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.
The 37 billion is over 5 years, therefore a paltry £142m a week; or, looking at it another way, it's 37bn vs 90bn. If that doesn't vindicate the Leave vote, nothing will.
Incidentally, no conservative ever promised that in his capacity as a conservative.
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.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
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.
He will be judged for it, but his views aren't uncommon amongst men of his generation and age.
I'm always reluctant to play judge and jury because I'm confident there will be views we will hold that will seem very antiquated to future generations when we're in our 80s and 90s.
I have a vague feeling that Labour will do better (in terms of share of the vote) than current expectations. Because nobody/hardly anybody believes that they can win, all the protest votes and anti-Tory sentiment that have felt the need to go Green/LibDem/random-local-pressure-group will feel that they can gravitate towards Labour with impunity.
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.
But that's child's play compared to the electoral alliance you're proposing for the Lib Dems. [...snipped...]
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%.
I don't disagree with much of what you say, except on your final point. The nationalist conservative strand is getting a free run because no-one is standing up for internationalist liberalism. That's basically the point of the Lib Dems taking this approach. They can run with it.
The main issue, though, is that the Lib Dems don't have a distinctive brand currently, unlike the Conservatives and Labour. They can only distinguish on the role of the state if they go strongly against the welfare state, a position that is really only of interest to the Free Liberals who represent 7% of the electorate. If they go on an internationalist ticket they can appeal to 31% of the electorate. This requires them to take a moderate or fudged stance on the welfare state, which means losing a chunk of that 31%, mainly probably from the Free Liberals faction. But they would have a reasonable prospect of growing the 31% if for example the Brexit negotiations hit an impasse.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
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.
The 37 billion is over 5 years, therefore a paltry £142m a week; or, looking at it another way, it's 37bn vs 90bn. If that doesn't vindicate the Leave vote, nothing will.
Incidentally, no conservative ever promised that in his capacity as a conservative.
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.....
Cameron united the right. It's just that he did it by accident and against his judgement and actions. Had he won the referendum, the Tory party would now be in a right state. By losing it, he united the Tories, made UKIP irrelevant, enabled the Lib Dems to make themselves almost as irrelevant and exposed a deep division within Labour.
Of course, he could have done all that and kept his job, by advocating Leave.
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.
We can offer deeper and more flexible access to our markets, and adopt a less protectionist approach to the EU in agriculture, telecoms, finance and professional services. We could deregulate in new tech, pharmaceuticals, trade and financial regulations.
Due to our geopolitical position off the coast of Europe, being centre of the world's timezones, speaking English, having a strong legal system and globally interconnected capital, I believe the UK will still be very attractive.
And a trade deal with the EU is a question of when, not if.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
Cameron gained 97 seats in 2010, so I suppose there is some logic there. 100 seat gain seems a good target to me given this is a referendum on Corbyn becoming PM.
Edit: Baxter is currently forecasting Tory gain of 79 - so not a million miles away
ICM thread this week - wasn't worth it last week obviously...?
Nah. Doing a thread on huge Tory leads is like doing a thread on 'water is wet'
The huge Tory *shares* need more explanation though. If the Conservatives poll 48%, as many polls suggest is possible, that's well beyond what Thatcher or Blair at their peak managed. It'd be the highest GB share for any party since 1966 and the highest for the Tories since 1959. In what was until recently an increasingly multi-party system, the causes of that are worth investigating.
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.....
Cameron united the right. It's just that he did it by accident and against his judgement and actions. Had he won the referendum, the Tory party would now be in a right state. By losing it, he united the Tories, made UKIP irrelevant, enabled the Lib Dems to make themselves almost as irrelevant and exposed a deep division within Labour.
Of course, he could have done all that and kept his job, by advocating Leave.
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.....
Cameron united the right. It's just that he did it by accident and against his judgement and actions. Had he won the referendum, the Tory party would now be in a right state. By losing it, he united the Tories, made UKIP irrelevant, enabled the Lib Dems to make themselves almost as irrelevant and exposed a deep division within Labour.
Of course, he could have done all that and kept his job, by advocating Leave.
So proving that he is not as unprincipled as Boris.
ICM thread this week - wasn't worth it last week obviously...?
Nah. Doing a thread on huge Tory leads is like doing a thread on 'water is wet'
The huge Tory *shares* need more explanation though. If the Conservatives poll 48%, as many polls suggest is possible, that's well beyond what Thatcher or Blair at their peak managed. It'd be the highest GB share for any party since 1966 and the highest for the Tories since 1959. In what was until recently an increasingly multi-party system, the causes of that are worth investigating.
Cameron is such a genius he destroyed two 3rd parties, once by going in to coalition with the libdems and then by giving us a euref.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
If the Lib Dem master strategy involved starting the campaign with a row about whether or not gay sex is a sin, followed by a row about whether or not they want an anti-Semite representing them in Parliament, recordings of senior figures implying members should vote against their party, and polling between 8 and 12 percent, then yes.
It's fantabulously something alright.
Don't forget:
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
Indeed - but what should concern the LibDems was their failure to make gains from Labour.
Picking up some NOTA voters in southern England who had voted UKIP in 2013 doesn't achieve much for the LibDems.
But there were virtually no Labour councillors for them to gain from! These were largely the county elections in England.
I know the narrative is that the LDs had a terrible, terrible night. But they increased their NEV share from 13% to 18%. Absent the headlines, that was a good result for them.
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.
The 37 billion is over 5 years, therefore a paltry £142m a week; or, looking at it another way, it's 37bn vs 90bn. If that doesn't vindicate the Leave vote, nothing will.
Incidentally, no conservative ever promised that in his capacity as a conservative.
I think the NHS is struggling at the moment but, for what's it's worth, I think such an increase would be mostly soaked up by higher wages, drugs price inflation and new/extended contracts for capital renewals and maintenance.
The public are usually sold such increases as "X" thousand new doctors or nurses, but the NHS really does require a large slug of extra funding each and every year just to stand still.
ICM thread this week - wasn't worth it last week obviously...?
Nah. Doing a thread on huge Tory leads is like doing a thread on 'water is wet'
The huge Tory *shares* need more explanation though. If the Conservatives poll 48%, as many polls suggest is possible, that's well beyond what Thatcher or Blair at their peak managed. It'd be the highest GB share for any party since 1966 and the highest for the Tories since 1959. In what was until recently an increasingly multi-party system, the causes of that are worth investigating.
We have to get used to the idea that Tories pushing 50 and Labour pushing 30 aren't contradictory, particularly GB-wide.
I have a vague feeling that Labour will do better (in terms of share of the vote) than current expectations. Because nobody/hardly anybody believes that they can win, all the protest votes and anti-Tory sentiment that have felt the need to go Green/LibDem/random-local-pressure-group will feel that they can gravitate towards Labour with impunity.
I think that's roughly what we're seeing in the polls already. Expectation - 25ish. Current - 31.
Not sure how much more they've got to squeeze - latest ICM for example has LD on 10 and UKIP on 6. There's got to be a floor to their levels.
I have a vague feeling that Labour will do better (in terms of share of the vote) than current expectations. Because nobody/hardly anybody believes that they can win, all the protest votes and anti-Tory sentiment that have felt the need to go Green/LibDem/random-local-pressure-group will feel that they can gravitate towards Labour with impunity.
I think things may well look that way in the polls during the final 2 weeks of the campaign. The question is the extent to which people who have thought they could vote for Corbyn, and said so, maintain their resolve on the actual day.
1) Ramping predicted huge gains in the local elections which turned out to be losing councillors in England, Wales and Scotland.
2) Ramping predicted prosecutions of dozens of Conservative MPs which never happened.
3) Ramping mystery private polls which apparently showed numerous gains from the Conservatives but which neither the local election results, the Conservative campaign nor the bookies have placed any credence.
Worth remembering that the LibDems actually did fine in terms of votes in the locals. They increased their total number by 40%, it's just that in most of their seats, it was the Conservatives who were up more.
Indeed - but what should concern the LibDems was their failure to make gains from Labour.
Picking up some NOTA voters in southern England who had voted UKIP in 2013 doesn't achieve much for the LibDems.
But there were virtually no Labour councillors for them to gain from! These were largely the county elections in England.
I know the narrative is that the LDs had a terrible, terrible night. But they increased their NEV share from 13% to 18%. Absent the headlines, that was a good result for them.
Turn that around. Outside Durham and Northumberland, the LDs gained councillors.
(Edit to add: didn't notice you are using 2008/9 numbers. Which makes it a meaningless comparison. The question is not "are the LDs at 2008/9 levels, where they were in the mid 20s nationally", but "have they recovered, even slightly, from where they were during the coalition". My position is that they have recovered somewhat, and that they will get around 12% in the General Election on June 9th, and will probably end up with 12-14 seats.)
My point is that the Conservatives were able to make gains from Labour to return to the position of 2008 and 2009 yet the LibDems failed to do so.
And if the LibDems aren't able to make gains from Labour now then they're underachieving.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
I have a vague feeling that Labour will do better (in terms of share of the vote) than current expectations. Because nobody/hardly anybody believes that they can win, all the protest votes and anti-Tory sentiment that have felt the need to go Green/LibDem/random-local-pressure-group will feel that they can gravitate towards Labour with impunity.
I think that's roughly what we're seeing in the polls already. Expectation - 25ish. Current - 31.
Not sure how much more they've got to squeeze - latest ICM for example has LD on 10 and UKIP on 6. There's got to be a floor to their levels.
The floor for UKIP is zero (to one sf). If their voters from last time think that May will do what they were asking for why waste your vote? How many people still vote Liberal or SDP?
ICM thread this week - wasn't worth it last week obviously...?
Nah. Doing a thread on huge Tory leads is like doing a thread on 'water is wet'
The huge Tory *shares* need more explanation though. If the Conservatives poll 48%, as many polls suggest is possible, that's well beyond what Thatcher or Blair at their peak managed. It'd be the highest GB share for any party since 1966 and the highest for the Tories since 1959. In what was until recently an increasingly multi-party system, the causes of that are worth investigating.
The Conservatives have retained most of their 2010 Labour and 2015 LD switchers, whilst adding on the vast majority of the UKIP vote and not a few extra Scottish unionists. They are attractive to both Remainers and Leavers, unlike most of the other parties.
I expect voting Conservative is the choice of anyone over 40 in a key marginal wanting pragmatic competent government, the overwhelming choice of the baby boomers, the choice of Union-first voters in Scotland, and a one-off mandate to strengthen the hand of the UK during the course of Brexit negotiations from most of the rest.
(As an aside it is interesting how, in the UK, unlike in many other major European democracies, working class voters have more frequently turned en-mass to the Tories than Labour in times of national emergency)
ICM thread this week - wasn't worth it last week obviously...?
Nah. Doing a thread on huge Tory leads is like doing a thread on 'water is wet'
The huge Tory *shares* need more explanation though. If the Conservatives poll 48%, as many polls suggest is possible, that's well beyond what Thatcher or Blair at their peak managed. It'd be the highest GB share for any party since 1966 and the highest for the Tories since 1959. In what was until recently an increasingly multi-party system, the causes of that are worth investigating.
Cameron got 37% while UKIP got 13% , so it isn't really that difficult to see how May is on course for 48% or so.
The kind of Labour voter who moved to UKIP is not typically the kind of person who would vote for Corbyn, so I think there is a lot in the "Gateway drug" theory. In addition to that, May is more sympathetic to non metropolitan elite types than Cameron.
I have a vague feeling that Labour will do better (in terms of share of the vote) than current expectations. Because nobody/hardly anybody believes that they can win, all the protest votes and anti-Tory sentiment that have felt the need to go Green/LibDem/random-local-pressure-group will feel that they can gravitate towards Labour with impunity.
I think that's roughly what we're seeing in the polls already. Expectation - 25ish. Current - 31.
Not sure how much more they've got to squeeze - latest ICM for example has LD on 10 and UKIP on 6. There's got to be a floor to their levels.
The floor for UKIP is zero (to one sf). If their voters from last time think that May will do what they were asking for why waste your vote? How many people still vote Liberal or SDP?
If you think that will be the case, go for it. I can't see it happening this election, but certainly one for the future.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
It was probably, in hindsight, good fortune Cameron avoided winning a narrow majority in GE2010.
Had he done so, he would have been held hostage by a number of his own backbenchers, entirely owned the most politically contentious of the deficit reduction measures, and probably wouldn't have vanquished the Lib Dems in GE2015.
We might now be facing a Clegg-Miliband coalition.
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.....
Cameron united the right. It's just that he did it by accident and against his judgement and actions. Had he won the referendum, the Tory party would now be in a right state. By losing it, he united the Tories, made UKIP irrelevant, enabled the Lib Dems to make themselves almost as irrelevant and exposed a deep division within Labour.
Of course, he could have done all that and kept his job, by advocating Leave.
Didn't you want to Remain?
Yes. It'd have been difficult afterwards. That said, it'd have made Corbyn remaining in place through to 2020 more likely, and Cameron would probably have been ousted this summer or next. Pieces would have been picked up.
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.....
Cameron united the right. It's just that he did it by accident and against his judgement and actions. Had he won the referendum, the Tory party would now be in a right state. By losing it, he united the Tories, made UKIP irrelevant, enabled the Lib Dems to make themselves almost as irrelevant and exposed a deep division within Labour.
Of course, he could have done all that and kept his job, by advocating Leave.
So proving that he is not as unprincipled as Boris.
Indeed, Rottenborough. Cameron is not only an infinitely better and more honest politician, but he also would have had a much better idea what kind of a fiasco Brexit was likely to be.
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.
To be fair to her, all May appears to be promising is the status quo (on workers' rights) - the alternative would be slashing what already modest rights UK workers have. Why would she do that? Increasing job insecurity is bad for the economy.
P.S. Why the hero worship on here for TissuePrice/AaronBell? I'm sure he is a nice guy, but it's a bit weird. It's not as if all PBMPs get similar. Nick gets abused as much as praised.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
I was mainly joking, and road-testing a couple of nounifications. But I do think that the raw numbers don't tell us much. Cameron had the tide in his favour in 2010, and I have always thought he pissed away a majority in 2010, and his career and the country's future in the EU in 2015.
The funny thing is if the Tories get a whopping majority this time / May gains over 100 seats, it will mainly be Dave wot done it. Not that he was planning to! Dave 'losing' the referendum has screwed Labour, killed UKIP, shafted the SNP, boxed in the LibDems and reversed a direction of travel this country was fundamentally not suited to. Probably the most glorious failure in UK political history.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
It was probably, in hindsight, good fortune Cameron avoided winning a narrow majority in GE2010.
Had he done so, he would have been held hostage by a number of his own backbenchers, entirely owned the most politically contentious of the deficit reduction measures, and probably wouldn't have vanquished the Lib Dems in GE2015.
We might now be facing a Clegg-Miliband coalition.
And we'd be moaning away about it while having no idea what hell we had avoided.
(As an aside it is interesting how, in the UK, unlike in many other major European democracies, working class voters have more frequently turned en-mass to the Tories than Labour in times of national emergency)
Labour keep ignoring the answers the electorate give them and should be asking themselves why if the NHS and social care are such big issues, almost every pensioner in Britain is voting Tory.
The NHS is the number one issue for just 17% of the population (Survation today).
Fox hunting and railway nationalisation are nul points on the Issues Index.
Labour appear to be fighting the 2010 election still with banker taxes and such like, though the electorate should note that the 1% fatcats have already grown to the 5% rich. Next time round, the 20% oligarchs?
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
That doesn't mean the benchmark for Theresa May is to beat the number of gains made by Cameron though. The base from which they start is relevant, I will give you that.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
Dave won marginal seats. Theresa's aiming for Labour seats. The climb gets steeper nearer the summit.
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.....
Cameron united the right. It's just that he did it by accident and against his judgement and actions. Had he won the referendum, the Tory party would now be in a right state. By losing it, he united the Tories, made UKIP irrelevant, enabled the Lib Dems to make themselves almost as irrelevant and exposed a deep division within Labour.
Of course, he could have done all that and kept his job, by advocating Leave.
So proving that he is not as unprincipled as Boris.
Not really. Considering the disparity between his Bloomberg Speech and what he eventually won in the negotiations, he could have walked out and said that despite months of intense efforts, it's clear that the EU does not want to reform and does not want to change direction. As such, it is better to leave now rather than later.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
Dave won marginal seats. Theresa's aiming for Labour seats. The climb gets steeper nearer the summit.
Yes, to compare May's gains to Cameron's is to say the latest 100m World Record holder isn't as good as the previous one if they didn't break the previous record by as much
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
Plus, of course, David Cameron had to detoxify the Party.
(As an aside it is interesting how, in the UK, unlike in many other major European democracies, working class voters have more frequently turned en-mass to the Tories than Labour in times of national emergency)
Labour keep ignoring the answers the electorate give them and should be asking themselves why if the NHS and social care are such big issues, almost every pensioner in Britain is voting Tory.
The NHS is the number one issue for just 17% of the population (Survation today).
Fox hunting and railway nationalisation are nul points on the Issues Index.
Labour appear to be fighting the 2010 election still with banker taxes and such like, though the electorate should note that the 1% fatcats have already grown to the 5% rich. Next time round, the 20% oligarchs?
I think at some point, surely, even diehard Lab supporters will begin to look quizzically at the near-continuous spending announcements from the party. All that we hear is spend, spend, spend.
Now I know our electorate likes a freebie as much as the next demos, but surely they won't buy such a monotone campaign. At least Tone had education, tough on crime, tough on the causes, 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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
Plus, of course, David Cameron had to detoxify the Party.
Yup. It should be remembered it was said whoever won in 2010 would be out of power for a generation, and we're not talking about an SNP generation.
ICM thread this week - wasn't worth it last week obviously...?
Nah. Doing a thread on huge Tory leads is like doing a thread on 'water is wet'
The huge Tory *shares* need more explanation though. If the Conservatives poll 48%, as many polls suggest is possible, that's well beyond what Thatcher or Blair at their peak managed. It'd be the highest GB share for any party since 1966 and the highest for the Tories since 1959. In what was until recently an increasingly multi-party system, the causes of that are worth investigating.
The increasing irrelevance of the minor parties is a vicious cycle, I think: UKIP were rendered pretty much irrelevant, which boosted the Con share, which caused Lab/{LD, Grn} waverers to switch to Lab, which narrowed the gap, which caused some remaining Con/UKIP waverers to switch to Con, which [...]
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 question is whether ICM is correctly predicting this or they're fighting the last war. Ghe Labour vote is IMO around half extremely enthusiastic for Corbyn and half not keen but loyally trooping out. The former half has many who are traditionally low-turnout, but probably not this time.The latter are traditionally high turnout (do our duty etc.) but may be weaker this time. It's actually hard to assess and it'd be helpful to know ICM's raw numbers so we can see how much hinges on their assumptions.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
That doesn't mean the benchmark for Theresa May is to beat the number of gains made by Cameron though. The base from which they start is relevant, I will give you that.
But relevant in which direction? Starting at 198 your targets are natural supporters returning home, then the floating voters, then true converts from other parties, and they get more difficult in that order. At 331 natural support plus many of the floaters are already in the bag, so your task in winning additional seats is much much harder because you are mainly looking to make fresh converts.
Not really. Considering the disparity between his Bloomberg Speech and what he eventually won in the negotiations, he could have walked out and said that despite months of intense efforts, it's clear that the EU does not want to reform and does not want to change direction. As such, it is better to leave now rather than later.
He would have looked like even more of an unstatesmanlike idiot if he had done that.
To get any meaningful change would have required treaty change which he didn't have the allies or the patience to achieve, and in any case most of the practical problems had readily available remedies that were in his power at the UK level.
It is not better to leave; it is better to wake up to reality.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
Dave won marginal seats. Theresa's aiming for Labour seats. The climb gets steeper nearer the summit.
Quite right. The higher your starting point, the more difficult it is to make further gains because you are taking the fight into territory which is more favourable to your opponents.
If May gains 100 seats to put her on 430, that's two thirds of the seats in the house. No general election has produced that result since WW2. Blair got closest in 1997 when he won 63% of the total seats in the house.
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
That doesn't mean the benchmark for Theresa May is to beat the number of gains made by Cameron though. The base from which they start is relevant, I will give you that.
But relevant in which direction? Starting at 198 your targets are natural supporters returning home, then the floating voters, then true converts from other parties, and they get more difficult in that order. At 331 natural support plus many of the floaters are already in the bag, so your task in winning additional seats is much much harder because you are mainly looking to make fresh converts.
Are kippers not natural supporters returning home? Arguably Cameron did the hard part of winning over floating voters and converts, and now, thanks to luck and good timing, May has had the easy part fall into her lap.
If Cameron took over when the Conservatives were on 198 MPs, that means there were 434 seats up for grabs (I think, discounting NI)
He ended up with 306 in 2010, so nabbing 25% of those available
TM the PM starts off with 331, meaning there are 301 up for grabs. So an increase of 75 would be par, if one were to compare with DC. Even then, the seats she would win are surely harder to mine than those that the party gained 2005-2010?
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
That doesn't mean the benchmark for Theresa May is to beat the number of gains made by Cameron though. The base from which they start is relevant, I will give you that.
But relevant in which direction? Starting at 198 your targets are natural supporters returning home, then the floating voters, then true converts from other parties, and they get more difficult in that order. At 331 natural support plus many of the floaters are already in the bag, so your task in winning additional seats is much much harder because you are mainly looking to make fresh converts.
Completely agree. It is relevant in a way that is bad for anyone trying to push the meme that May has to equal the number of seats gained by Cameron in 2010
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.
You often cite Cameron winning almost 100 seats as a number that May has to beat, but you must realise it is nonsense mustn't you? Or is it a kind of joke?
Must be. Cameron coalitioned on his first outing, May looks to majority, and that's the test.
You don't understand political history do you?
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
That doesn't mean the benchmark for Theresa May is to beat the number of gains made by Cameron though. The base from which they start is relevant, I will give you that.
But relevant in which direction? Starting at 198 your targets are natural supporters returning home, then the floating voters, then true converts from other parties, and they get more difficult in that order. At 331 natural support plus many of the floaters are already in the bag, so your task in winning additional seats is much much harder because you are mainly looking to make fresh converts.
Are kippers not natural supporters returning home? Arguably Cameron did the hard part of winning over floating voters and converts, and now, thanks to luck and good timing, May has had the easy part fall into her lap.
That is one (interesting) way of looking at it. However, the anecdotal evidence atm of lifelong Lab>tory switchers (who are prepared to admit to it) is strong, and I don't remember that kind of talk in 2010 or 2015.
Why will it be a vote loser in Islington ? It lowers my tax band threshold. I support it.
That is because you are a truly and deeply good person. Take a bow. Other tax band threshold lowerees are probably on average less saintlike.
Except for high-income Labour voters, who factor it in with enthusiasm and wonder why it hadn't happened before. Believe me - that group is markedly to the left of the party average, let alone the electorate. For instance, I've earned over £100K/year in the last few years, and I'll be delighted to pay more tax if the Government mostly uses it to improve public services. I grew up in Scandinavia, which IMO works well with a high tax/high service model.
Newton Dunn is imagining the response of £80K voters in general and assuming that Labour voters in that category would be much the same. He's wrong, because if people in that income range were bothered by higher taxes they generally wouldn't be Labour voters.
But perhaps the intereestingly evasive Tories will promise the same, we'll see!
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.....
Cameron united the right. It's just that he did it by accident and against his judgement and actions. Had he won the referendum, the Tory party would now be in a right state. By losing it, he united the Tories, made UKIP irrelevant, enabled the Lib Dems to make themselves almost as irrelevant and exposed a deep division within Labour.
Of course, he could have done all that and kept his job, by advocating Leave.
Didn't you want to Remain?
Yes. It'd have been difficult afterwards. That said, it'd have made Corbyn remaining in place through to 2020 more likely, and Cameron would probably have been ousted this summer or next. Pieces would have been picked up.
We will never know, but it would be interesting as a counter-factual to understand how the EU would have evolved from 2016-2020 with a UK Remain win.
Firstly, such a win would have been narrow - probably no better than 53%-47%, at best - which would not have ended the debate. And, second, the UK's media attention would have immediately switched to how the EU honoured the deal, any pending treaties that might formalise it, or not, and how federalism would evolve now the Brexit threat was out of the way.
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.....
Cameron united the right. It's just that he did it by accident and against his judgement and actions. Had he won the referendum, the Tory party would now be in a right state. By losing it, he united the Tories, made UKIP irrelevant, enabled the Lib Dems to make themselves almost as irrelevant and exposed a deep division within Labour.
Of course, he could have done all that and kept his job, by advocating Leave.
Didn't you want to Remain?
Yes. It'd have been difficult afterwards. That said, it'd have made Corbyn remaining in place through to 2020 more likely, and Cameron would probably have been ousted this summer or next. Pieces would have been picked up.
We will never know, but it would be interesting as a counter-factual to understand how the EU would have evolved from 2016-2020 with a UK Remain win.
Firstly, such a win would have been narrow - probably no better than 53%-47%, at best - which would not have ended the debate. And, second, the UK's media attention would have immediately switched to how the EU honoured the deal, any pending treaties that might formalise it, or not, and how federalism would evolve now the Brexit threat was out of the way.
I doubt it would have been pretty.
It wouldn't. I do intend to write an alternate history based on a 52-48 (why not?) Remain win, which is an easily plausible outcome given some of the mistakes that Remain made - being too negative on the issues and insufficiently negative on Leave's messengers, for example.
But no, it wouldn't have been pretty. UKIP would have felt they were on a roll (as indeed they would have been), Farage would have stayed on and might well have successfully built some kind of 'we woz robbed' meme. The right of the Tories wouldn't have let it drop - particularly, as you say, because they'd be watching for broken Remain promises - and the successor to Cameron would have either been an outright Leaver or would at least have had to acknowledge that faction's power in their own campaign.
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?
Comments
Incidentally, no conservative ever promised that in his capacity as a conservative.
I'm an avid follower of politics - in detail - and even I'm not clear.
Cut through.
I'm always reluctant to play judge and jury because I'm confident there will be views we will hold that will seem very antiquated to future generations when we're in our 80s and 90s.
Mr. Quidder, *sighs*, yeah, sounds daft.
Anyway, I must be off for a bit.
The main issue, though, is that the Lib Dems don't have a distinctive brand currently, unlike the Conservatives and Labour. They can only distinguish on the role of the state if they go strongly against the welfare state, a position that is really only of interest to the Free Liberals who represent 7% of the electorate. If they go on an internationalist ticket they can appeal to 31% of the electorate. This requires them to take a moderate or fudged stance on the welfare state, which means losing a chunk of that 31%, mainly probably from the Free Liberals faction. But they would have a reasonable prospect of growing the 31% if for example the Brexit negotiations hit an impasse.
Of course, he could have done all that and kept his job, by advocating Leave.
Due to our geopolitical position off the coast of Europe, being centre of the world's timezones, speaking English, having a strong legal system and globally interconnected capital, I believe the UK will still be very attractive.
And a trade deal with the EU is a question of when, not if.
Edit: Baxter is currently forecasting Tory gain of 79 - so not a million miles away
So the Conservatives are doing as well in government now as they were doing in opposition then while the LibDems have gone massively backwards.
Although UKIP are standing in Gedling. Will they keep all their 6K odd votes? No.
The public are usually sold such increases as "X" thousand new doctors or nurses, but the NHS really does require a large slug of extra funding each and every year just to stand still.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedling_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Not sure how much more they've got to squeeze - latest ICM for example has LD on 10 and UKIP on 6. There's got to be a floor to their levels.
5. Nearly half can name their local MP, and they are seen as doing a good job
When asking people in these marginal seats whether they could name their local MP, nearly half (46%) could do so correctly.
Massively politically interested overweighting flag.
And if the LibDems aren't able to make gains from Labour now then they're underachieving.
Look at the base from where Cameron and May started from.
198 MPs vs 331 MPs.
Also look at the number of MPs opppsitions had when they became governments.
Blair started with 271 MPs
Thatcher started with 277 MPs
Heath started with 253 MPs
Dave started with 198 MPs
Only Attlee has gone from opposition to government with fewer seats than Cameron and that was in unique circumstances.
I expect voting Conservative is the choice of anyone over 40 in a key marginal wanting pragmatic competent government, the overwhelming choice of the baby boomers, the choice of Union-first voters in Scotland, and a one-off mandate to strengthen the hand of the UK during the course of Brexit negotiations from most of the rest.
(As an aside it is interesting how, in the UK, unlike in many other major European democracies, working class voters have more frequently turned en-mass to the Tories than Labour in times of national emergency)
The kind of Labour voter who moved to UKIP is not typically the kind of person who would vote for Corbyn, so I think there is a lot in the "Gateway drug" theory. In addition to that, May is more sympathetic to non metropolitan elite types than Cameron.
Con 44-46% .. Lab 25-27% .. LibDem 10-12% .. UKIP 3-4%
Had he done so, he would have been held hostage by a number of his own backbenchers, entirely owned the most politically contentious of the deficit reduction measures, and probably wouldn't have vanquished the Lib Dems in GE2015.
We might now be facing a Clegg-Miliband coalition.
P.S. Why the hero worship on here for TissuePrice/AaronBell? I'm sure he is a nice guy, but it's a bit weird. It's not as if all PBMPs get similar. Nick gets abused as much as praised.
The NHS is the number one issue for just 17% of the population (Survation today).
Fox hunting and railway nationalisation are nul points on the Issues Index.
Labour appear to be fighting the 2010 election still with banker taxes and such like, though the electorate should note that the 1% fatcats have already grown to the 5% rich. Next time round, the 20% oligarchs?
I'm looking at a slightly higher Labour vote, something like:
Con 46%, Lab 28%, LD 12%, UKIP 4%
Now I know our electorate likes a freebie as much as the next demos, but surely they won't buy such a monotone campaign. At least Tone had education, tough on crime, tough on the causes, etc...
To get any meaningful change would have required treaty change which he didn't have the allies or the patience to achieve, and in any case most of the practical problems had readily available remedies that were in his power at the UK level.
It is not better to leave; it is better to wake up to reality.
Quite right. The higher your starting point, the more difficult it is to make further gains because you are taking the fight into territory which is more favourable to your opponents.
If May gains 100 seats to put her on 430, that's two thirds of the seats in the house. No general election has produced that result since WW2. Blair got closest in 1997 when he won 63% of the total seats in the house.
He ended up with 306 in 2010, so nabbing 25% of those available
TM the PM starts off with 331, meaning there are 301 up for grabs. So an increase of 75 would be par, if one were to compare with DC. Even then, the seats she would win are surely harder to mine than those that the party gained 2005-2010?
https://twitter.com/AndrewSparrow/status/864083737167974401
NEW THREAD
Brown lost them.
Newton Dunn is imagining the response of £80K voters in general and assuming that Labour voters in that category would be much the same. He's wrong, because if people in that income range were bothered by higher taxes they generally wouldn't be Labour voters.
But perhaps the intereestingly evasive Tories will promise the same, we'll see!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/jeremy-corbyn-praises-new-election-chief-blamed-west-rise-isil/
Firstly, such a win would have been narrow - probably no better than 53%-47%, at best - which would not have ended the debate. And, second, the UK's media attention would have immediately switched to how the EU honoured the deal, any pending treaties that might formalise it, or not, and how federalism would evolve now the Brexit threat was out of the way.
I doubt it would have been pretty.
But no, it wouldn't have been pretty. UKIP would have felt they were on a roll (as indeed they would have been), Farage would have stayed on and might well have successfully built some kind of 'we woz robbed' meme. The right of the Tories wouldn't have let it drop - particularly, as you say, because they'd be watching for broken Remain promises - and the successor to Cameron would have either been an outright Leaver or would at least have had to acknowledge that faction's power in their own campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GppZltZd6xs#t=3m27s