I think we've got to the stage now where Corbyn will start promising fantastical amounts of extra spending on just about everything. So why stop at 37 billion for the NHS? Why not 100 billion? Why not increase taxes on the rich to the old Labour rate of 90%? Why not increase corporation tax to 40%?
It looks to me like Labour have completely lost touch with reality.
More information is normally good information but I have a distinct fear that constituency polls from Survation may well turn out to be absolutely worthless come the GE if they're released and could mislead punters.
All have an internationalist outlook but there is a tension that would need to be managed between those that are supportive or opposed to the welfare state.
Quite. What you're proposing is to take Progressives (the sort of people who say things like 'the bedroom tax' or 'the benefits cap is the final solution for the poor') and persuade them to join a party with ultra-dry Thatcherite Free Liberals, on the grounds that they are both 'internationalist, connected and embrace the modern world' (whatever that means- is privatising the NHS 'embracing the modern world'?). Bear in mind that the only major political realignments in Britain have resulted from the ability to mobilise particular local or sectional loyalties: the working class for Labour replacing the Liberals, and Scottish national identity for the SNP replacing Labour in Scotland.
Assuming, however, that the Lib Dems can be 100% successful in winning over these voters that leaves them losing to the Tories 50%-30%. In other words more or less where Corbyn is today, but without union backing, residual loyalty and geographically concentrated support. And your only hope of reducing their majority is to appeal to two groups whose no.1 priority is to reduce net migration to below 100,000 per year, using a party whose sole point of connection is that it's internationalist.
It's an interesting thought exercise in turning the Conservatives into the Japanese Liberal Democrats, or the Singaporean People's Action Party, but not much else.
The Lib Dems won't be 100% successful in turning these categories of voters to them. It gives them a large pool of voters to fish in with a clear message of internationalism, openness and aspiration. The Conservatives have a larger pool but if they are going to hang onto their "Our Britain" voters they will need to maintain a messaging of national exceptionalism. As things stand and assuming the Lib Dems can pick up at least half of that pool and some other votes here and there, they should be good for 20% of the electorate, which is twice what they have now. The pools aren't fixed in number of adherents. They can argue for a connected more business oriented Britain to win more people to their side, whenever there are practical trade-offs to be made. For example on restrictions on FoM versus trade opportunities.
More information is normally good information but I have a distinct fear that constituency polls from Survation may well turn out to be absolutely worthless come the GE if they're released and could mislead punters.
Mislead uninformed punters.
Fortunately you're an informed punter, and will take advantage.
Mr. Eagles (2), unfortunately, whilst I did notice it, I was too busy working on Wandering Phoenix and Roaming Tiger (top 5 on the Asian Myths lists on Amazon UK and US, you know) *and* the F1 stuff to respond.
It was a cracking race, I hope it is like this for the rest of the season.
Vettel v Hamilton fighting out for the title all season long would be awesome
The essential point, when you read between the lines, is that the UK does not understand the European mindset. This is understandable, of course, because we do not share the experiences that have largely influenced it, such as having cities which have been part of several different countries in their history, and having a long tradition of minority populations (to name but one). On our island we have not faced this sort of thing for a long, long time. (Saxons/Danes, Normans/Saxons).
Whether your instincts are to participate actively in European affairs or stay aloof, we have always been a bad fit for Europe. The thing that surprises me is that there was never a massive blitz on trying to change British perceptions of Europe, rather than just trotting out arguments about economics.
Remarkable performance by the greens with no candidate there.
Bizarre to release a poll a month after the fieldwork, and especially when the Greens aren't standing now.
Yes, you have to wonder what on earth Survation are playing at.
Edinburgh South looks a constituency to dodge for me in betting terms.
One for the real gamblers.
I expect Labour to win it, but it's not a sure fire thing. It's a seat the Greens should do well in, if they were standing. I think they may have had the most first preference votes in the Council elections for that seat.
Mr. Eagles, I agree. Shame the DRS zone was increased by 100m (from just 57m initially). I doubt Vettel would've been able to pass Bottas, but would Hamilton have been able to pass Vettel?
It's a very tasty season.
Also, check out Perez. He's just 1 point behind Verstappen and 3 off Ricciardo.
It's embarrassing. Public ownership is going to resolve the disputes with the Unions about guards etc how exactly? With more public money?
Much needed intervention.
Tories = party of the wealthy and powerful. Tories will always be on the side of their crooked friends at the top of corporate establishment. People are fed up!
Remarkable performance by the greens with no candidate there.
Bizarre to release a poll a month after the fieldwork, and especially when the Greens aren't standing now.
So it was about a month ago that someone e-mailed Wings saying they were polled in Edinburgh South asking how they would vote if Iain Murray stood as an Independent "Stop Brexit" candidate.
Mr. P, it's an obviously bizarre position to hold by Sturgeon.
Yes it is, and much of the SNP's headline stuff is bizarre. The "Brexit makes a case for indyref2" argument is based on the single market, so the difference between iScotland being inside the EU and being outside it and within the SM is irrelevant. And a country cannot be in an SM with two countries that aren't in an SM with each other, so customs posts at the border it would be. Tesco won't like that one bit. Nor will most people who drive up and down the M6/A74. Say that, and SNPers will shout you down as a fearmonger.
It's time for people to realise the extent to which the SNP relies on a loony vote.
Did you see the crazy interview with defence secretary Michael Fallon, who was asked whether he could guarantee that MOD shipbuilding contracts would remain in Scotland if Scotland were to become independent? The poor soul got flustered. He should have said, "Of course I damned well can't. The British government looks after jobs in Britain, not jobs in foreign countries. And anyway, are you sure an iScottish government would be sufficiently OK with a foreign country's foreign policy to be happy with producing ships for that country's navy?"
The key point is that the whole "let's be independent so we can stay in the EU (or SM)" discourse is a veneered version of the common attitude in sporting competitions: "We support whoever's playing against England". It is all about playing to the xenophobic vote. The SNP does an awful lot of dogwhistling.
(The very few Scottish people who do support England in international competitions are mostly a minority of hardline Protestant sectarians among Rangers fans, of the kind who interpolate the words "No surrender" into the British national anthem. They don't vote SNP.)
In SNP land you are a "quisling" (and usage of that word is growing) if you point out that you can't have your cake and eat it.
May's year off for families to provide social care is hardly left wing. It's old style social conservatism.
Families to care for their elders.
Yeah right, that's why Lord Tebbit and other Thatcherites have been criticising Mrs May for this sort of stuff.
The important distinction is that the Conservatives nowadays are happy to burden business with social charges (minimum wage, time off etc) as long as the Government doesn't have to pay through the tax system.
It's embarrassing. Public ownership is going to resolve the disputes with the Unions about guards etc how exactly? With more public money?
Much needed intervention.
Tories = party of the wealthy and powerful. Tories will always be on the side of their crooked friends at the top of corporate establishment. People are fed up!
Brought to you by CiF.
But you don't seem to be up to date. Sadly whether what you say is or isn't the case (Tory baby-eaters, etc), the alternative is what you should be looking at. Even on CiF the vast majority realise that no matter how nasty the Cons really are, Jeremy would be 1,937,650x worse. Roughly.
I hope CCHQ are monitoring the amount of coverage Jeremy Corbyn is getting. He was on three channels, Victoria Derbyshire, Parliament and SKY, this morning, for quite some considerable time. BBC had a breaking news headline, citing the extra 37 bn for the NHS.
"Events, events, dear boy".
CCHQ made clear that their strategy was to yield Corbyn lots of airtime and deliberately refrain from newsworthy stuff in the hope that he'd implode. No good complaining now.
Mr. Eagles, just how are the 'workers rights' meant to be funded?
To be honest, the more I hear from the Conservatives, the less I'm likely to vote for them.
And then Labour pipe up with their tax-and-spend socialism, led by Corbyn. For ****'s sake. Labour deserves to be crushed for their idiocy putting that far left lunatic onto the shortlist.
It's also fundamentally inconsistent. We want to be able to go into the negotiations with the EU saying, "well, there are two paths ahead of us: a European country with all the social protections that entails, or as a low tax, low regulation Singapore, sitting barely 20 miles off the coast of continental Europe". If we say that now, they'll laugh and say "Pull the other one. You're raising the costs of doing business in the UK. No way are you going down the Singapore route if we don't deal."
Mr. Eagles, I agree. Shame the DRS zone was increased by 100m (from just 57m initially). I doubt Vettel would've been able to pass Bottas, but would Hamilton have been able to pass Vettel?
Had Vettel not been able to pass Bottas, Hamilton wouldn't have had to do so, as he would have come out in front of him after the second pit stop...
May's year off for families to provide social care is hardly left wing. It's old style social conservatism.
Families to care for their elders.
Yeah right, that's why Lord Tebbit and other Thatcherites have been criticising Mrs May for this sort of stuff.
The important distinction is that the Conservatives nowadays are happy to burden business with social charges (minimum wage, time off etc) as long as the Government doesn't have to pay through the tax system.
They don't feel strong enough at the moment to allow Tesco to impose an 18-hour working day for a fiver and a bowl of gruel. What a bunch of pinkos!
The essential point, when you read between the lines, is that the UK does not understand the European mindset. This is understandable, of course, because we do not share the experiences that have largely influenced it, such as having cities which have been part of several different countries in their history, and having a long tradition of minority populations (to name but one). On our island we have not faced this sort of thing for a long, long time. (Saxons/Danes, Normans/Saxons).
Whether your instincts are to participate actively in European affairs or stay aloof, we have always been a bad fit for Europe. The thing that surprises me is that there was never a massive blitz on trying to change British perceptions of Europe, rather than just trotting out arguments about economics.
Spot on. And the sooner we both realise that our perspectives are different, the sooner we can concentrate on getting a relationship going that works for both of us.
May's year off for families to provide social care is hardly left wing. It's old style social conservatism.
Families to care for their elders.
Yeah right, that's why Lord Tebbit and other Thatcherites have been criticising Mrs May for this sort of stuff.
The important distinction is that the Conservatives nowadays are happy to burden business with social charges (minimum wage, time off etc) as long as the Government doesn't have to pay through the tax system.
That rather ignores the fact that the State is, by some measure, the biggest employer in the country. I am not sure, for example, if the cost of these policies is included in NHS budgeting. I rather doubt it.
Clearly the "Brexit will result in all your employment rights being taken away" argument has had salience in the polling and focus groups and there was a desire to defuse it. Whether a new set of employment rights is what the UK needs as it heads into Brexit is another matter altogether.
It's embarrassing. Public ownership is going to resolve the disputes with the Unions about guards etc how exactly? With more public money?
I blame Mrs May.
She's coming out with a load of left wing bollocks, and is it surprising the Lib Dems are moving even further to the left.
All the political parties are moving away from sensible free market economics at the moment. (Ironically at the same time that the French have elected a decidedly laissez-faire formerly Socialist President.)
May's year off for families to provide social care is hardly left wing. It's old style social conservatism.
Families to care for their elders.
Yeah right, that's why Lord Tebbit and other Thatcherites have been criticising Mrs May for this sort of stuff.
The important distinction is that the Conservatives nowadays are happy to burden business with social charges (minimum wage, time off etc) as long as the Government doesn't have to pay through the tax system.
They don't feel strong enough at the moment to allow Tesco to impose an 18-hour working day for a fiver and a bowl of gruel. What a bunch of pinkos!
My God! Do Tesco employ press gangs that go out and force people to work for them?
It's embarrassing. Public ownership is going to resolve the disputes with the Unions about guards etc how exactly? With more public money?
I blame Mrs May.
She's coming out with a load of left wing bollocks, and is it surprising the Lib Dems are moving even further to the left.
All the political parties are moving away from sensible free market economics at the moment. (Ironically at the same time that the French have elected a decidedly laissez-faire formerly Socialist President.)
Tebbit on the gay marriage bill made me loathe him all over again...
I liked him for his work on reforming the country in the 80s, but I loathed him ever since his frankly homophobic smears/attacks on Michael Portillo in the 2001 Tory leadership contest.
It's embarrassing. Public ownership is going to resolve the disputes with the Unions about guards etc how exactly? With more public money?
I blame Mrs May.
She's coming out with a load of left wing bollocks, and is it surprising the Lib Dems are moving even further to the left.
All the political parties are moving away from sensible free market economics at the moment. (Ironically at the same time that the French have elected a decidedly laissez-faire formerly Socialist President.)
I blame Brexit. I really do.
Undoubtedly. Brexit is about the acquis sociaux, if we are allowed to use a furrun language to describe a UKIP concept that supports Britain's return to their image of the 1950's.
Don't get cocky. Many Leavers voted fully cognisant of the short-medium term risks.
There will be some jobs, and supply chains, that cease to make sense once the UK has left the EU. However, the fundamental attractions of the UK will remain and there will be new opportunities created through new trade deals, and flexibility of applying an independent regulatory regime.
But these will take time to come to fruition, and loss aversion is a very powerful emotion.
Any change creates winners and losers, so I see your point. The trouble is I haven't seen many people coming up with new opportunities and going for them yet. (Unless you count taking short term advantage of the weak pound.) The losses are looking all too real though. And I remember the way bad news always seemed to have a knock on effect on suppliers and customers back in the eighties. If the same happens again we might be looking at some pretty bleak stories over the next couple of years. If you could give a bit of detail of exactly how flexibly applying an independent regulatory regime can create some new business I'd be interested to hear it.
I can't fathom why the Lib Dems are even standing - this sight of SLAB & SLID allowing themselves to be steamrollered by "only we can beat the SNP here" SCON is something to behold !!
And this is what Martin Boon, ICM’s director, is saying about them.
In a week when the eagerly awaited but already much discussed manifesto’s drop, Theresa May can head into it confident that her poll lead is largely impregnable. While other polls of late have seen Labour increase its share into the 30s, (beyond the share that both Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband secured), ICM still puts Jeremy Corbyn’s party on 28% (which is up one-point compared to the Guardian’s last poll earlier this month.
The question as to why ICM has consistently lower Labour shares than other pollster is fairly easy to identify – our turnout weighting mechanism is doing exactly the job we intended it to, reducing the power in the sample of those historically less likely to vote in general elections, and doing the reverse for those typically most likely to vote. Other methodological adjustments do, of course, leave their own imprint - sometimes underpinning and sometimes counter-balancing the turnout weight, but turnout weighting is undoubtedly pivotal to our headline numbers.
The Lib Dems won't be 100% successful in turning these categories of voters to them. It gives them a large pool of voters to fish in with a clear message of internationalism, openness and aspiration.
No it doesn't. It gives them a minority pool of voters to fish in, where (as I've pointed out) the divisions are far more important than what unites them. The policy of allowing businesses to run NHS services is the third priority for New Britain and the second priority for Free Liberals, and the top policy opposed by Progressives. Increasing income tax for higher earners is the second priority for Progressives and the fourth priority for Swing Voters, and the top policy opposed by New Britain. So you can't have a economic or a health policy, because you'll lose voters.
The Conservatives have a larger pool but if they are going to hang onto their "Our Britain" voters they will need to maintain a messaging of national exceptionalism.
But that's child's play compared to the electoral alliance you're proposing for the Lib Dems. You'd be startled as to how little you have to do to persuade people you're putting Britain first- the prevalence of working-class Conservatism from the 1860s onwards, much of which was based on perceived patriotism, shows that. And when your opponents abandon any intention of contesting that ground, you barely have to do anything at all.
As things stand and assuming the Lib Dems can pick up at least half of that pool and some other votes here and there, they should be good for 20% of the electorate, which is twice what they have now.
It's less than they got in 1983, when they had fewer than 30 seats. That kind of niche, middle/upper-class party is a recipe for electoral irrelevance: as the Lib Dems have found out, and as Labour are now discovering.
Absolutely not. It's highly likely that over the next ten years we'll see Common Sense and Our Britain grow as a proportion of the electorate. After all, Community is basically Our Britain with a bit of class envy, while Common Sense is New Britain and Free Liberals after middle age. On top of that, you then have to factor in the proportion of the population who will stick with their party through blind loyalty even when they don't represent their views. In other words, your realignment is as likely to get the Conservatives to 55% as to get the Lib Dems to 30%.
The Survation poll released last week was conducted on a UK - rather than GB - basis. To arrive at the GB equivalent the vote shares of both Labour and Tories need to be adjusted upwards by circa 1%.
I can't fathom why the Lib Dems are even standing - this sight of SLAB & SLID allowing themselves to be steamrollered by "only we can beat the SNP here" SCON is something to behold !!
For all that Labour seem to be edging up (albeit it from catastrophic polling lows), the Tory numbers are remarkably static. PMTM called the election, their averages immediately jumped to 47%, and haven't moved since.
28%? How does this tally with the doorstep reaction we are hearing from all over the country?
Instinctively it feels about right to me. He may well do as well as Foot, however the Lib Dems and UKIP combined won't be hitting the SDP score - and therein lies the problem for Labour.
I think we've got to the stage now where Corbyn will start promising fantastical amounts of extra spending on just about everything. So why stop at 37 billion for the NHS? Why not 100 billion? Why not increase taxes on the rich to the old Labour rate of 90%? Why not increase corporation tax to 40%?
It looks to me like Labour have completely lost touch with reality.
37 billion is like 19/3 in old money. Makes people think you have calculated it & not pulled it out of your fundament. Or got it using your Abbottcus.
It's embarrassing. Public ownership is going to resolve the disputes with the Unions about guards etc how exactly? With more public money?
I blame Mrs May.
She's coming out with a load of left wing bollocks, and is it surprising the Lib Dems are moving even further to the left.
All the political parties are moving away from sensible free market economics at the moment. (Ironically at the same time that the French have elected a decidedly laissez-faire formerly Socialist President.)
I know it's a pain but we, the people, get a vote too. And we like our free markets to come regulated, and for workers to have rights. We're prepared for the country to be a little poorer to make it a little fairer. The PM seems to have latched on to some of that and it's just possible we're about to see some old fashioned pre-Thatcher, proper conservatism at work.
Or she may be lying, or prevented from doing so by the Thatcherites. We'll see.
I think we've got to the stage now where Corbyn will start promising fantastical amounts of extra spending on just about everything. So why stop at 37 billion for the NHS? Why not 100 billion? Why not increase taxes on the rich to the old Labour rate of 90%? Why not increase corporation tax to 40%?
It looks to me like Labour have completely lost touch with reality.
I hope CCHQ are monitoring the amount of coverage Jeremy Corbyn is getting. He was on three channels, Victoria Derbyshire, Parliament and SKY, this morning, for quite some considerable time. BBC had a breaking news headline, citing the extra 37 bn for the NHS.
"Events, events, dear boy".
CCHQ made clear that their strategy was to yield Corbyn lots of airtime and deliberately refrain from newsworthy stuff in the hope that he'd implode. No good complaining now.
No ones complaining. Corbyn is in self destruct mode for Labour.. His 37 billion is uncosted bollocks. I bet Diane worked it out for him.
And this is what Martin Boon, ICM’s director, is saying about them.
In a week when the eagerly awaited but already much discussed manifesto’s drop, Theresa May can head into it confident that her poll lead is largely impregnable. While other polls of late have seen Labour increase its share into the 30s, (beyond the share that both Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband secured), ICM still puts Jeremy Corbyn’s party on 28% (which is up one-point compared to the Guardian’s last poll earlier this month.
The question as to why ICM has consistently lower Labour shares than other pollster is fairly easy to identify – our turnout weighting mechanism is doing exactly the job we intended it to, reducing the power in the sample of those historically less likely to vote in general elections, and doing the reverse for those typically most likely to vote. Other methodological adjustments do, of course, leave their own imprint - sometimes underpinning and sometimes counter-balancing the turnout weight, but turnout weighting is undoubtedly pivotal to our headline numbers.
During the EURef those who never vote or haven't voted since Thatcher helped LEAVE to win, infact almost all of the increase in turnout was LEAVE voters. IF this election is made out to be all about Brexit prehaps normally lower turnout groups (such as young blue collar voters) will turnout for this GE whereas they normally wouldn't?
Therefore ICM's headline figures could be right by accident. As if more young blue collar voters were included they would further depress the labour vote and increase the tory one.
I can't fathom why the Lib Dems are even standing - this sight of SLAB & SLID allowing themselves to be steamrollered by "only we can beat the SNP here" SCON is something to behold !!
To my mind, a forced choice between a centre right candidate who wants to pull out of the UK and a slightly further to the right candidate who wants to pull out of Europe is a profoundly depressing thing. I think the consequences of Tory nationalism are likely to be less disastrous than Scottish nationalism, but it's still a choice between two evils. The Lib Dems offer a more positive option to voters who can't stomach putting their crosses next to any kind of nationalist.
The boot's on the other foot in the likes of Edinburgh West etc.
Lord Tebbit also used to think a homosexual shouldn't/couldn't be Home Secretary.
Yes, Lord Tebbit is such a liberal, if you compare him to Sammy Wilson.
Is your target for May to GAIN 97 seats or she's a pound shop insert name here:- -------------
She has to win over 100 seats to be comparable to Dave.
I bought the Tories at 378 and I'm not looking to close out just yet.
My faith in the Tories doing well on June 8th is exclusively down to Sir Lynton, Corbyn, and brilliant Tory candidates like Aaron Bell.
I can almost imagine a hypothetical future HoC with 600 Tory MPs, you still lauding Camborne and ignoring the ability of Mrs May to unite the right, rather than divide it.....
I think we've got to the stage now where Corbyn will start promising fantastical amounts of extra spending on just about everything. So why stop at 37 billion for the NHS? Why not 100 billion? Why not increase taxes on the rich to the old Labour rate of 90%? Why not increase corporation tax to 40%?
It looks to me like Labour have completely lost touch with reality.
Conservatives promised an extra £18 billion a year for the NHS, though they phrased it as £350 million a week.
I hope CCHQ are monitoring the amount of coverage Jeremy Corbyn is getting. He was on three channels, Victoria Derbyshire, Parliament and SKY, this morning, for quite some considerable time. BBC had a breaking news headline, citing the extra 37 bn for the NHS.
"Events, events, dear boy".
CCHQ made clear that their strategy was to yield Corbyn lots of airtime and deliberately refrain from newsworthy stuff in the hope that he'd implode. No good complaining now.
The Tories are not complaining, quite the opposite. The more people see of Jezza, the fewer votes Labour receives.
28%? How does this tally with the doorstep reaction we are hearing from all over the country?
Instinctively it feels about right to me. He may well do as well as Foot, however the Lib Dems and UKIP combined won't be hitting the SDP score - and therein lies the problem for Labour.
it feels right to me too. Also NHS being the second biggest issue also chimes with anecdotes from family and friends, leading me to believe Labour wont go below 27%.
Comments
It looks to me like Labour have completely lost touch with reality.
Fortunately you're an informed punter, and will take advantage.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/864067838008479744
Vettel v Hamilton fighting out for the title all season long would be awesome
https://greens.scot/news/our-targeted-campaign-to-elect-patrick-harvie-as-scotland-s-first-green-mp
Whether your instincts are to participate actively in European affairs or stay aloof, we have always been a bad fit for Europe. The thing that surprises me is that there was never a massive blitz on trying to change British perceptions of Europe, rather than just trotting out arguments about economics.
She's coming out with a load of left wing bollocks, and is it surprising the Lib Dems are moving even further to the left.
Families to care for their elders.
It's a very tasty season.
Also, check out Perez. He's just 1 point behind Verstappen and 3 off Ricciardo.
Not in NE Derbyshire!!!
Tories = party of the wealthy and powerful. Tories will always be on the side of their crooked friends at the top of corporate establishment. People are fed up!
It's time for people to realise the extent to which the SNP relies on a loony vote.
Did you see the crazy interview with defence secretary Michael Fallon, who was asked whether he could guarantee that MOD shipbuilding contracts would remain in Scotland if Scotland were to become independent? The poor soul got flustered. He should have said, "Of course I damned well can't. The British government looks after jobs in Britain, not jobs in foreign countries. And anyway, are you sure an iScottish government would be sufficiently OK with a foreign country's foreign policy to be happy with producing ships for that country's navy?"
The key point is that the whole "let's be independent so we can stay in the EU (or SM)" discourse is a veneered version of the common attitude in sporting competitions: "We support whoever's playing against England". It is all about playing to the xenophobic vote. The SNP does an awful lot of dogwhistling.
(The very few Scottish people who do support England in international competitions are mostly a minority of hardline Protestant sectarians among Rangers fans, of the kind who interpolate the words "No surrender" into the British national anthem. They don't vote SNP.)
In SNP land you are a "quisling" (and usage of that word is growing) if you point out that you can't have your cake and eat it.
On checking the all important Scotch subsample, there appears to be no figure for the LDs.
Is there something we should know?
It is not the 1970s any more where a man goes to work and a woman stays at home looking after kids, elderly parents etc.
Gay marriage bill may lead to 'lesbian queen and artificially inseminated heir'
Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit also warns that legislation could allow him to marry his son to escape inheritance tax
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/21/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen
But you don't seem to be up to date. Sadly whether what you say is or isn't the case (Tory baby-eaters, etc), the alternative is what you should be looking at. Even on CiF the vast majority realise that no matter how nasty the Cons really are, Jeremy would be 1,937,650x worse. Roughly.
Clearly the "Brexit will result in all your employment rights being taken away" argument has had salience in the polling and focus groups and there was a desire to defuse it. Whether a new set of employment rights is what the UK needs as it heads into Brexit is another matter altogether.
Mr. 1000, I'm not very taken with May. But, thanks to the PLP not understanding their own party's rules, the alternative is Corbyn.
*sighs*
Pre existing promise on living wage £9 by 2020
New promise £8.20 by 2020
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/864055339729268736
https://twitter.com/MilesBriggsMSP/status/864028181426319361
In a week when the eagerly awaited but already much discussed manifesto’s drop, Theresa May can head into it confident that her poll lead is largely impregnable. While other polls of late have seen Labour increase its share into the 30s, (beyond the share that both Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband secured), ICM still puts Jeremy Corbyn’s party on 28% (which is up one-point compared to the Guardian’s last poll earlier this month.
The question as to why ICM has consistently lower Labour shares than other pollster is fairly easy to identify – our turnout weighting mechanism is doing exactly the job we intended it to, reducing the power in the sample of those historically less likely to vote in general elections, and doing the reverse for those typically most likely to vote. Other methodological adjustments do, of course, leave their own imprint - sometimes underpinning and sometimes counter-balancing the turnout weight, but turnout weighting is undoubtedly pivotal to our headline numbers.
How do you view lesbian relationships?
In HD.
[Alas, too modern for me to steal/be inspired by for Sir Edric].
Labour: 28% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 10% (up 1)
Ukip: 6% (no change)
Greens: 3% (no change)
Conservative lead: 20 points (down 2)
TMICIPM (BAL)
Her standing in a small reduces the chance of the SCON winning. She should stay in.
Yes, Lord Tebbit is such a liberal, if you compare him to Sammy Wilson.
I mean the above semi-seriously.
-------------
Ben Edwards referring to pit lane, as if it's on a housing estate, rather than 'the' pit lane grates a bit too.
Or she may be lying, or prevented from doing so by the Thatcherites. We'll see.
I bought the Tories at 378 and I'm not looking to close out just yet.
My faith in the Tories doing well on June 8th is exclusively down to Sir Lynton, Corbyn, and brilliant Tory candidates like Aaron Bell.
We are NOT going to WIN.
Therefore ICM's headline figures could be right by accident. As if more young blue collar voters were included they would further depress the labour vote and increase the tory one.
The boot's on the other foot in the likes of Edinburgh West etc.
Survation have the Lib Dems on 0% in Scotland. UKIP are also on zero in Wales.
We are almost back to two party politics.
Or "second", as we normally call it.