But apparently a couple of the Labour councillors that proposed/seconded Tony Lloyd, also gave character references to several members of the grooming gang convicted in Rochdale.
I'm not touching the Rochdale betting with a barge pole.
The only place in the country (London is entirely demographic related) where the Labour Party is akin to a football team is Merseyside.
Wirral South will be interesting and could well be Labour's deepest hold I reckon. Wirral West is probably too marginal to escape the general tide.
Wirral West is an odd one. The Caldy/West Kirby/Hoylake end would be comfortably Tory, but there is a huge council estate (The Woodchurch) in the constituency which is solid Labour. Last time you had a massive GOTV effort from the whole Labour apparatus on Merseyside to get the Labour vote out on the Woodchurch as the seat was a key marginal and they hated Esther McVey. Can't see that happening this time, and can imagine Corbyn not going down well at all in the leafier parts of the constituency.
Tories within a 1% swing of catching up to Labour in the North East! That's unbelievable. Labour lead down from 22% in 2015 to 2% now.
If YouGov is overestimate Labour then the Tories could be ahead in the North East. I can't wrap my head around that, but then they did win the Tees Valley Mayoralty ...
Everyone's a Tory now, canny lad....
Well Momentum have spent the last two years accusing anyone of liking the country, being willing to sing the national anthem, or being to the right of Karl Marx of being a Tory - so the nation is responding by saying OK we're Tories.
Macron did not sing the National Anthem yesterday. His days are numbered.
I doubt he made a principle out of not singing it because he doesn't respect it ...
Macron's nation is the EU - not France. He played his national anthem when he won. Ode to Joy.
US Presidents also don't sing. I don't think our PMs did either. Because our press has to write something about Corbyn, they picked on this. I am sure you will find films of Cameron, Thatcher not singing.
The Queen didn't on the only occasion when I was singing the National Anthem in her presence (as part of a choir for a service, not a solo). She also remained seated.
I am a farmer and I am pretty sure I personally know more farmers than you have ever met. Without exception we did know what we were voting for, even if you didn't. I could do a non-partisan thread on what Brexit means for agriculture at some time if anyone is interested.
I like the way depressed lefties like bobajob or defeated europhiles like Peter the Punter are dismissing this election as "crashingly dull" and "unnecessary".
This is how I react after a bitter defeat to the England rugby/cricket teams (I've given up on the football team). I cope by thinking "what a poor display of rugby that was by both sides, very few tries, what was the point" - this helps dull the intense emotional pain.
Fact is, this is a fascinating election. A Labour party led by a quasi-Marxist, a Stalinist, a Trot, and a Maoist is possibly going to be destroyed for a generation, leading - maybe, who knows - to a total realignment in UK politics. And we are electing the government that will detach us from the European Union, the most important task we've faced in generations.
Boring it is not. 2001 was a boring election. 2005 was a boring election.
This is a gripping, important, and very dramatic election.
It's not dull for me, Sean, because I'm a politics junkie, but outside PB I detect a distinct lack of interest amongst the wider public. Maybe it's different where you live, but around here there's definitely a sense of 'oh no, not again.'
As for my pain, it's not just emotional. It's real, it's economic, it has affected my family. We'll cope OK but please don't compare it to the loss of some sporting fixture. It's our lives, our futures, our economic security.
Perhaps if we could see a little upside we might not mind so much. Maybe one day our losses may appear trivial and we'll rejoice in the benefits of leaving the EU, but right now if Brexit is a blessing in disguise, it appears to be very well disguised indeed.
Tories within a 1% swing of catching up to Labour in the North East! That's unbelievable. Labour lead down from 22% in 2015 to 2% now.
If YouGov is overestimate Labour then the Tories could be ahead in the North East. I can't wrap my head around that, but then they did win the Tees Valley Mayoralty ...
Everyone's a Tory now, canny lad....
Well Momentum have spent the last two years accusing anyone of liking the country, being willing to sing the national anthem, or being to the right of Karl Marx of being a Tory - so the nation is responding by saying OK we're Tories.
Macron did not sing the National Anthem yesterday. His days are numbered.
I doubt he made a principle out of not singing it because he doesn't respect it ...
Macron's nation is the EU - not France. He played his national anthem when he won. Ode to Joy.
US Presidents also don't sing. I don't think our PMs did either. Because our press has to write something about Corbyn, they picked on this. I am sure you will find films of Cameron, Thatcher not singing.
The Queen didn't on the only occasion when I was singing the National Anthem in her presence (as part of a choir for a service, not a solo). She also remained seated.
Naturally HM doesn't sing the anthem. It would be a tad self-centered to do so.
Tories within a 1% swing of catching up to Labour in the North East! That's unbelievable. Labour lead down from 22% in 2015 to 2% now.
If YouGov is overestimate Labour then the Tories could be ahead in the North East. I can't wrap my head around that, but then they did win the Tees Valley Mayoralty ...
Everyone's a Tory now, canny lad....
Well Momentum have spent the last two years accusing anyone of liking the country, being willing to sing the national anthem, or being to the right of Karl Marx of being a Tory - so the nation is responding by saying OK we're Tories.
Macron did not sing the National Anthem yesterday. His days are numbered.
I doubt he made a principle out of not singing it because he doesn't respect it ...
Macron's nation is the EU - not France. He played his national anthem when he won. Ode to Joy.
I've met Macron, and I think he's far from a complete EUphile. He's a genuine French nationalist who sees the EU as a tool to increase France's influence on the world. He's also one of the few people I've ever met at a high level who's willing to openly change his mind mid-meeting. (A character trait that I admire, but is usually political suicide.)
I think the problems of France will likely defeat him, as they have so many others. But I would avoid simplistic characterization of him. Macron is extremely bright and very economically dry.
Thanks rcs. Good to know. I am a bit dubious though. His EU-philia seems pretty profound to me and while he sees it as a way to advance France I think it is infact a way to neiter or destroy in all but name the French nation state. That is, after all, the whole purpose of the EU.
I have to say that, if I was a Tory candidate offered an election period visit by Sajid Javid, I'd say thanks but no thanks. I'd only say yes to May or Bozza. Less than that is an organisational faff, likely to swing zero votes.
A result I regret and one that will cause us significant damage, but a vote is a vote and has to be respected. I am surprised there are so many people that do not accept that.
I don't accept the vote....people didn't know what they were voting for...for instance farmers...
Equally I don't accept the Labour leadership vote.....
These two votes have completely ruined my faith that people en masse collectively make the right decision (doesn't apply to Trump who lost obviously)
I am a farmer and I am pretty sure I personally know more farmers than you have ever met. Without exception we did know what we were voting for, even if you didn't. I could do a non-partisan thread on what Brexit means for agriculture at some time if anyone is interested.
Tonight Labour are showing a party political broadcast directed by the leftwing director Ken Loach. It will be shown on BBC1 at 6.55pm, on ITV at 6.25pm and on Channel 4 at 7.55pm.
It features Jeremy Corbyn talking about his love for Britain. He says:
I love this country; I love the history, the beauty, the diversity of this country. But people are not at ease. There’s inequality, there’s injustice, there’s anger.
There’s anger because people can’t get on; there’s anger because people can’t get anywhere to live; there’s anger because young people are not getting the jobs they want.
Let’s do it differently; where we work from the principle that the role of government is to give everybody a decent chance. To have public services that are there for us; to have an economy that works for all.
Surely the effort of a government that works for all, and encourages society to work together, has got to be better than a government that works for the few.
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, that would've been in accordance with the law but would've led to a very, very bad situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
Every few years we ask people who they want to run the country. A majority say "Not Party X", and then Party X gets to form a majority government. No civil unrest or turmoil.
(I suppose this time a majority might actually vote for one party)
I like the way depressed lefties like bobajob or defeated europhiles like Peter the Punter are dismissing this election as "crashingly dull" and "unnecessary".
This is how I react after a bitter defeat to the England rugby/cricket teams (I've given up on the football team). I cope by thinking "what a poor display of rugby that was by both sides, very few tries, what was the point" - this helps dull the intense emotional pain.
Fact is, this is a fascinating election. A Labour party led by a quasi-Marxist, a Stalinist, a Trot, and a Maoist is possibly going to be destroyed for a generation, leading - maybe, who knows - to a total realignment in UK politics. And we are electing the government that will detach us from the European Union, the most important task we've faced in generations.
Boring it is not. 2001 was a boring election. 2005 was a boring election.
This is a gripping, important, and very dramatic election.
We're seeing the ascendancy of nationalist conservatism in the UK, which is a return to the nineteenth century. In Europe generally it looks like the post War liberalism will hold, as demonstrated by recent elections in the Netherlands, France and (probably) Germany. There's going to be a clash.
Con : 390 Lab : 179 LD : 12 GRN : 1 SNP : 47 PC : 3
Maj: 130
Do you have that broken down seat by seat ? (Obviously far too long to post here)
Yes.
Bermondsey and Old Southwark 139 Bolton North East 802 Bury South 744 Cardiff South and Penarth 12 Cardiff West 218 Enfield North 759 Hove 853 Hyndburn 746 Newport East 912 Scunthorpe 560 Sedgefield 900 Stoke-on-Trent North 576 Wirral South 421
These are the Labour losses with a majority less than 1000. BTW, Con is up 1. I counted Cardiff South as Labour.
"First" 12 Lib Dem seats using two different methods
Leave/Remain differential swing: Sheffield Hallam Cambridge Ceredigion Orkney & Shetland Leeds North West Bermondsey & Old Southwark Westmorland & Lonsdale Cardiff Central Dunbartonshire East Edinburgh West Bristol West Burnley
Transition model: Ceredigion Orkney and Shetland Sheffield, Hallam Leeds North West Cambridge Dunbartonshire East Edinburgh West Burnley North East Fife Westmorland and Lonsdale Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cardiff Central Bristol West
Tories within a 1% swing of catching up to Labour in the North East! That's unbelievable. Labour lead down from 22% in 2015 to 2% now.
If YouGov is overestimate Labour then the Tories could be ahead in the North East. I can't wrap my head around that, but then they did win the Tees Valley Mayoralty ...
Everyone's a Tory now, canny lad....
Well Momentum have spent the last two years accusing anyone of liking the country, being willing to sing the national anthem, or being to the right of Karl Marx of being a Tory - so the nation is responding by saying OK we're Tories.
Macron did not sing the National Anthem yesterday. His days are numbered.
I doubt he made a principle out of not singing it because he doesn't respect it ...
Macron's nation is the EU - not France. He played his national anthem when he won. Ode to Joy.
US Presidents also don't sing. I don't think our PMs did either. Because our press has to write something about Corbyn, they picked on this. I am sure you will find films of Cameron, Thatcher not singing.
The Queen didn't on the only occasion when I was singing the National Anthem in her presence (as part of a choir for a service, not a solo). She also remained seated.
I believe it is a convention that the monarch never sings the National Anthem. How can The Queen sing "God Save the Queen"?
A result I regret and one that will cause us significant damage, but a vote is a vote and has to be respected. I am surprised there are so many people that do not accept that.
I don't accept the vote....people didn't know what they were voting for...for instance farmers...
Equally I don't accept the Labour leadership vote.....
These two votes have completely ruined my faith that people en masse collectively make the right decision (doesn't apply to Trump who lost obviously)
I am a farmer and I am pretty sure I personally know more farmers than you have ever met. Without exception we did know what we were voting for, even if you didn't. I could do a non-partisan thread on what Brexit means for agriculture at some time if anyone is interested.
Very interested to see your thoughts given a thread.
Tonight Labour are showing a party political broadcast directed by the leftwing director Ken Loach. It will be shown on BBC1 at 6.55pm, on ITV at 6.25pm and on Channel 4 at 7.55pm.
It features Jeremy Corbyn talking about his love for Britain. He says:
I love this country; I love the history, the beauty, the diversity of this country. But people are not at ease. There’s inequality, there’s injustice, there’s anger.
There’s anger because people can’t get on; there’s anger because people can’t get anywhere to live; there’s anger because young people are not getting the jobs they want.
Let’s do it differently; where we work from the principle that the role of government is to give everybody a decent chance. To have public services that are there for us; to have an economy that works for all.
Surely the effort of a government that works for all, and encourages society to work together, has got to be better than a government that works for the few.
I saw a vicious version of the Labour slogan yesterday:
I like the way depressed lefties like bobajob or defeated europhiles like Peter the Punter are dismissing this election as "crashingly dull" and "unnecessary".
This is how I react after a bitter defeat to the England rugby/cricket teams (I've given up on the football team). I cope by thinking "what a poor display of rugby that was by both sides, very few tries, what was the point" - this helps dull the intense emotional pain.
Fact is, this is a fascinating election. A Labour party led by a quasi-Marxist, a Stalinist, a Trot, and a Maoist is possibly going to be destroyed for a generation, leading - maybe, who knows - to a total realignment in UK politics. And we are electing the government that will detach us from the European Union, the most important task we've faced in generations.
Boring it is not. 2001 was a boring election. 2005 was a boring election.
This is a gripping, important, and very dramatic election.
We're seeing the ascendancy of nationalist conservatism in the UK, which is a return to the nineteenth century. In Europe generally it looks like the post War liberalism will hold, as demonstrated by recent elections in the Netherlands, France and (probably) Germany. There's going to be a clash.
There’s anger because people can’t get on; there’s anger because people can’t get anywhere to live; there’s anger because young people are not getting the jobs they want.
But they can move anywhere in Europe for those things
There’s anger because people can’t get on; there’s anger because people can’t get anywhere to live; there’s anger because young people are not getting the jobs they want.
But they can move anywhere in Europe for those things
Tonight Labour are showing a party political broadcast directed by the leftwing director Ken Loach. It will be shown on BBC1 at 6.55pm, on ITV at 6.25pm and on Channel 4 at 7.55pm.
It features Jeremy Corbyn talking about his love for Britain. He says:
I love this country; I love the history, the beauty, the diversity of this country. But people are not at ease. There’s inequality, there’s injustice, there’s anger.
There’s anger because people can’t get on; there’s anger because people can’t get anywhere to live; there’s anger because young people are not getting the jobs they want.
Let’s do it differently; where we work from the principle that the role of government is to give everybody a decent chance. To have public services that are there for us; to have an economy that works for all.
Surely the effort of a government that works for all, and encourages society to work together, has got to be better than a government that works for the few.
Jezza on BBC1 or Lucy Verasamy on ITV? Tough choice.
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, that would've been in accordance with the law but would've led to a very, very bad situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
Depends how it's done, doesn't it?
Yes, if you promise beforehand to implement the decision 'regardless' I agree. That's a recipe for disaster. I don't however see anything wrong in principle with a referendum that is essentially consultative. Of course much depends on what the referendum is about. If it's a fairly simple subject that most lay people can grasp without too much difficulty - capital punishment, say, or the age of consent - then I think it's reasonable to take the electorate's opinion as a mandate, though even then a wise government would proceed cautiously.
But membership of the EU? Just how many people do you know who fully understood the implications when voting? I didn't. I didn't even think about Gibraltar, Scotland, Northern Ireland, hard borders, soft borders, WTO terms and a host of other relevant considerations. And by comparison with the average voter I think I'm pretty well informed if I say so myself. Have you tried discussing the matter outside PB? It's truly incredible what some people think. Some even believed the infamous poster on the side of the bus!
The referendum has set the economic and political compass for generations. My impression is that an increasing number of voters are becoming more aware of what they voted for. I suspect that one day they will wish they could run the vote again but of course they cannot, and it would do no good if they did.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, that would've been in accordance with the law but would've led to a very, very bad situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
Every few years we ask people who they want to run the country. A majority say "Not Party X", and then Party X gets to form a majority government. No civil unrest or turmoil.
(I suppose this time a majority might actually vote for one party)
But they are not (technically at least) voting against Party X, they are voting for Parties A, B, and C, and each of these has fewer votes than X.
Mr. Rentool, you appear to be living under the nightmarish impression we suffer the vagaries of PR. We don't. Our Commons is elected under FPTP, and it is those MPs who determine the Prime Minister. At no point is the public asked what party they prefer. They're asked which candidates they prefer.
Edited extra bit: although I'm pleased you talk sense on weathergirls.
I like the way depressed lefties like bobajob or defeated europhiles like Peter the Punter are dismissing this election as "crashingly dull" and "unnecessary".
This is how I react after a bitter defeat to the England rugby/cricket teams (I've given up on the football team). I cope by thinking "what a poor display of rugby that was by both sides, very few tries, what was the point" - this helps dull the intense emotional pain.
Fact is, this is a fascinating election. A Labour party led by a quasi-Marxist, a Stalinist, a Trot, and a Maoist is possibly going to be destroyed for a generation, leading - maybe, who knows - to a total realignment in UK politics. And we are electing the government that will detach us from the European Union, the most important task we've faced in generations.
Boring it is not. 2001 was a boring election. 2005 was a boring election.
This is a gripping, important, and very dramatic election.
We're seeing the ascendancy of nationalist conservatism in the UK, which is a return to the nineteenth century. In Europe generally it looks like the post War liberalism will hold, as demonstrated by recent elections in the Netherlands, France and (probably) Germany. There's going to be a clash.
I wonder if it's more a case of Britain doing what Britain always does.
Faced with an internal threat to the established order (in this case the rise of nationalist populism) Britain tends to absorb/adapt rather than confront and defeat (or, in some cases, be defeated). That explains apparent continuity and stability in Britain (although in fact the established order has changed quite a lot beneath the surface in response to successive threats to it).
Mr. Rentool, you appear to be living under the nightmarish impression we suffer the vagaries of PR. We don't. Our Commons is elected under FPTP, and it is those MPs who determine the Prime Minister. At no point is the public asked what party they prefer. They're asked which candidates they prefer.
And that is why I will be voting for Hilary Benn, not for Jeremy Corbyn!
There’s anger because people can’t get on; there’s anger because people can’t get anywhere to live; there’s anger because young people are not getting the jobs they want.
But they can move anywhere in Europe for those things
Given most of the Europe seems to have higher youth unemployment than us, I'm not sure that has helped. Actually, I blame the teachers: if we had only taught them to be fluent in all the major European languages then they could move easily to where the jobs were.
We're seeing the ascendancy of nationalist conservatism in the UK, which is a return to the nineteenth century. In Europe generally it looks like the post War liberalism will hold, as demonstrated by recent elections in the Netherlands, France and (probably) Germany. There's going to be a clash.
Are you sure it isn't just that Corbyn is crap?
He is crap of course, and irrelevant. I don't think you can have just one dominant ideology in a democracy, but the other parties haven't worked out how to fill the vacuum.
Tonight Labour are showing a party political broadcast directed by the leftwing director Ken Loach. It will be shown on BBC1 at 6.55pm, on ITV at 6.25pm and on Channel 4 at 7.55pm.
It features Jeremy Corbyn talking about his love for Britain. He says:
I love this country; I love the history, the beauty, the diversity of this country. But people are not at ease. There’s inequality, there’s injustice, there’s anger.
There’s anger because people can’t get on; there’s anger because people can’t get anywhere to live; there’s anger because young people are not getting the jobs they want.
Let’s do it differently; where we work from the principle that the role of government is to give everybody a decent chance. To have public services that are there for us; to have an economy that works for all.
Surely the effort of a government that works for all, and encourages society to work together, has got to be better than a government that works for the few.
No mention of his love of communists, extremists, terrorists, antisemites and holocaust deniers?
Tories within a 1% swing of catching up to Labour in the North East! That's unbelievable. Labour lead down from 22% in 2015 to 2% now.
If YouGov is overestimate Labour then the Tories could be ahead in the North East. I can't wrap my head around that, but then they did win the Tees Valley Mayoralty ...
Everyone's a Tory now, canny lad....
Well Momentum have spent the last two years accusing anyone of liking the country, being willing to sing the national anthem, or being to the right of Karl Marx of being a Tory - so the nation is responding by saying OK we're Tories.
Macron did not sing the National Anthem yesterday. His days are numbered.
I doubt he made a principle out of not singing it because he doesn't respect it ...
Macron's nation is the EU - not France. He played his national anthem when he won. Ode to Joy.
I've met Macron, and I think he's far from a complete EUphile. He's a genuine French nationalist who sees the EU as a tool to increase France's influence on the world. He's also one of the few people I've ever met at a high level who's willing to openly change his mind mid-meeting. (A character trait that I admire, but is usually political suicide.)
I think the problems of France will likely defeat him, as they have so many others. But I would avoid simplistic characterization of him. Macron is extremely bright and very economically dry.
Thanks rcs. Good to know. I am a bit dubious though. His EU-philia seems pretty profound to me and while he sees it as a way to advance France I think it is infact a way to neiter or destroy in all but name the French nation state. That is, after all, the whole purpose of the EU.
I think we see things differently in the UK. Maybe I'm reading too much into one 40 minute meeting, but my interpretation is that he sees the opportunity for France to lead the EU, and for the EU to be an extension of the French state. We've never had that kind of relationship with the EU. (And nor have 90% of EU members.) I think he believes (probably correctly) that without France there is no EU. And therefore, he holds the whip hand. I believe he has correctly adduced that Germany under Merkel has worsened the position of most EU members, and that by correcting this, he can get France a decade of ascendancy. But we shall see.
The only place in the country (London is entirely demographic related) where the Labour Party is akin to a football team is Merseyside.
Wirral South will be interesting and could well be Labour's deepest hold I reckon. Wirral West is probably too marginal to escape the general tide.
Wirral West is an odd one. The Caldy/West Kirby/Hoylake end would be comfortably Tory, but there is a huge council estate (The Woodchurch) in the constituency which is solid Labour. Last time you had a massive GOTV effort from the whole Labour apparatus on Merseyside to get the Labour vote out on the Woodchurch as the seat was a key marginal and they hated Esther McVey. Can't see that happening this time, and can imagine Corbyn not going down well at all in the leafier parts of the constituency.
Why "hate" in particular? What was her crime?
She was a Tory cabinet minister implementing benefit restrictions and was from Merseyside. The campaign last time was very personal. McDonnell called for her to be lynched. Prescott chimed in with some sexist stuff as well.
Tonight Labour are showing a party political broadcast directed by the leftwing director Ken Loach. It will be shown on BBC1 at 6.55pm, on ITV at 6.25pm and on Channel 4 at 7.55pm.
It features Jeremy Corbyn talking about his love for Britain. He says:
I love this country; I love the history, the beauty, the diversity of this country. But people are not at ease. There’s inequality, there’s injustice, there’s anger.
There’s anger because people can’t get on; there’s anger because people can’t get anywhere to live; there’s anger because young people are not getting the jobs they want.
Let’s do it differently; where we work from the principle that the role of government is to give everybody a decent chance. To have public services that are there for us; to have an economy that works for all.
Surely the effort of a government that works for all, and encourages society to work together, has got to be better than a government that works for the few.
This is the kind of sentimental tosh that makes Labourites go all emotional and the rest of us puke.
Tonight Labour are showing a party political broadcast directed by the leftwing director Ken Loach. It will be shown on BBC1 at 6.55pm, on ITV at 6.25pm and on Channel 4 at 7.55pm.
It features Jeremy Corbyn talking about his love for Britain. He says:
I love this country; I love the history, the beauty, the diversity of this country. But people are not at ease. There’s inequality, there’s injustice, there’s anger.
There’s anger because people can’t get on; there’s anger because people can’t get anywhere to live; there’s anger because young people are not getting the jobs they want.
Let’s do it differently; where we work from the principle that the role of government is to give everybody a decent chance. To have public services that are there for us; to have an economy that works for all.
Surely the effort of a government that works for all, and encourages society to work together, has got to be better than a government that works for the few.
He makes it sound like we are on the verge of a revolution. I don't think the current mood of the nation is anger. There is concern in some quarters over Brexit, there are grumbles over public services and immigration but no anger. I wouldn't see we are wildly optimistic either, more steady as she goes. Hence why May resonates more than Corbyn right now
This ridiculous outpouring of grief over White Hart Lane is just that, ridiculous. The new ground is located at... the same place as WHITE HART LANE (which is not even on White Hart Lane, N17, and never has been). The new stadium will probably be known to all except Sky Sports as... WHITE HART LANE given the fact that it is in the SAME place. The new ground covers part of the plot occupied by THE OLD GROUND for crying out loud.
White Hart Lane (old version) has in any case gone through so many refurbs and overhauls over the years it's nothing like White Hart Lane (old, old version) anyway!!
I surprised myself by shedding a tear yesterday. The stadium changed so much, but it was always there. So many memories. I could not help thinking of my dear old Dad, who went when he was a kid and then a young man, and who took me to my first game in 1972 when I was eight. I then took my two boys to games. And it all looked different, but it was the same unbroken line. Now it's been broken. It's not a wailing grief, but if you're a Spurs supporter from a Spurs supporting family something that was a part of you has gone.
It is a bit Trigger's broom isn't it. The stands have been replaced, and the pitch relayed countless times, but its still the same ground. Nevertheless, I'll be in tears about Goodison when the same happens in a couple of years though.
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, that would've been in accordance with the law but would've led to a very, very bad situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
Every few years we ask people who they want to run the country. A majority say "Not Party X"
Yes, if you promise beforehand to implement the decision 'regardless' I agree. That's a recipe for disaster. I don't however see anything wrong in principle with a referendum that is essentially consultative. Of course much depends on what the referendum is about. If it's a fairly simple subject that most lay people can grasp without too much difficulty - capital punishment, say, or the age of consent - then I think it's reasonable to take the electorate's opinion as a mandate, though even then a wise government would proceed cautiously.
But membership of the EU? Just how many people do you know who fully understood the implications when voting? I didn't. I didn't even think about Gibraltar, Scotland, Northern Ireland, hard borders, soft borders, WTO terms and a host of other relevant considerations. And by comparison with the average voter I think I'm pretty well informed if I say so myself. Have you tried discussing the matter outside PB? It's truly incredible what some people think. Some even believed the infamous poster on the side of the bus!
The referendum has set the economic and political compass for generations. My impression is that an increasing number of voters are becoming more aware of what they voted for. I suspect that one day they will wish they could run the vote again but of course they cannot, and it would do no good if they did.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
How many people understand all the issues when voting in a general election? In a referendum there's only one issue to consider. In a general election you have to decide which candidate will make the best decisions (in aggregate) over a huge number of different issues, many of which you won't even know at the time. And if you're lucky you won't even have met those candidates! I've yet to hear an argument that we should ignore the people when they make the wrong decision that doesn't equally apply to having the general public voting for anything.
From my point of view, I would say that we have made the right decision (and the quislings in parliament have belatedly recanted their treason! :-)). Obviously we disagree, and there are many other people who disagree with you and others who disagree with me. Given that there is no definitively correct answer (ie it's not 2+2=4), and you don't trust people to vote how would you like to make decisions for the country?
If your answer is let MPs decide then why would you trust Dianne Abbott to make decisions for you over your own judgement?
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, that would've been in accordance with the law but would've led to a very, very bad situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
De
But membership of the EU? Just how many people do you know who fully understood the implications when voting? I didn't. I didn't even think about Gibraltar, Scotland, Northern Ireland, hard borders, soft borders, WTO terms and a host of other relevant considerations. And by comparison with the average voter I think I'm pretty well informed if I say so myself. Have you tried discussing the matter outside PB? It's truly incredible what some people think. Some even believed the infamous poster on the side of the bus!
The referendum has set the economic and political compass for generations. My impression is that an increasing number of voters are becoming more aware of what they voted for. I suspect that one day they will wish they could run the vote again but of course they cannot, and it would do no good if they did.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
Where do you draw the line as to who is informed, and who isn't, and who gets a say? If you knew so little about Brexit, what makes you think you had the right to vote on the matter, over anyone else?
Fact is, I DID think about Gibraltar, Ulster, Scotland, WTO and all the rest of it. I've been thinking about this European stuff for 30 years (as you will know from our previous debates dating back a decade on PB). Indeed from 1990 on I was an absolute EU obsessive - eg. I read the proposed EU Constitution, in toto, twice, for a Telegraph article in 2003. Who else has done that?! Certainly not Ken Clarke, who didn't read it once, if his remarks on EU Treaties are anything to go by, yet felt able to airily and confidently wave it through, ditto Maastricht.
So I was better informed than almost any other British voter. And, going by your logic, perhaps the entire referendum should have been based on the single most informed UK voter, that is to say: me.
In which case the result would have been the same. Because I voted LEAVE.
If anyone searches on google for the definition of the word 'pluriannual', they get your article as the top hit
I think we see things differently in the UK. Maybe I'm reading too much into one 40 minute meeting, but my interpretation is that he sees the opportunity for France to lead the EU, and for the EU to be an extension of the French state. We've never had that kind of relationship with the EU. (And nor have 90% of EU members.) I think he believes (probably correctly) that without France there is no EU. And therefore, he holds the whip hand. I believe he has correctly adduced that Germany under Merkel has worsened the position of most EU members, and that by correcting this, he can get France a decade of ascendancy. But we shall see.
Macron believes the future of France lies in engagement with the world. Marine Le Pen believes France is strong when you cherish what is special about France. The debate between them was fascinating, despite the insults, because each pushed forcefully for their own set of values. It wasn't two politicians arguing about confected differences.
Tonight Labour are showing a party political broadcast directed by the leftwing director Ken Loach. It will be shown on BBC1 at 6.55pm, on ITV at 6.25pm and on Channel 4 at 7.55pm.
It features Jeremy Corbyn talking about his love for Britain. He says:
I love this country; I love the history, the beauty, the diversity of this country. But people are not at ease. There’s inequality, there’s injustice, there’s anger.
There’s anger because people can’t get on; there’s anger because people can’t get anywhere to live; there’s anger because young people are not getting the jobs they want.
Let’s do it differently; where we work from the principle that the role of government is to give everybody a decent chance. To have public services that are there for us; to have an economy that works for all.
Surely the effort of a government that works for all, and encourages society to work together, has got to be better than a government that works for the few.
He makes it sound like we are on the verge of a revolution. I don't think the current mood of the nation is anger. There is concern in some quarters over Brexit, there are grumbles over public services and immigration but no anger. I wouldn't see we are wildly optimistic either, more steady as she goes. Hence why May resonates more than Corbyn right now
I have to say that, if I was a Tory candidate offered an election period visit by Sajid Javid, I'd say thanks but no thanks. I'd only say yes to May or Bozza. Less than that is an organisational faff, likely to swing zero votes.
Think of the nature of the constituency. The Tories know what they're doing here.
Con : 390 Lab : 179 LD : 12 GRN : 1 SNP : 47 PC : 3
Maj: 130
Do you have that broken down seat by seat ? (Obviously far too long to post here)
Yes.
Bermondsey and Old Southwark 139 Bolton North East 802 Bury South 744 Cardiff South and Penarth 12 Cardiff West 218 Enfield North 759 Hove 853 Hyndburn 746 Newport East 912 Scunthorpe 560 Sedgefield 900 Stoke-on-Trent North 576 Wirral South 421
These are the Labour losses with a majority less than 1000. BTW, Con is up 1. I counted Cardiff South as Labour.
"First" 12 Lib Dem seats using two different methods
Leave/Remain differential swing: Sheffield Hallam Cambridge Ceredigion Orkney & Shetland Leeds North West Bermondsey & Old Southwark Westmorland & Lonsdale Cardiff Central Dunbartonshire East Edinburgh West Bristol West Burnley
Transition model: Ceredigion Orkney and Shetland Sheffield, Hallam Leeds North West Cambridge Dunbartonshire East Edinburgh West Burnley North East Fife Westmorland and Lonsdale Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cardiff Central Bristol West
Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Ceredigion East Dunbartonshire Edinburgh West Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Orkney and Shetland Sheffield, Hallam Twickenham Westmorland and Lonsdale
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, that would've been in accordance with the law but would've led to a very, very bad situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
De
But membership of the EU? Just how many people do you know who fully understood the implications when voting? I didn't. I didn't even think about Gibraltar, Scotland, Northern Ireland, hard borders, soft borders, WTO terms and a host of other relevant considerations. And by comparison with the average voter I think I'm pretty well informed if I say so myself. Have you tried discussing the matter outside PB? It's truly incredible what some people think. Some even believed the infamous poster on the side of the bus!
The referendum has set the economic and political compass for generations. My impression is that an increasing number of voters are becoming more aware of what they voted for. I suspect that one day they will wish they could run the vote again but of course they cannot, and it would do no good if they did.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
Where do you draw the line as to who is informed, and who isn't, and who gets a say? If you knew so little about Brexit, what makes you think you had the right to vote on the matter, over anyone else?
Fact is, I DID think about Gibraltar, Ulster, Scotland, WTO and all the rest of it. I've been thinking about this European stuff for 30 years (as you will know from our previous debates dating back a decade on PB). Indeed from 1990 on I was an absolute EU obsessive - eg. I read the proposed EU Constitution, in toto, twice, for a Telegraph article in 2003. Who else has done that?! Certainly not Ken Clarke, who didn't read it once, if his remarks on EU Treaties are anything to go by, yet felt able to airily and confidently wave it through, ditto Maastricht.
So I was better informed than almost any other British voter. And, going by your logic, perhaps the entire referendum should have been based on the single most informed UK voter, that is to say: me.
In which case the result would have been the same. Because I voted LEAVE.
No because you are of a particular demographic: rich. The rich can do a lot of stuff because they fancy it that most people can't. Buy a Bentley, live in Primrose Hill, found avant-garde art movements, vote Brexit.
You were a rich, well-informed Brexiteer. Proves nothing.
The idea of a Westminster with both Vince Cable and Sir Ed Davey back is profoundly depressing.....
It would be for you. Most people would be glad.
Most?
Six people. Six people would be glad of both Cable and Davey being re-elected. And it's just two people if we exclude them and their spouses.
Presumably, if they are re-elected, then pretty much by definition a plurality of the voters in Twickenham and Kingston respectively would be glad? Unless those two places are particularly self-flagellating, which is possible but fairly unlikely.
I think there's a huge danger in fervently believing that your own views are very widely shared - either pro-Cable/Davey, anti-Cable/Davey, or on any other subject really - it's normally pretty delusional, and you'll end up disappointed.
Yes a majority thought on balance remaining was better pre-referendum, but the referendum changed things. A very large proportion of Tories were genuinely torn on this matter and many of them came down on the side of Remain on either the balance of probabilities or loyalty to Cameron and so on. Post-referendum that changed things, in a choice between "fight to the death for Remain" or "accept the will of the people and move on" there was a majority for the latter.
Pre-referendum they thought remaining was better for the country
Post -referendum they thought leaving was better for their careers
Or you could say:
Pre-referendum many thought remaining was better for their careers - George Osborne had said as much to them.
Post-referendum they thought leaving was better for the country, since that was what the country had decided upon and now it was necessary to follow through.
"It's not dull for me, Sean, because I'm a politics junkie, but outside PB I detect a distinct lack of interest amongst the wider public. Maybe it's different where you live, but around here there's definitely a sense of 'oh no, not again.'
As for my pain, it's not just emotional. It's real, it's economic, it has affected my family. We'll cope OK but please don't compare it to the loss of some sporting fixture. It's our lives, our futures, our economic security.
Perhaps if we could see a little upside we might not mind so much. Maybe one day our losses may appear trivial and we'll rejoice in the benefits of leaving the EU, but right now if Brexit is a blessing in disguise, it appears to be very well disguised indeed."
*****
Brexit might be a pain for you and your family (and for that, you have my sympathy) but a Labour government under Corbyn would be much worse, it would be literally calamitous for all of us. So you have a duty to make sure he loses, and that the Far Left are banished forever, returning the main party of Opposition to some form of sanity.
Inter alia, a sensible strong Opposition might have been able to ensure a Soft Brexit. Under the chaos of Corbyn, Labour have been unable to decide on anything, giving TMay free rein to do what she wants.
And now, I must work. Toodles.
You imagine I haven't thought about that, Sean?
I don't want a Corbyn government. It's not my kind of thing at all. But calamitous? By comparison with what - Brexit?
Even if mad McDonnell implemented all his wacky policies I doubt it would cost more than, say, about 1p in the £ on the basic rate of income tax. I'm not saying that's desirable, but calamitous?
But it's all a bit irrelevant. Corbyn and McDonnell are not going to get in and even if they do the problems they would inherit from our decision to leave the EU would dwarf all others to the extent that questions about the basic rate of income tax would appear trivial. Not that the problems would be any easier or more tractable for a Conservative government. In fact if I were one of those cynical Lefties who regard the success of their Party as more important than the well-being of the nation I think I would promote a Tory government this time round. But I'm not, and I'm fairly relaxed about the outcome of this election.
The idea of a Westminster with both Vince Cable and Sir Ed Davey back is profoundly depressing.....
It would be for you. Most people would be glad.
Most?
Six people. Six people would be glad of both Cable and Davey being re-elected. And it's just two people if we exclude them and their spouses.
Presumably, if they are re-elected, then pretty much by definition a plurality of the voters in Twickenham and Kingston respectively would be glad? Unless those two places are particularly self-flagellating, which is possible but fairly unlikely.
I think there's a huge danger in fervently believing that your own views are very widely shared - either pro-Cable/Davey, anti-Cable/Davey, or on any other subject really - it's normally pretty delusional, and you'll end up disappointed.
Yes a majority thought on balance remaining was better pre-referendum, but the referendum changed things. A very large proportion of Tories were genuinely torn on this matter and many of them came down on the side of Remain on either the balance of probabilities or loyalty to Cameron and so on. Post-referendum that changed things, in a choice between "fight to the death for Remain" or "accept the will of the people and move on" there was a majority for the latter.
Pre-referendum they thought remaining was better for the country
Post -referendum they thought leaving was better for their careers
Or you could say:
Pre-referendum many thought remaining was better for their careers - George Osborne had said as much to them.
Post-referendum they thought leaving was better for the country, since that was what the country had decided upon and now it was necessary to follow through.
The idea of a Westminster with both Vince Cable and Sir Ed Davey back is profoundly depressing.....
It would be for you. Most people would be glad.
Most?
Six people. Six people would be glad of both Cable and Davey being re-elected. And it's just two people if we exclude them and their spouses.
Presumably, if they are re-elected, then pretty much by definition a plurality of the voters in Twickenham and Kingston respectively would be glad? Unless those two places are particularly self-flagellating, which is possible but fairly unlikely.
I think there's a huge danger in fervently believing that your own views are very widely shared - either pro-Cable/Davey, anti-Cable/Davey, or on any other subject really - it's normally pretty delusional, and you'll end up disappointed.
You are right, of course. My post was sadly unfunny.
Post-referendum they thought leaving was better for the country, since that was what the country had decided upon and now it was necessary to follow through.
This is the bit where Brexit logic falls apart.
It doesn't become "the right thing" because slightly more people voted for it.
A Labour Government under Corbyn, were people to vote for it, would not become "better for the country"
The idea of a Westminster with both Vince Cable and Sir Ed Davey back is profoundly depressing.....
It would be for you. Most people would be glad.
Most?
Six people. Six people would be glad of both Cable and Davey being re-elected. And it's just two people if we exclude them and their spouses.
Presumably, if they are re-elected, then pretty much by definition a plurality of the voters in Twickenham and Kingston respectively would be glad? Unless those two places are particularly self-flagellating, which is possible but fairly unlikely.
I think there's a huge danger in fervently believing that your own views are very widely shared - either pro-Cable/Davey, anti-Cable/Davey, or on any other subject really - it's normally pretty delusional, and you'll end up disappointed.
Post-referendum they thought leaving was better for the country, since that was what the country had decided upon and now it was necessary to follow through.
This is the bit where Brexit logic falls apart.
It doesn't become "the right thing" because slightly more people voted for it.
A Labour Government under Corbyn, were people to vote for it, would not become "better for the country"
There are actually some quite positive things in there for the post-Corbyn Labour Party.
Exactly the same proportion of people like neither Labour nor their leader as like neither the Tories nor their leader (both 38%).
And 46% like the Labour Party (either both Labour and Corbyn, or Labour but not Corbyn). Whereas the equivalent figure for the Tories is 38%.
Not surprising that the Tory campaign is all about May and not about her Party. Also, not a bad place for an incoming Labour leader to start from in many ways.
The idea of a Westminster with both Vince Cable and Sir Ed Davey back is profoundly depressing.....
It would be for you. Most people would be glad.
Most?
Six people. Six people would be glad of both Cable and Davey being re-elected. And it's just two people if we exclude them and their spouses.
Presumably, if they are re-elected, then pretty much by definition a plurality of the voters in Twickenham and Kingston respectively would be glad? Unless those two places are particularly self-flagellating, which is possible but fairly unlikely.
I think there's a huge danger in fervently believing that your own views are very widely shared - either pro-Cable/Davey, anti-Cable/Davey, or on any other subject really - it's normally pretty delusional, and you'll end up disappointed.
You are right, of course. My post was sadly unfunny.
Robert, may I digress?
We've had the opinion of one distinguished Hampstead resident, Cyclefree, on the constituency odds, and I've spouted my own views, based as they are on my soundings on the Heath. What say you?
Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Ceredigion East Dunbartonshire Edinburgh West Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Orkney and Shetland Sheffield, Hallam Twickenham Westmorland and Lonsdale
I would put Southport and Norfolk North above Carshalton in terms of "likely to hold". Using a simple Conservative + (66% * UKIP) vs LD, then they are much more likely to hold either than Carshalton. My personal guesstimate would involve replacing C&W with Norfolk North.
My other question is about East Dumbartonshire. Using an amalgam of the Scottish locals and the Holyrood 2016, you'd hand Fife NE to the LDs but not East Dumbartonshire, and - indeed - you'd reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was on a knife edge. Other than their 2015 performance, there's no reason to expect the LDs to do well in East Dumbartonshire.
If that materialises, the Tories will have a field day in suburban London because the Labour vote will be very heavily concentrated in places like Haringey, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham.
The idea of a Westminster with both Vince Cable and Sir Ed Davey back is profoundly depressing.....
It would be for you. Most people would be glad.
Most?
Six people. Six people would be glad of both Cable and Davey being re-elected. And it's just two people if we exclude them and their spouses.
Presumably, if they are re-elected, then pretty much by definition a plurality of the voters in Twickenham and Kingston respectively would be glad? Unless those two places are particularly self-flagellating, which is possible but fairly unlikely.
I think there's a huge danger in fervently believing that your own views are very widely shared - either pro-Cable/Davey, anti-Cable/Davey, or on any other subject really - it's normally pretty delusional, and you'll end up disappointed.
Could have voted for them through gritted teeth
|It's true that some may have mixed feelings about them. But it'd be odd to vote for someone then not be glad that they'd won (even if that feeling may be more or less strong). Otherwise, you should've voted for someone else or saved your energy and not bothered.
I have made one last check and I do come up with this anomaly.
My spreadsheet shows LAB GE2015 total as 9,347,274
I have only entered swings to each party by region [ in other words, the turnout is assumed the same ].
The new total is 8,703,778
A reduction of 6.88%. I have not seen a single opinion poll which has Labour on 24.3% !!!
The regional poll gives Labour +1% in the South East [ why ??? ] and +4% in the SW. I can understand that. Maybe, we are beginning to see a historical change. Labour also gained votes in 2015.
But in all the other regions, Labour are in minus and sometimes big.
Yet, we are seeing Labour vote around 29-31%.
The regional polls in total are around, minimum, 5% off as far as Labour are concerned. ly.
The idea of a Westminster with both Vince Cable and Sir Ed Davey back is profoundly depressing.....
It would be for you. Most people would be glad.
Most?
Six people. Six people would be glad of both Cable and Davey being re-elected. And it's just two people if we exclude them and their spouses.
Presumably, if they are re-elected, then pretty much by definition a plurality of the voters in Twickenham and Kingston respectively would be glad? Unless those two places are particularly self-flagellating, which is possible but fairly unlikely.
I think there's a huge danger in fervently believing that your own views are very widely shared - either pro-Cable/Davey, anti-Cable/Davey, or on any other subject really - it's normally pretty delusional, and you'll end up disappointed.
You are right, of course. My post was sadly unfunny.
Robert, may I digress?
We've had the opinion of one distinguished Hampstead resident, Cyclefree, on the constituency odds, and I've spouted my own views, based as they are on my soundings on the Heath. What say you?
Tulip is 4/1. Sounds about right?
My wife, who has never voted Labour, is voting Tulip.
Indeed we need leaders to lead - but when leaders are incapable of grasping the concerns of the nation - e.g. yer men Gids and Cammo re Brexit - they get a harsh lesson from the voters.
Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Ceredigion East Dunbartonshire Edinburgh West Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Orkney and Shetland Sheffield, Hallam Twickenham Westmorland and Lonsdale
I would put Southport and Norfolk North above Carshalton in terms of "likely to hold". Using a simple Conservative + (66% * UKIP) vs LD, then they are much more likely to hold either than Carshalton. My personal guesstimate would involve replacing C&W with Norfolk North.
My other question is about East Dumbartonshire. Using an amalgam of the Scottish locals and the Holyrood 2016, you'd hand Fife NE to the LDs but not East Dumbartonshire, and - indeed - you'd reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was on a knife edge. Other than their 2015 performance, there's no reason to expect the LDs to do well in East Dunbartonshire.
Jo Swinson is a cut above the average candidate though. I've not bet on her, but I reckon she'll do it ! Surely she can peel some soft Tory/Labour votes ?
@paulwaugh: Get your popcorn ready. Jeremy Paxman to quiz Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn (separately) for joint SkyNews/Channel4 #ge17 show Mon May 29th.
If that materialises, the Tories will have a field day in suburban London because the Labour vote will be very heavily concentrated in places like Haringey, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham.
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, that would've been in accordance with the law but would've led to a very, very bad situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
De
B
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
Where do yl
So I was better informed than almost any other British voter. And, going by your logic, perhaps the entire referendum should have been based on the single most informed UK voter, that is to say: me.
In which case the result would have been the same. Because I voted LEAVE.
No because you are of a particular demographic: rich. The rich can do a lot of stuff because they fancy it that most people can't. Buy a Bentley, live in Primrose Hill, found avant-garde art movements, vote Brexit.
You were a rich, well-informed Brexiteer. Proves nothing.
This is, of course, my point. However well-informed about the EU and Brexit I might be (and I am exceptionally well informed, compared to the average voter, and probably MP for that matter), my vote should count for no more than anyone else's vote, rich or poor, thick or genius, black or white, man or shemale, retarded circus dwarf or even Mark Senior.
That's what a referendum is, the collective opinion of the nation, expressed by one man one vote, one woman one vote. The Prime Minister's tick in a box is worth no more than that of a retired chimneysweep in Redcar. If you can't be bothered to vote, tough shit.
But the people WERE bothered enough to vote. LEAVE got 17.4 million votes, more than any other political cause in all of British history (and more than voted STAY in the EEC in 1975).
So we're LEAVING. And now I really am WORKING. Anon.
I hope it is a productive session.
You seem to have switched horses from your original premise which was along the lines of "I am very well informed, if everyone had been as well informed as me they would have voted Leave."
But we will pick this up later because I must go also. To canvass.
The idea of a Westminster with both Vince Cable and Sir Ed Davey back is profoundly depressing.....
It would be for you. Most people would be glad.
Most?
Six people. Six people would be glad of both Cable and Davey being re-elected. And it's just two people if we exclude them and their spouses.
Presumably, if they are re-elected, then pretty much by definition a plurality of the voters in Twickenham and Kingston respectively would be glad? Unless those two places are particularly self-flagellating, which is possible but fairly unlikely.
I think there's a huge danger in fervently believing that your own views are very widely shared - either pro-Cable/Davey, anti-Cable/Davey, or on any other subject really - it's normally pretty delusional, and you'll end up disappointed.
Could have voted for them through gritted teeth
That's probably true of most MPs under FPTP.
There will be plenty of donkeys wearing blue rosettes elected on June 8th .
I have made one last check and I do come up with this anomaly.
My spreadsheet shows LAB GE2015 total as 9,347,274
I have only entered swings to each party by region [ in other words, the turnout is assumed the same ].
The new total is 8,703,778
A reduction of 6.88%. I have not seen a single opinion poll which has Labour on 24.3% !!!
The regional poll gives Labour +1% in the South East [ why ??? ] and +4% in the SW. I can understand that. Maybe, we are beginning to see a historical change. Labour also gained votes in 2015.
But in all the other regions, Labour are in minus and sometimes big.
Yet, we are seeing Labour vote around 29-31%.
The regional polls in total are around, minimum, 5% off as far as Labour are concerned. ly.
Labour 8372130.45 27.9% on my transition model (Which I'm not sure I entirely believe as it has Lib Dems on ZERO seats at 8.8% of the vote)
Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Ceredigion East Dunbartonshire Edinburgh West Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Orkney and Shetland Sheffield, Hallam Twickenham Westmorland and Lonsdale
I would put Southport and Norfolk North above Carshalton in terms of "likely to hold". Using a simple Conservative + (66% * UKIP) vs LD, then they are much more likely to hold either than Carshalton. My personal guesstimate would involve replacing C&W with Norfolk North.
My other question is about East Dumbartonshire. Using an amalgam of the Scottish locals and the Holyrood 2016, you'd hand Fife NE to the LDs but not East Dumbartonshire, and - indeed - you'd reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was on a knife edge. Other than their 2015 performance, there's no reason to expect the LDs to do well in East Dunbartonshire.
Jo Swinson is a cut above the average candidate though. I've not bet on her, but I reckon she'll do it ! Surely she can peel some soft Tory/Labour votes ?
Worth a flutter as next LibDem leader? Time they had a woman. 3/1 last time I looked - which seemed a bit on low side for the risk to me.
Post-referendum they thought leaving was better for the country, since that was what the country had decided upon and now it was necessary to follow through.
This is the bit where Brexit logic falls apart.
It doesn't become "the right thing" because slightly more people voted for it.
A Labour Government under Corbyn, were people to vote for it, would not become "better for the country"
Yes it does.
We were asked which path to take. Each has their advantages and disadvantages and none of us really knew which was for the best. But there was no wrong answer. More people disagreed with me than agreed and I would have preferred to remain, but this who think politicians should have turned round and said no, wrong answer are making what I think is called a category error: we were not asked which was the best choice but which of the two we preferred.
If Scotland were to vote to leave the UK I would be sad and I would expect it to be difficult for them for years afterwards, but I would never say that they had got the wrong answer and should be made, somehow, to come back. Would you tell the people of Ireland that they made a mistake when they left? Economically it was a disaster, but they felt that there were more important things than than money.
I have to keep reminding myself that I voted Remain. I'm fairly certain that if asked again I would now change my mind.
Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Ceredigion East Dunbartonshire Edinburgh West Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Orkney and Shetland Sheffield, Hallam Twickenham Westmorland and Lonsdale
I would put Southport and Norfolk North above Carshalton in terms of "likely to hold". Using a simple Conservative + (66% * UKIP) vs LD, then they are much more likely to hold either than Carshalton. My personal guesstimate would involve replacing C&W with Norfolk North.
My other question is about East Dumbartonshire. Using an amalgam of the Scottish locals and the Holyrood 2016, you'd hand Fife NE to the LDs but not East Dumbartonshire, and - indeed - you'd reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was on a knife edge. Other than their 2015 performance, there's no reason to expect the LDs to do well in East Dunbartonshire.
Jo Swinson is a cut above the average candidate though. I've not bet on her, but I reckon she'll do it ! Surely she can peel some soft Tory/Labour votes ?
Worth a flutter as next LibDem leader? Time they had a woman. 3/1 last time I looked - which seemed a bit on low side for the risk to me.
I think she may well be the next leader, but 3-1 is a horrible, awful bet right now.
@paulwaugh: Get your popcorn ready. Jeremy Paxman to quiz Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn (separately) for joint SkyNews/Channel4 #ge17 show Mon May 29th.
He wasn't the Paxo of old in 2015....he is nowhere near as prepped as Andrew Neil.
Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Ceredigion East Dunbartonshire Edinburgh West Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Orkney and Shetland Sheffield, Hallam Twickenham Westmorland and Lonsdale
I would put Southport and Norfolk North above Carshalton in terms of "likely to hold". Using a simple Conservative + (66% * UKIP) vs LD, then they are much more likely to hold either than Carshalton. My personal guesstimate would involve replacing C&W with Norfolk North.
My other question is about East Dumbartonshire. Using an amalgam of the Scottish locals and the Holyrood 2016, you'd hand Fife NE to the LDs but not East Dumbartonshire, and - indeed - you'd reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was on a knife edge. Other than their 2015 performance, there's no reason to expect the LDs to do well in East Dumbartonshire.
Carshalton only comes into the picture because of the London poll. The Liberal vote is up 6%, the Tory vote is up just 1%. On that basis, the LD majority actually goes up. UKIP vote goes down 2%.
I know you will say the UKIP vote is much stronger in Carshalton. But I can't do special swings in special seats.
Having done this exercise, I am convinced that Labour will do better than 178. Probably 190.
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, t situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
De
But membership of the EU? Just how many people do you know who fully understood the implications when voting? I didn't. I didn't even think about Gibraltar, Scotland, Northern Ireland, hard borders, soft borders, WTO terms and a host of other relevant considerations. And by comparison with the average voter I think I'm pretty well informed if I say so myself. Have you tried discussing the matter outside PB? It's truly incredible what some people think. Some even believed the infamous poster on the side of the bus!
The referendum has set the economic and political compass for generations. My impression is that an increasing number of voters are becoming more aware of what they voted for. I suspect that one day they will wish they could run the vote again but of course they cannot, and it would do no good if they did.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
Where do you draw the line as to who is informed, and who isn't, and who gets a say? If you knew so little about Brexit, what makes you think you had the right to vote on the matter, over anyone else?
Fact is, I DID think about Gibraltar, Ulster, Scotland, WTO and all the rest of it. I've been thinking about this European stuff for 30 years (as you will know from our previous debates dating back a decade on PB). Indeed from 1990 on I was an absolute EU obsessive - eg. I read the proposed EU Constitution, in toto, twice, for a Telegraph article in 2003. Who else has done that?! Certainly not Ken Clarke, who didn't read it once, if his remarks on EU Treaties are anything to go by, yet felt able to airily and confidently wave it through, ditto Maastricht.
So I was better informed than almost any other British voter. And, going by your logic, perhaps the entire referendum should have been based on the single most informed UK voter, that is to say: me.
In which case the result would have been the same. Because I voted LEAVE.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
I have made one last check and I do come up with this anomaly.
My spreadsheet shows LAB GE2015 total as 9,347,274
I have only entered swings to each party by region [ in other words, the turnout is assumed the same ].
The new total is 8,703,778
A reduction of 6.88%. I have not seen a single opinion poll which has Labour on 24.3% !!!
The regional poll gives Labour +1% in the South East [ why ??? ] and +4% in the SW. I can understand that. Maybe, we are beginning to see a historical change. Labour also gained votes in 2015.
But in all the other regions, Labour are in minus and sometimes big.
Yet, we are seeing Labour vote around 29-31%.
The regional polls in total are around, minimum, 5% off as far as Labour are concerned. ly.
At a first estimate, you are confusing percentage change with percentage point change. A reduction of the Labour vote to 24% would be a loss of about a fifth of their vote.
Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Ceredigion East Dunbartonshire Edinburgh West Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Orkney and Shetland Sheffield, Hallam Twickenham Westmorland and Lonsdale
I would put Southport and Norfolk North above Carshalton in terms of "likely to hold". Using a simple Conservative + (66% * UKIP) vs LD, then they are much more likely to hold either than Carshalton. My personal guesstimate would involve replacing C&W with Norfolk North.
My other question is about East Dumbartonshire. Using an amalgam of the Scottish locals and the Holyrood 2016, you'd hand Fife NE to the LDs but not East Dumbartonshire, and - indeed - you'd reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was on a knife edge. Other than their 2015 performance, there's no reason to expect the LDs to do well in East Dunbartonshire.
Jo Swinson is a cut above the average candidate though. I've not bet on her, but I reckon she'll do it ! Surely she can peel some soft Tory/Labour votes ?
Worth a flutter as next LibDem leader? Time they had a woman. 3/1 last time I looked - which seemed a bit on low side for the risk to me.
I think she may well be the next leader, but 3-1 is a horrible, awful bet right now.
Comments
But apparently a couple of the Labour councillors that proposed/seconded Tony Lloyd, also gave character references to several members of the grooming gang convicted in Rochdale.
I'm not touching the Rochdale betting with a barge pole.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3791554/Political-heavyweight-Sir-Nicholas-Soames-used-tip-scales-20-stones-presents-streamlined-new-look.html
It features Jeremy Corbyn talking about his love for Britain. He says:
I love this country; I love the history, the beauty, the diversity of this country. But people are not at ease. There’s inequality, there’s injustice, there’s anger.
There’s anger because people can’t get on; there’s anger because people can’t get anywhere to live; there’s anger because young people are not getting the jobs they want.
Let’s do it differently; where we work from the principle that the role of government is to give everybody a decent chance. To have public services that are there for us; to have an economy that works for all.
Surely the effort of a government that works for all, and encourages society to work together, has got to be better than a government that works for the few.
(I suppose this time a majority might actually vote for one party)
Leave/Remain differential swing:
Sheffield Hallam
Cambridge
Ceredigion
Orkney & Shetland
Leeds North West
Bermondsey & Old Southwark
Westmorland & Lonsdale
Cardiff Central
Dunbartonshire East
Edinburgh West
Bristol West
Burnley
Transition model:
Ceredigion
Orkney and Shetland
Sheffield, Hallam
Leeds North West
Cambridge
Dunbartonshire East
Edinburgh West
Burnley
North East Fife
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Cardiff Central
Bristol West
@Surbiton What are your 12 Lib Dem holds seats ?
Labour: for the many, not the Jew.....
But they can move anywhere in Europe for those thingsYes, if you promise beforehand to implement the decision 'regardless' I agree. That's a recipe for disaster. I don't however see anything wrong in principle with a referendum that is essentially consultative. Of course much depends on what the referendum is about. If it's a fairly simple subject that most lay people can grasp without too much difficulty - capital punishment, say, or the age of consent - then I think it's reasonable to take the electorate's opinion as a mandate, though even then a wise government would proceed cautiously.
But membership of the EU? Just how many people do you know who fully understood the implications when voting? I didn't. I didn't even think about Gibraltar, Scotland, Northern Ireland, hard borders, soft borders, WTO terms and a host of other relevant considerations. And by comparison with the average voter I think I'm pretty well informed if I say so myself. Have you tried discussing the matter outside PB? It's truly incredible what some people think. Some even believed the infamous poster on the side of the bus!
The referendum has set the economic and political compass for generations. My impression is that an increasing number of voters are becoming more aware of what they voted for. I suspect that one day they will wish they could run the vote again but of course they cannot, and it would do no good if they did.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
Edited extra bit: although I'm pleased you talk sense on weathergirls.
Faced with an internal threat to the established order (in this case the rise of nationalist populism) Britain tends to absorb/adapt rather than confront and defeat (or, in some cases, be defeated). That explains apparent continuity and stability in Britain (although in fact the established order has changed quite a lot beneath the surface in response to successive threats to it).
Actually, I blame the teachers: if we had only taught them to be fluent in all the major European languages then they could move easily to where the jobs were.
I've yet to hear an argument that we should ignore the people when they make the wrong decision that doesn't equally apply to having the general public voting for anything.
From my point of view, I would say that we have made the right decision (and the quislings in parliament have belatedly recanted their treason! :-)). Obviously we disagree, and there are many other people who disagree with you and others who disagree with me. Given that there is no definitively correct answer (ie it's not 2+2=4), and you don't trust people to vote how would you like to make decisions for the country?
If your answer is let MPs decide then why would you trust Dianne Abbott to make decisions for you over your own judgement?
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/864054147259277312
Cambridge
Carshalton and Wallington
Ceredigion
East Dunbartonshire
Edinburgh West
Kingston and Surbiton
Leeds North West
Orkney and Shetland
Sheffield, Hallam
Twickenham
Westmorland and Lonsdale
You were a rich, well-informed Brexiteer. Proves nothing.
I think there's a huge danger in fervently believing that your own views are very widely shared - either pro-Cable/Davey, anti-Cable/Davey, or on any other subject really - it's normally pretty delusional, and you'll end up disappointed.
Pre-referendum many thought remaining was better for their careers - George Osborne had said as much to them.
Post-referendum they thought leaving was better for the country, since that was what the country had decided upon and now it was necessary to follow through.
I don't want a Corbyn government. It's not my kind of thing at all. But calamitous? By comparison with what - Brexit?
Even if mad McDonnell implemented all his wacky policies I doubt it would cost more than, say, about 1p in the £ on the basic rate of income tax. I'm not saying that's desirable, but calamitous?
But it's all a bit irrelevant. Corbyn and McDonnell are not going to get in and even if they do the problems they would inherit from our decision to leave the EU would dwarf all others to the extent that questions about the basic rate of income tax would appear trivial. Not that the problems would be any easier or more tractable for a Conservative government. In fact if I were one of those cynical Lefties who regard the success of their Party as more important than the well-being of the nation I think I would promote a Tory government this time round. But I'm not, and I'm fairly relaxed about the outcome of this election.
Frankly, I think we're f*cked either way.
It doesn't become "the right thing" because slightly more people voted for it.
A Labour Government under Corbyn, were people to vote for it, would not become "better for the country"
2013 Lab 59.3% Tories 12.2%
2017 Lab 52.26% Tories 29.8%
12.32% Swing.
2010 GE: Skinner 50.0% Tories 24.6% UKIP 3.9%
2015 GE: Skinner 51.2% Tories 24.5% UKIP 21.0%
Note the Times snippet was from before the locals this May, referring instead to the Dunny-on-the-Wold by elections so frequently discussed here.
Exactly the same proportion of people like neither Labour nor their leader as like neither the Tories nor their leader (both 38%).
And 46% like the Labour Party (either both Labour and Corbyn, or Labour but not Corbyn). Whereas the equivalent figure for the Tories is 38%.
Not surprising that the Tory campaign is all about May and not about her Party. Also, not a bad place for an incoming Labour leader to start from in many ways.
We've had the opinion of one distinguished Hampstead resident, Cyclefree, on the constituency odds, and I've spouted my own views, based as they are on my soundings on the Heath. What say you?
Tulip is 4/1. Sounds about right?
My other question is about East Dumbartonshire. Using an amalgam of the Scottish locals and the Holyrood 2016, you'd hand Fife NE to the LDs but not East Dumbartonshire, and - indeed - you'd reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was on a knife edge. Other than their 2015 performance, there's no reason to expect the LDs to do well in East Dumbartonshire.
Labour 40 Tory 38.
If that materialises, the Tories will have a field day in suburban London because the Labour vote will be very heavily concentrated in places like Haringey, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham.
My spreadsheet shows LAB GE2015 total as 9,347,274
I have only entered swings to each party by region [ in other words, the turnout is assumed the same ].
The new total is 8,703,778
A reduction of 6.88%. I have not seen a single opinion poll which has Labour on 24.3% !!!
The regional poll gives Labour +1% in the South East [ why ??? ] and +4% in the SW. I can understand that. Maybe, we are beginning to see a historical change. Labour also gained votes in 2015.
But in all the other regions, Labour are in minus and sometimes big.
Yet, we are seeing Labour vote around 29-31%.
The regional polls in total are around, minimum, 5% off as far as Labour are concerned.
ly.
Read into that what you will.
https://twitter.com/madeinleeds/status/864137660910247936
Surely she can peel some soft Tory/Labour votes
Another warm-up event for the Labour leadership election this summer.
You seem to have switched horses from your original premise which was along the lines of "I am very well informed, if everyone had been as well informed as me they would have voted Leave."
But we will pick this up later because I must go also. To canvass.
We were asked which path to take. Each has their advantages and disadvantages and none of us really knew which was for the best. But there was no wrong answer. More people disagreed with me than agreed and I would have preferred to remain, but this who think politicians should have turned round and said no, wrong answer are making what I think is called a category error: we were not asked which was the best choice but which of the two we preferred.
If Scotland were to vote to leave the UK I would be sad and I would expect it to be difficult for them for years afterwards, but I would never say that they had got the wrong answer and should be made, somehow, to come back. Would you tell the people of Ireland that they made a mistake when they left? Economically it was a disaster, but they felt that there were more important things than than money.
I have to keep reminding myself that I voted Remain. I'm fairly certain that if asked again I would now change my mind.
I know you will say the UKIP vote is much stronger in Carshalton. But I can't do special swings in special seats.
Having done this exercise, I am convinced that Labour will do better than 178. Probably 190.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.