Hardly the corker the increasingly hyperbolic Ben Page implied it was. Exactly what I would expect! Beware pollsters ramping their own polls...
An 8% increase in Labour's share of the vote is a corker.
No it isn't. The poll implies a Tory majority of 80-100. If that's a corker for Labour, right after its manifesto bounce, the party is in a worse position than even I feared it was.
Bit of a joke. What pub can hold 3000 party goers?
Do people think "Grand Marshal Corbyn's Patriotic Meme Collective" is *really* a pro-Corbyn group? "No, really, it is not a joke, lazy journalist person."
That's a 15pt lead for the Tories who are scooping up nearly half the electorate. So what? That's a devastating defeat for Labour. What we would expect.
Twitter Left are not interested in leads but in vote share. Crucial thing about this poll is that the Labour vote share is soft.
By the end of next week we should know if it's a proper change in direction or if it's just a manifesto bounce.
Half of the shift looks to be a correction to the mean, given that the last IPSOS was somewhat out of line with the trend of other polls. The remaining c. 4% is probably a manifesto bounce. Until today the Tories seem happy leaving Labour to fill up the airwaves and column inches.
UKIP 2017 are "From The Jam" ft Bruce Foxton and Rick Buckler Labour 2017 are Fleetwood Mac reunited w Peter Green, Danny Kirwan and Jeremy Spencer instead of Buckingham, Nicks and Christine McVie Lib Dems 2017 are Bronski Beat post Jimmy Somerville
One of the most striking comments during the Brexit campaign was Steve Hilton saying 'it's harder for a South Korean astrophysicist to get into the UK, than it is a Romanian manual worker'...
And now Theresa May looks as though she's gonna make it even harder.
We need to get the net migration numbers down (for social reasons, not racial) whilst also attracting the very, very best.
I'm not sure May's migrant stance is striking the right notes.
One of the most striking comments during the Brexit campaign was Steve Hilton saying 'it's harder for a South Korean astrophysicist to get into the UK, than it is a Romanian manual worker'...
And now Theresa May looks as though she's gonna make it even harder.
We need to get the net migration numbers down (for social reasons, not racial) whilst also attracting the very, very best.
I'm not sure May's migrant stance is striking the right notes.
The penny is dropping among sensible pro-business Tories that the Curtain Twitcher General cares not a cat's toss for the economy. She is more interested in meddling in people's lives.
Initial thoughts on MORI - two party system in play, Labour are going to get absolutely humped in their seats where the Libs are moribund and the Tories second, but hold up very well in areas of Liberal relative strength and in Tory free areas. Also suggests they might be mopping up the well off bohemian vote - London and general southerners which will not gain them much.
This poll really could be very bad for the Lds if it is reflected in SE London - Tories flying high and Labour improving leaves them between a rock and a hard place.
On the manifesto it could well take the edge off the polls a little but it is at least an attempt at realism given the state of the finances. As a pensioner I have done very well over the past few years although have been hit by the sterling slump living in Spain. Overall however, I do think it's right that we share in austerity for the overall good.
It is starting to look like the Lib Dems have completely screwed up their campaign. Rather than make hay with Remainers and have some sort of leave friendly position they have managed to pick a position that even many Remain voters don't want, and end up talking about issues they would rather that nobody mentioned. If the Lib Dems do as badly as the polls imply I can't see how Farron would hang on.
Take out Dave's deal and it makes more sense - ie if that had never been negotiated (and rejected by the British public) but it was and was, so they would have to say "remain in and get Dave's deal back" which is not, of course, in their power to promise.
Initial thoughts on MORI - two party system in play, Labour are going to get absolutely humped in their seats where the Libs are moribund and the Tories second, but hold up very well in areas of Liberal relative strength and in Tory free areas. Also suggests they might be mopping up the well off bohemian vote - London and general southerners which will not gain them much.
Certainly it gives scope for constituency polling - e.g. LDs gaining Cambridge is looking unlikely, as some of us have been saying for a while.
For punters, it's an example of canvassing reports actually being useful. Like others, I've been reporting for some time that the Tories were eating UKIP but that the Labour vote was pretty solid while the LibDems were declining as the position polarised.
A question is whether the Tory position will remain as solid or even strengthen with their manifesto and as the campaign unfolds, or if we'll see some reversion to the mean. If the latter, we may end up with a 2017 result not all that different to 2015, in which case May will look a bit silly but still secure, and Corbyn will probably also be secure.
The Bow Group have called the Tory manifesto the biggest stealth tax increases in history.
Brexit has to be paid for somehow.
things for him at the moment?
The lonely dumped husbands are still at the bar of the local telling anyone who'll listen
"You wait til she cant afford go to the Algarve this year and doesn't get those nice shoes for Christmas.. then she'll love me again and wish she'd never left"
Car crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives, though disastrous for the country.
At least the Conservatives are proposing to make those who voted for this disaster pay, which is a start of sorts.
While I'm chuckling at you perhaps you can outline this "disaster"
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism. A decade or more of being absorbed by the implications of Brexit as a whole host of other more pressing problems go unconsidered won't exactly help much either.
On the plus side, immigration won't be a problem for long because the brightest and best will want to go to countries that actually are pleasant to foreigners.
Well that's a view, there is no evidence to support it but ho hum.
You see, you lost the argument last June and it is becoming increasingly tedious, if funny, a bit like the comedy shows on Dave.
The disaster of Brexit is unfolding. The country has already become more divided, more unhappy and more racist.
If you think that people are going to stop talking about the disaster just because there was a vote on it last year, you're deranged. We are going to be living under the shadow of this mountain for many years to come.
I was shocked to see how many people wanted Le Pen to win/thought she'd be good for UK in that YouGov poll.
Oh don't go there. Leavers get hysterical if you point out that more than eight out of ten Leavers who expressed a preference thought a Le Pen win would be best for Britain.
Not the most difficult thing the Leavers will have to conend with. That'll be the absense of £350 million a week for the health service now the cracks are showing. But compared to what's going to happen next year ......
Did the Lib Dem's actually release their manifesto in the end? Even I missed it, so God knows what the public thought, or rather didn't think about it.
Actually MORI fits some of the background so far - Libs having a nightmare and the Tories soft pedalling. Floaters are moving to Labour because they are 'in the news' but are far from hard in their support as can be seen. If the Tories move to take the headlines for the run in the expectation would be a drift back from some Floaters. Seems to fit what's happening imo.
Actually MORI fits some of the background so far - Libs having a nightmare and the Tories soft pedalling. Floaters are moving to Labour because they are 'in the news' but are far from hard in their support as can be seen. If the Tories move to take the headlines for the run in the expectation would be a drift back from some Floaters. Seems to fit what's happening imo.
The one thing I will say for Corbyn is that he is the only party leader who looks like he is enjoying the campaign. That probably counts for something. May clearly wants the whole thing over and done with – and looks absolutely knackered. Farron is just a plonker who has completely FUBAR over gay sex and abortion.
As someone who actually deals with the WWC every day in his job I can assure you that the good folk of the West Sussex coast( particularly but not exclusively the elderly) whilst not hostile to foreign individuals are and were mighty disturbed by the amount of immigration in the area. That hasn't changed since June.
Others may disagree but I don't think that wanting lower immigration implies hostility to immigrants themselves. Nor is there much sign of popular support for zero net or no immigration, which is surely the mark of the true anti-immigration voter.
What people want is what we had through the 60s to 90s really, steady and lower levels of immigration, not rapid increases and high levels. The knock on effects you mention have been a real problem, particularly when immigration tends to be concentrated in a relatively small part of the country. Labelling people who are concerned about those effects on their schools, hospitals, and neighbourhoods as bigots is a cheap shot, and does nothing to address the real problems.
That's a 15pt lead for the Tories who are scooping up nearly half the electorate. So what? That's a devastating defeat for Labour. What we would expect.
Yep - I agree again I think the lead may narrow a little but I have raised my majority expectation to around 75 from initially just a 50+. Much will depend on where these extra Labour votes are and whether the LDs can recover although the latter seems unlikely judging by their rampers on here who seem to lack any sense of the public mood.
As someone who actually deals with the WWC every day in his job I can assure you that the good folk of the West Sussex coast( particularly but not exclusively the elderly) whilst not hostile to foreign individuals are and were mighty disturbed by the amount of immigration in the area. That hasn't changed since June.
Others may disagree but I don't think that wanting lower immigration implies hostility to immigrants themselves. Nor is there much sign of popular support for zero net or no immigration, which is surely the mark of the true anti-immigration voter.
What people want is what we had through the 60s to 90s really, steady and lower levels of immigration, not rapid increases and high levels. The knock on effects you mention have been a real problem, particularly when immigration tends to be concentrated in a relatively small part of the country. Labelling people who are concerned about those effects on their schools, hospitals, and neighbourhoods as bigots is a cheap shot, and does nothing to address the real problems.
The concerns are economic not xenophobic (No French!)
It's not a huge surprise. Plenty of people with little or nothing to lose are going to be attracted by the goodies promised. And the manifesto has dominated the news for the last few days.
Nothing stands out (for example, the incredibly bouncy London sub sample has the Tories marginally ahead - which is probably unlikely) and SLAB on 20 in Scotland (Con: 28, SNP: 43, all of which seem 'reasonable'...)
Worth noting a 5.5 swing in best leader too. In April, May led by 61-23. She now leads by 56-29 - still a lot, but it's easily Corbyn's best score on that measure, and suggests that the "Corbyn would be a disaster as PM" meme is running out of steam.
As someone who actually deals with the WWC every day in his job I can assure you that the good folk of the West Sussex coast( particularly but not exclusively the elderly) whilst not hostile to foreign individuals are and were mighty disturbed by the amount of immigration in the area. That hasn't changed since June.
Others may disagree but I don't think that wanting lower immigration implies hostility to immigrants themselves. Nor is there much sign of popular support for zero net or no immigration, which is surely the mark of the true anti-immigration voter.
What people want is what we had through the 60s to 90s really, steady and lower levels of immigration, not rapid increases and high levels. The knock on effects you mention have been a real problem, particularly when immigration tends to be concentrated in a relatively small part of the country. Labelling people who are concerned about those effects on their schools, hospitals, and neighbourhoods as bigots is a cheap shot, and does nothing to address the real problems.
Worth noting a 5.5 swing in best leader too. In April, May led by 61-23. She now leads by 56-29 - still a lot, but it's easily Corbyn's best score on that measure, and suggests that the "Corbyn would be a disaster as PM" meme is running out of steam.
In all leadership ratings it seems that Labour voters' risk of cogitative dissonance has taken over. If they back Labour they are mentally forced to defend Corbyn.
"Although Mrs May has sometimes threatened to leave without any agreement, saying “no deal is better than a bad deal”, she has lately accepted the need for a transition arrangement after Brexit. With a larger majority she can more easily stand up to her ultra-Eurosceptic backbenchers, some of whom seem actively to want Britain to crash out. That explains why the pound rose this week. The election also buys Mrs May time. Holding a vote this year means that she need not face the polls again until 2022, three years after Britain’s formal exit from the EU. Avoiding the pressure of an imminent contest at home will further strengthen her against the headbanging fringe of her own party and the right-wing press, which screams treachery at any hint of the compromises needed to secure a deal with the EU. http://discovery.economist.com/election?article=2828722&utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=201704_Social_GB&utm_term=Subs-Link-Ad&utm_content=o_link-ad&cid1=d/soc/Facebook/dyn/2828722/20170504-00:00am/paid/social-LA/BR-PO/BRPII/n/subs/GB/BR-LIT&cid3=UM
If it's a phone poll I can understand it's volatility. The only political poll I've done was for MORI by phone. After all their intros and disclaimers by the time they get to anything interesting you don't care what you say. You just go for the answer with the shortest number of letters. Like 'May'.
Conservatives 371 Labour 204 Lib Dems 4 Ukip 0 Green 1 SNP 49 Plaid 3 NI 18
Tory majority of 92.
I've always said that 200 seats is the 'cut off' for labour having a bad election and a disaster.
Note that Spreadex currently has them on 158-164. This may be Peak Labour as it's just after the manifsto, but that market seems likely to move a bit, so som trading bets may be worthwhile for the intrepid.
It is starting to look like the Lib Dems have completely screwed up their campaign. Rather than make hay with Remainers and have some sort of leave friendly position they have managed to pick a position that even many Remain voters don't want, and end up talking about issues they would rather that nobody mentioned. If the Lib Dems do as badly as the polls imply I can't see how Farron would hang on.
I've been saying for many months how the LibDem position was going to unravel.
The timing of this election was the worst of all worlds for them - a leader who has not been welcomed by the voters, no policies other than Block Brexit - just ill-prepared for the fight. It may not have been Sir Lynton's primary aim on election timing, but I don't doubt he came to the same assessment.
And after four weeks of the Tories playing rope-a-dope, with UKIP and the LibDems out the ring, we can now have three weeks brutally focussing on Labour.
Is this the second election in a row where the Tories have made a strategic blunder by going too hard on the Lib Dems?
If they'd insulated Farron from the 'coalition of chaos' meme and treated them as a minor 'serious' party (and ex-coalition partner) then they would have been much better placed to punish Labour. As it is it's looking like a two-horse race in which people are drawn to the underdog.
Is this the second election in a row where the Tories have made a strategic blunder by going too hard on the Lib Dems?
If they'd insulated Farron from the 'coalition of chaos' meme and treated them as a minor 'serious' party (and ex-coalition partner) then they would have been much better placed to punish Labour. As it is it's looking like a two-horse race in which people are drawn to the underdog.
How was it a blunder last time? Going hard on the Lib Dems was what got Cameron his absolute majority.
I've been saying for many months how the LibDem position was going to unravel.
The timing of this election was the worst of all worlds for them - a leader who has not been welcomed by the voters, no policies other than Block Brexit - just ill-prepared for the fight. It may not have been Sir Lynton's primary aim on election timing, but I don't doubt he came to the same assessment.
And after four weeks of the Tories playing rope-a-dope, with UKIP and the LibDems out the ring, we can now have three weeks brutally focussing on Labour.
Even taking that into account, it does show how the post-Brexit impact has not been symmetrical, as was assumed before the election was called. Tories have hoovered up UKIP votes, but the Lib Dems appear to have lost votes, and presumably to Labour who hardly have a Remainer friendly offer. If anything I would have expected the Lib Dems to benefit the most.
Is this the second election in a row where the Tories have made a strategic blunder by going too hard on the Lib Dems?
If they'd insulated Farron from the 'coalition of chaos' meme and treated them as a minor 'serious' party (and ex-coalition partner) then they would have been much better placed to punish Labour. As it is it's looking like a two-horse race in which people are drawn to the underdog.
I wouldn't think they're too worried. Labour are heading for sub 180 seats even with only a 13 point defeat, and let's be honest, with the soft Lab vote abd when the press go into overdrive and with the Tory manifesto in the news we're going to be looking at a minimum of a 15 point lead come polling day.
Is this the second election in a row where the Tories have made a strategic blunder by going too hard on the Lib Dems?
If they'd insulated Farron from the 'coalition of chaos' meme and treated them as a minor 'serious' party (and ex-coalition partner) then they would have been much better placed to punish Labour. As it is it's looking like a two-horse race in which people are drawn to the underdog.
How was it a blunder last time? Going hard on the Lib Dems was what got Cameron his absolute majority.
As someone who actually deals with the WWC every day in his job I can assure you that the good folk of the West Sussex coast( particularly but not exclusively the elderly) whilst not hostile to foreign individuals are and were mighty disturbed by the amount of immigration in the area. That hasn't changed since June.
Others may disagree but I don't think that wanting lower immigration implies hostility to immigrants themselves. Nor is there much sign of popular support for zero net or no immigration, which is surely the mark of the true anti-immigration voter.
What people want is what we had through the 60s to 90s really, steady and lower levels of immigration, not rapid increases and high levels. The knock on effects you mention have been a real problem, particularly when immigration tends to be concentrated in a relatively small part of the country. Labelling people who are concerned about those effects on their schools, hospitals, and neighbourhoods as bigots is a cheap shot, and does nothing to address the real problems.
The concerns are economic not xenophobic (No French!)
Not entirely true. A lot of pensioners I deal with come from Croydon, Streatham and places like that. They think rightly or wrongly that demographic change has forced them out. They then see hordes of Eastern Europeans migrate in the last 15 years to the areas they now live in (and there are a lot in places like Bognor) and they are understandably worried it will happen again. I don't think their concerns are economic. They also have the perception that a lot more more money is spent on education and infrastructure in London and associate that with multiculturalism. They are generally right. They aren't getting a fair deal and they are being sneered at by metropolitan types.
Is this the second election in a row where the Tories have made a strategic blunder by going too hard on the Lib Dems?
If they'd insulated Farron from the 'coalition of chaos' meme and treated them as a minor 'serious' party (and ex-coalition partner) then they would have been much better placed to punish Labour. As it is it's looking like a two-horse race in which people are drawn to the underdog.
How was it a blunder last time? Going hard on the Lib Dems was what got Cameron his absolute majority.
here to post this.
From Cameron's perspective his majority didn't do him much good.
@NickPalmer ""Corbyn would be a disaster as PM" meme is running out of steam."
There's a big head of steam in a 2:1 margin...
Not really. The thing to watch is the Labour score compared with the Corbyn score - the difference is people who are voting Labour but holding their noses, and thus potentially seduceable by Tory demonisation of Corbyn. The Tory lead is all about eating UKIP (are they really down to 2%?), and there's not a lot Labour under any leader can do about that.
What critics of Corbyn can argue is that under hypothetical wonder-leader from the centre, we would be gaining votes from the left of the Tories while they snuggle up to UKIP. Whether that's true to a large extent is debatable, cf. the poll two days ago showing Labour doing much worse if Tony Blair was leading. I think we're seeing some genuine polarisation here.
Is this the second election in a row where the Tories have made a strategic blunder by going too hard on the Lib Dems?
If they'd insulated Farron from the 'coalition of chaos' meme and treated them as a minor 'serious' party (and ex-coalition partner) then they would have been much better placed to punish Labour. As it is it's looking like a two-horse race in which people are drawn to the underdog.
How was it a blunder last time? Going hard on the Lib Dems was what got Cameron his absolute majority.
"Although Mrs May has sometimes threatened to leave without any agreement, saying “no deal is better than a bad deal”, she has lately accepted the need for a transition arrangement after Brexit. With a larger majority she can more easily stand up to her ultra-Eurosceptic backbenchers, some of whom seem actively to want Britain to crash out. That explains why the pound rose this week. The election also buys Mrs May time. Holding a vote this year means that she need not face the polls again until 2022, three years after Britain’s formal exit from the EU. Avoiding the pressure of an imminent contest at home will further strengthen her against the headbanging fringe of her own party and the right-wing press, which screams treachery at any hint of the compromises needed to secure a deal with the EU. http://discovery.economist.com/election?article=2828722&utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=201704_Social_GB&utm_term=Subs-Link-Ad&utm_content=o_link-ad&cid1=d/soc/Facebook/dyn/2828722/20170504-00:00am/paid/social-LA/BR-PO/BRPII/n/subs/GB/BR-LIT&cid3=UM
Yes I think this was a standard motivating factor for holding the election (apart of course from the fact that an increased majority is a good thing whatever the circs).
But if there is a transition period (five years? 10 years?) that still leaves us at the next GE not having left and with the possibility for the next Govt to say we're not leaving.
@PaulBrandITV: Have to question efficacy of having an inheritance tax threshold of £1m and a social care threshold of £100k. Pass it on, unless you're sick
@NickPalmer ""Corbyn would be a disaster as PM" meme is running out of steam."
There's a big head of steam in a 2:1 margin...
Not really. The thing to watch is the Labour score compared with the Corbyn score - the difference is people who are voting Labour but holding their noses, and thus potentially seduceable by Tory demonisation of Corbyn. The Tory lead is all about eating UKIP (are they really down to 2%?), and there's not a lot Labour under any leader can do about that.
What critics of Corbyn can argue is that under hypothetical wonder-leader from the centre, we would be gaining votes from the left of the Tories while they snuggle up to UKIP. Whether that's true to a large extent is debatable, cf. the poll two days ago showing Labour doing much worse if Tony Blair was leading. I think we're seeing some genuine polarisation here.
cf. the poll two days ago showing Labour doing much worse if Tony Blair was leading
That's more to do with people's opinion of Blair than a policy position.
If May's miscalculated then where do pensioner votes go?
As a pensioner I always expected to have to pay for care if needed right down to £23,250. So to increase that to £100,000 seems a fair deal to me and no doubt my children
I haven't seen the detail yet but I agree with you in principle.
Many people on this site continue to misunderstand the motivations of those richer in years. My experience is that most pensioners are more concerned with the future of the children and grandchildren far more than they are for themselves. Therefore comments like that from Mr. Dancer above are based on a false reading of why pensioners vote the way they do. I doubt the Conservatives will lose more than a trivial number of votes by abolishing the triple lock, winter fuel payments or any other universal pensioner freebies. That said I would place the caveat that other policies must address the future of said offspring and must also take care of those, genuinely, hard-up pensioners).
What might upset quite a few people in rural areas is the withdrawal of the bus pass. That is the only thing that keeps many rural bus services going. It is as much a subsidy to the bus company as it is to the pensioners. It also acts a social service as it makes it easier for the elderly to get about, visit the local town and adjacent villages, with knock on effects to businesses in those places.
I haven't seen any other evidence on this question. My suspicion is Corbyn is so toxic to the older generation it won't matter much this time - but could well matter under a different Labour leader in future.
@PaulBrandITV: Have to question efficacy of having an inheritance tax threshold of £1m and a social care threshold of £100k. Pass it on, unless you're sick
Good point. The social care thing is a total mess.
Edit: there is no pooled risk. If you are lucky you are quids in.
@NickPalmer ""Corbyn would be a disaster as PM" meme is running out of steam."
There's a big head of steam in a 2:1 margin...
Not really. The thing to watch is the Labour score compared with the Corbyn score - the difference is people who are voting Labour but holding their noses, and thus potentially seduceable by Tory demonisation of Corbyn. The Tory lead is all about eating UKIP (are they really down to 2%?), and there's not a lot Labour under any leader can do about that.
There's a lot any Labour could do about that! Considering a very large proportion of UKIP voters are ex-Labour voters, a Labour leader could be appealing to them himself rather than pushing them to the Tories.
@PaulBrandITV: Have to question efficacy of having an inheritance tax threshold of £1m and a social care threshold of £100k. Pass it on, unless you're sick
I've been saying for many months how the LibDem position was going to unravel.
The timing of this election was the worst of all worlds for them - a leader who has not been welcomed by the voters, no policies other than Block Brexit - just ill-prepared for the fight. It may not have been Sir Lynton's primary aim on election timing, but I don't doubt he came to the same assessment.
And after four weeks of the Tories playing rope-a-dope, with UKIP and the LibDems out the ring, we can now have three weeks brutally focussing on Labour.
Even taking that into account, it does show how the post-Brexit impact has not been symmetrical, as was assumed before the election was called. Tories have hoovered up UKIP votes, but the Lib Dems appear to have lost votes, and presumably to Labour who hardly have a Remainer friendly offer. If anything I would have expected the Lib Dems to benefit the most.
I never assumed it was going to be symmetrical. I said that the dog that would not bark was Tory Remainers going to the LibDems. Not going to happen. If Ken Clark and Anna Soubry stayed with the Tories, then who was going to desert them over Brexit? As it is, I am seeing here in the SW that 2015 LibDems who then voted Leave are deserting the LibDems. Their policy of "let's keep voting until we get the result we like" is toxic.
UKIP on the other hand is dead. Farage gone, it's purpose delivered, a new joke leader installed - they were always going to go backwards. And where are their 97% Brexit voters going - to Jeremy "open borders" Corbyn? Leave it out....
Is this the second election in a row where the Tories have made a strategic blunder by going too hard on the Lib Dems?
If they'd insulated Farron from the 'coalition of chaos' meme and treated them as a minor 'serious' party (and ex-coalition partner) then they would have been much better placed to punish Labour. As it is it's looking like a two-horse race in which people are drawn to the underdog.
Maybe I am becoming like King Canute* or something, but I just refuse to believe these Labour numbers. Just refuse. Corbyn is pure poison as far as i can see to vast swathes of the electorate and particularly C and D class voters.
Where are these 32%? Not in marginal seats.
The only explanation that makes any sense is he is piling them up in Bootle.
* Canute as popularly imagined. Yes I know what really happened - no need to trouble PB with that again.
It's hard to believe, but where do you think both parties really are in that case?
I guess I am not being very scientific, in not believing polls. But personally I cannot see Labour getting above 25. No way on God's green earth.
One explanation is possibly that voters are disregarding Corbyn as they know he will not be PM and so are starting to be persuaded by their local Lab MP saying - "I'm a decent guy, I've done good things, don't blame me for Corbyn' etc etc.
The other (and the one I am inclined to go for) is that the polls are (obviously) just telling us what people might do. When faced with an actual ballot box and the prospect of Corbyn then they will desert on masse. A bit like '92.
Mind you I was completely wrong on Trump and Le Pen so DYOR :-)
And we shouldn't project the antipathy the majority have for Corbyn onto the minority for whom he is a big positive....?
The good news for Labour is that (according to Yougov) 39% would consider voting for Labour. The bad news is that 61% won't, and the Conservatives are getting the large majority of the 61%.
Nothing stands out (for example, the incredibly bouncy London sub sample has the Tories marginally ahead - which is probably unlikely) and SLAB on 20 in Scotland (Con: 28, SNP: 43, all of which seem 'reasonable'...)
YG are struggling to speak to Middle Aged Mr C2DE - white van man.
The younger female quota is vastly oversubscribed.
Comments
Although, actually...
Exit poll time on June 8th should be something.
There I've said it.
Labour 2017 are Fleetwood Mac reunited w Peter Green, Danny Kirwan and Jeremy Spencer instead of Buckingham, Nicks and Christine McVie
Lib Dems 2017 are Bronski Beat post Jimmy Somerville
It wasn't a euphemism.
On the manifesto it could well take the edge off the polls a little but it is at least an attempt at realism given the state of the finances. As a pensioner I have done very well over the past few years although have been hit by the sterling slump living in Spain. Overall however, I do think it's right that we share in austerity for the overall good.
For punters, it's an example of canvassing reports actually being useful. Like others, I've been reporting for some time that the Tories were eating UKIP but that the Labour vote was pretty solid while the LibDems were declining as the position polarised.
A question is whether the Tory position will remain as solid or even strengthen with their manifesto and as the campaign unfolds, or if we'll see some reversion to the mean. If the latter, we may end up with a 2017 result not all that different to 2015, in which case May will look a bit silly but still secure, and Corbyn will probably also be secure.
C'mon Jeremy!
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/txtodyx8bk/TimesResults_170517_VI_Trackers_W.pdf
Edit and Blair did too on 35% in 2005.
What people want is what we had through the 60s to 90s really, steady and lower levels of immigration, not rapid increases and high levels. The knock on effects you mention have been a real problem, particularly when immigration tends to be concentrated in a relatively small part of the country. Labelling people who are concerned about those effects on their schools, hospitals, and neighbourhoods as bigots is a cheap shot, and does nothing to address the real problems.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2017-live-updates-10445112
20% South
23% London
GE 2015 Con+Lab = 67.3 %
"Although Mrs May has sometimes threatened to leave without any agreement, saying “no deal is better than a bad deal”, she has lately accepted the need for a transition arrangement after Brexit. With a larger majority she can more easily stand up to her ultra-Eurosceptic backbenchers, some of whom seem actively to want Britain to crash out. That explains why the pound rose this week. The election also buys Mrs May time. Holding a vote this year means that she need not face the polls again until 2022, three years after Britain’s formal exit from the EU. Avoiding the pressure of an imminent contest at home will further strengthen her against the headbanging fringe of her own party and the right-wing press, which screams treachery at any hint of the compromises needed to secure a deal with the EU.
http://discovery.economist.com/election?article=2828722&utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=201704_Social_GB&utm_term=Subs-Link-Ad&utm_content=o_link-ad&cid1=d/soc/Facebook/dyn/2828722/20170504-00:00am/paid/social-LA/BR-PO/BRPII/n/subs/GB/BR-LIT&cid3=UM
There's a big head of steam in a 2:1 margin...
The timing of this election was the worst of all worlds for them - a leader who has not been welcomed by the voters, no policies other than Block Brexit - just ill-prepared for the fight. It may not have been Sir Lynton's primary aim on election timing, but I don't doubt he came to the same assessment.
And after four weeks of the Tories playing rope-a-dope, with UKIP and the LibDems out the ring, we can now have three weeks brutally focussing on Labour.
If they'd insulated Farron from the 'coalition of chaos' meme and treated them as a minor 'serious' party (and ex-coalition partner) then they would have been much better placed to punish Labour. As it is it's looking like a two-horse race in which people are drawn to the underdog.
There appears to be two likely outcomes from the GE.
1. TMay gets a stonking majority. Corbyn is humiliated and leaves. Labour slowly recovers under a different leader.
2. TMay gets a reasonable majority. Corbyn uses the excuse to stay (as not outright terrible). Labour is split and destroyed.
"Rigid dogma and ideology needless and damaging
... change shaped through clear principles."
I have clear principles you have rigid dogma and ideology.
Does that make them xenophobes? I dunno...
What critics of Corbyn can argue is that under hypothetical wonder-leader from the centre, we would be gaining votes from the left of the Tories while they snuggle up to UKIP. Whether that's true to a large extent is debatable, cf. the poll two days ago showing Labour doing much worse if Tony Blair was leading. I think we're seeing some genuine polarisation here.
But if there is a transition period (five years? 10 years?) that still leaves us at the next GE not having left and with the possibility for the next Govt to say we're not leaving.
cf. the poll two days ago showing Labour doing much worse if Tony Blair was leading
That's more to do with people's opinion of Blair than a policy position.
https://www.oldmutualwealth.co.uk/Media-Centre/2017-press-releases/April-2017/poll-reveals-triple-lock-debate-could-cost-tory-party-key-votes/
I haven't seen any other evidence on this question. My suspicion is Corbyn is so toxic to the older generation it won't matter much this time - but could well matter under a different Labour leader in future.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02628/tory-van-620_2628143a.jpg
Edit: there is no pooled risk. If you are lucky you are quids in.
UKIP on the other hand is dead. Farage gone, it's purpose delivered, a new joke leader installed - they were always going to go backwards. And where are their 97% Brexit voters going - to Jeremy "open borders" Corbyn? Leave it out....
https://twitter.com/lxrobb/status/864804528750833665
I was there when the poliz turned up to raid his boat.
The younger female quota is vastly oversubscribed.