the 8% from last time he will surely be toast. That seems quite counter-intuitive still, but both Opinium and ORB put them on 8% recently, and Survation as low as 7%.
It's funny - we've been hearing for the last 20 years about the declining share of the big two parties (combined) - yet now it looks as if there is going to be a complete reversal with Con + Lab getting approx 80%.
There was a reversal in 2015 too. Amusingly the media bigged up the importance of the small parties as well as the inevitability of a hung parliament with the ridiculous seven-way debate etc and instead the two party share went up rather than down.
Maybe the more attention that gets put on the oddballs the less popular they become?
Very hard to tel what the LD vote will do on the day, one of the known unknowns in this election is where will the REMAIN vote go.....that 48% seems elusive to all the parties, could there be shy REMAIN voters in play (nobody likes to admit backing a loser)
Very hard to tel what the LD vote will do on the day, one of the known unknowns in this election is where will the REMAIN vote go.....that 48% seems elusive to all the parties, could there be shy REMAIN voters in play (nobody likes to admit backing a loser)
Do polls really show the 48% don't know how they will vote?
The LDs are on a sticky wicket if more than a fifth of their voters say they may change their mind, and they're only on 9% to begin with in this poll. If Farron fails to improve on the 8% from last time he will surely be toast. That seems quite counter-intuitive still, but both Opinium and ORB put them on 8% recently, and Survation as low as 7%.
It's funny - we've been hearing for the last 20 years about the declining share of the big two parties (combined) - yet now it looks as if there is going to be a complete reversal with Con + Lab getting approx 80%.
My hunch is still that Labour won't do as well as some of the more recent polls are showing, and the LDs rather better, around 15%. But I'll stand corrected on 9th June if neither happen.
Comments
But then I'm a liberal-leftie, who has a lot of time for social democratic ideas, so that should be no surprise.
A bit like how Blair focussed on the issues in the seats he took in 97, over more traditional Lab srats.
That would send out a message of a different kind of Tory leader.
The big step change was the opening of the educational and research "internet" to companies in general and to individuals via ISPs. Private networks declined, perhaps not in terms of hosts but as a fraction of users, and the internet took off like a rocket. Wide area networks went from predominantly private industry specific networks, to a public and global network.
So it wasn't the fact that you weren't networked that was the "safety feature" with PCs, it was that switch from private (you know who you are connecting to) terminal emulation and BBS usage, to public connections to the internet where some random person in China can attack your PC whilst you sleep.
Go on,give us a smile ;-)
Heck, might as well predict one of the NI Conservatives getting in (not seriously), if they're being ambitious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXRf2eZQ41o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm
I have a feeling May will dump the Bedroom Tax. As you imply, would be a smart move.
The biggest danger in the medium term to Mrs May's premiership is likely to come from within her party and not from outside it.
'Do we want a FTA agreement with the USA? I think Mrs May does, because she would be prepared to sell her soul and even her grandmother to get any kind of agreement out of Trump. But then she is a desperate and very weak woman'
It's the way you tell'em, pure comedy gold.
Theresa has realized that Brexit was much more than just leaving the EU per se. It was a cry of anguish from the "forgotten" against the elites and it's set this country on an entirely new path.
It may all end up a total disaster but it'll be fun to see what happens...
As you say, it's a game of spot the humbug.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_clubs_in_international_competitions
And on that consensual note I will wish you and all PBers a good nite. Let's hope all our puters are still working in the morning.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/05/12/many-premier-league-teams-qualify-champions-league-man-utd-win/
We tend to think networking means global reach nowadays by default, but before the internet opened up networking simply meant you could connect to the mainframe, or head office, or other branches. You didn't think about hostile users, because all users were on the same "side".
My apologies
Good night
It invariably means that the person using it is the desperate one.
1) Anyone who hasn't attended X days annually in X years should be excluded from the House - even if we still want to appoint experts and notables who might not otherwise contribute to legislation as they wouldn't seek election, they actually need to contribute.
2) No person who has within X years been a member of the House of Commons may be created a Peer - it's not a place to be used as an inducement to retire from your Commons seat, and if you still want to be involved in politics in the upper house you can wait.
3) An upper limit of X members to be imposed/A maximum of X years may be served in the upper house - lengthy, for steady government, but to ensure decent turnover.
Of course, I recognise even if TMay wants to reform the upper house, she would not, without loads of discussion and consultation, put such specific scenarios in her manifesto.
But does anyone know why specifically 90 hereditary peers were chosen to remain (plus the Earl Marshall and Lord Great Chamberlain)?
https://youtu.be/UTBsm0LzSP0
MTimM is right we could be seeng a similar realignment as we saw when the south switched in America.
And the published data are not weighted at all - GB respondents were 56% female, for instance. Interestingly, 52% of the GB sample recalls voting Remain in 2016.
This wasn't intended to be a poll as such, but it would be good to see weighted data as it's such a massive sample. The ComRes margin of error calculator reckons about half a point rather than the usual 2-3.
5% of Con say they may change mind
11% of Lab say they may change mind
22% of LD say they may change mind
That makes the 49% Con rating look very solid indeed - even if all 5% of Con supporters changed mind that would still leave Con at 46.5%.
Whereas in fact if people are correctly judging their intentions it would be likely that, if anything, the Con lead would increase from its current 18%.
https://theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/15/number-of-school-leavers-on-electoral-roll-in-england-falls-25#img-1
Students will spend longer writing a caption for their latest Instagram than it takes to sign up.
My first election was in 2001 and I was 18 (about to turn 19) and had I not been registered to vote already automatically by my university I would have registered to vote myself manually. However I would not have bothered until there was an election.
I'm surprised any 16 year olds have bothered to vote and don't see why it matters one jot how many 16 year olds have. They're not allowed to vote. It's like worrying how many deaf people are listening to the radio.
General election 2017: Labour pledges £37bn for the NHS by 2022
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39916367
Why didn't Ed Miliband promise this much in 2015? Why did the LibDems only promise £6bn a year while taking into account a 1% income tax bump...
... because the numbers simply do not add up.
The current Labour leadership relationship to the electorate is like someone offering sugary sweets to a type 2 diabetic. Some people will be tempted by the sweets no matter how bad an idea it is.
Imagine that the Conservatives win the general election with a large majority and the Labour Party lose seats. Do you think that Jeremy Corbyn should remain Labour leader, or resign and allow someone else to take over?
Current Lab voters: 42% Remain, 44% Resign
2015 Lab voters: 27% Remain, 56% Resign
(All voters: 19% Remain, 58% Resign.)
I suppose it's not that surprising as a significant proportion of Lab intenders will like JC, but it indicates remarkable churn in the Lab vote, given that the headline VI of 31% matches the score of Miliband.
Maybe the more attention that gets put on the oddballs the less popular they become?