Sadly the Jacobites have been out of power for the last few elections.
I am equal opportunity opponent of the abuse of power by the Labour PM's too, whether it be Blair in 01 or 05, Wilson in 66, 70 or 74 and Attlee in 51.
Since 1951 Conservatives have won 11 times (if we take 2017 as read; 13 times if we take the next two as read too as seems psephologically likely), and Labour 6 times. So there has been no equality of opportunity to call an election. It has been a Conservative opportunity by a factor of 2 to 1.
Principled opposition to a sitting PM's right in general to determine election timing therefore aligns with parti pris opposition to Conservative PMs in particular.
I am sure there are all sorts of examples for other allegiances.
Is there a word for taking a high-minded view on a matter which happens also to align conveniently with one's own personal interests? Murderers expressing principled opposition to the death sentence, for example, or car parking offenders who object on moral grounds to wheel clamps? It feels like there ought to be. It's like casuistry but more so.
Went shopping with my father this morning who is recovering from a wrist operation and can't push a trolley or lift bags.
Anyway I was surprised at a lot of the anti Theresa May talk I overheard by pensioners as we were going around the supermarkets in Accrington and Great Harwood, kept hearing the word 'betrayed'. That's of course only at 3 supermarkets we went to, but I do wonder if elsewhere and across the country there is a rising unhappiness with her with a demographic that usually votes Tory and does actually get out and vote.
Have heard the same round here. The "Baby Boomers" are in revolt lol!!!!!
I'm expecting quite a big hit for the Tories in the weekend polls 2-3% down.
Now they've unrelieved their manifesto they need to get back on to Brexit and Corbyn 24/7 from now until 8th June.
Went shopping with my father this morning who is recovering from a wrist operation and can't push a trolley or lift bags.
Anyway I was surprised at a lot of the anti Theresa May talk I overheard by pensioners as we were going around the supermarkets in Accrington and Great Harwood, kept hearing the word 'betrayed'. That's of course only at 3 supermarkets we went to, but I do wonder if elsewhere and across the country there is a rising unhappiness with her with a demographic that usually votes Tory and does actually get out and vote.
Overall I have not all been impressed with their campaign, is it hubris or arrogance? They think Corbyn and his brand of Labour has no chance and therefore don't feel the need to really put that effort in? That's just the campaign itself that manifesto itself has some things in it I didn't think they would go for. Maybe they feel it's a shoe in that they will win and have been a bit riskier with their manifesto ideas.
It feels to me like the phony war before the war proper. As we are into the last 3 weeks it needs to stop feeling like that pretty soon.
An interesting aspect of the Tory manifesto which I don't think has received much notice: its presentation. Under Cameron, we had good-quality typography with lots of pretty pictures, quotations from 'ordinary people', and plenty of white space. This one is just a dense chunk of text with small margins. The overall effect is one of relentless, serious, text.. It looks very much as though it's been produced in the PM's office with no professional graphic design input at all.
Substance over style? It may also be why it didn't leak.....
Went shopping with my father this morning who is recovering from a wrist operation and can't push a trolley or lift bags.
Anyway I was surprised at a lot of the anti Theresa May talk I overheard by pensioners as we were going around the supermarkets in Accrington and Great Harwood, kept hearing the word 'betrayed'. That's of course only at 3 supermarkets we went to, but I do wonder if elsewhere and across the country there is a rising unhappiness with her with a demographic that usually votes Tory and does actually get out and vote.
Overall I have not all been impressed with their campaign, is it hubris or arrogance? They think Corbyn and his brand of Labour has no chance and therefore don't feel the need to really put that effort in? That's just the campaign itself that manifesto itself has some things in it I didn't think they would go for. Maybe they feel it's a shoe in that they will win and have been a bit riskier with their manifesto ideas.
You need to go to three different supermarkets to get his shopping??
My wife has a friend who goes to Morrison, Aldi, Lidl and the market every Friday, because she's convinced it saves her money.
Of course, all this stuff gets loaded into her car and carted from one supermarket to another, and I reckon that factoring in petrol and other running costs (to say nothing of time) she might as well just pick any supermarket that isn't M&S or Waitrose and stay there. But what do I know?
Went shopping with my father this morning who is recovering from a wrist operation and can't push a trolley or lift bags.
Anyway I was surprised at a lot of the anti Theresa May talk I overheard by pensioners as we were going around the supermarkets in Accrington and Great Harwood, kept hearing the word 'betrayed'. That's of course only at 3 supermarkets we went to, but I do wonder if elsewhere and across the country there is a rising unhappiness with her with a demographic that usually votes Tory and does actually get out and vote.
Overall I have not all been impressed with their campaign, is it hubris or arrogance? They think Corbyn and his brand of Labour has no chance and therefore don't feel the need to really put that effort in? That's just the campaign itself that manifesto itself has some things in it I didn't think they would go for. Maybe they feel it's a shoe in that they will win and have been a bit riskier with their manifesto ideas.
You need to go to three different supermarkets to get his shopping??
Yeah he likes to shop around, go to one supermarket for one thing like meat or veg, some things on offer at another etc.
Might be an old habit or routine, because my late mother was the one who was really into shopping around and he seems to be carrying it on.
Just catching up with the thread. So if, I've got this right, in future you will only be allowed to vote if you need to collect a parcel from the sorting office?
snip
In a democracy, personation is one of the worst crimes there is. Who steals my purse, steals trash, but casting 10 moody votes amounts to stealing ten times my own democratic stake in the country. If confused old biddies aren't gonna vote that's a shame (and party activists can mitigate the problem by identifying them and helping them get some sort of ID) but it is nowhere compared to the absolute necessity of ensuring that one man gets one vote.
The same applies in spades to postal voting.
Here's a helpful publication from the HoC Library.
"but it is nowhere compared to the absolute necessity of ensuring that one man gets one vote."
The question is how far you go down the road of ensuring that without making it so that one man cannot vote. There are other priorities that are just as, if not more important: for example ensuring that the vote remains secret, and that everyone eligible to vote has a reasonable opportunity to vote.
The whole voting process is a compromise - a balance - between sometimes competing requirements.
But again, I ask what the purpose of this change is? What problem is it trying to solve?
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
In that case, can you explain why forbidding photography in polling stations is thought to be a deterrent?
I must confess I hadn't read it carefully enough to find the bit you quote. Perhaps this is testing the waters before restricting postal voting?
JackW - I think that there is a good case for holding a general election between the Brexit referendum and the start of Brexit negotiations so that HMG has a mandate for conducting those negotiations.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
If the EU will, we will
Also a difference between those with permanent right to remain and those who have chosen to utilise a more temporary arrangement based on an agreement between states
When you resort to such sophistry you are losing, Charles. EU citizens had no reason to believe they were utilising a temporary arrangement. You know that, whatever you may write here.
Not sophistry. If someone has a permanent right to remain they have entered into a contract with the British state. If someone is relying on an agreement between their home state and the state in which they are resident they are assuming that those rights will remain unchanged, but they have no guarantee that is the case
Sadly the Jacobites have been out of power for the last few elections.
I am equal opportunity opponent of the abuse of power by the Labour PM's too, whether it be Blair in 01 or 05, Wilson in 66, 70 or 74 and Attlee in 51.
Since 1951 Conservatives have won 11 times (if we take 2017 as read; 13 times if we take the next two as read too as seems psephologically likely), and Labour 6 times. So there has been no equality of opportunity to call an election. It has been a Conservative opportunity by a factor of 2 to 1.
Principled opposition to a sitting PM's right in general to determine election timing therefore aligns with parti pris opposition to Conservative PMs in particular.
I am sure there are all sorts of examples for other allegiances.
Is there a word for taking a high-minded view on a matter which happens also to align conveniently with one's own personal interests? Murderers expressing principled opposition to the death sentence, for example, or car parking offenders who object on moral grounds to wheel clamps? It feels like there ought to be. It's like casuistry but more so.
The FTPA encourages slightly longer term thinking and removes an unfair advantage for the governing party of the day.
Even if most ££ is from Uncle Len, I assume they have slightly more to spend on this election than 2015 with the incoming money from new members. Is it possible that the Tory-Labour spending imbalance will be less, affecting the outcome slightly in key marginals? Every Ilford North, Hampstead, Hove, Exeter and even Chester matters!
Posters these days are more for the media than the billboard - they save a lot of money that way.
Sadly the Jacobites have been out of power for the last few elections.
I am equal opportunity opponent of the abuse of power by the Labour PM's too, whether it be Blair in 01 or 05, Wilson in 66, 70 or 74 and Attlee in 51.
Since 1951 Conservatives have won 11 times (if we take 2017 as read; 13 times if we take the next two as read too as seems psephologically likely), and Labour 6 times. So there has been no equality of opportunity to call an election. It has been a Conservative opportunity by a factor of 2 to 1.
Principled opposition to a sitting PM's right in general to determine election timing therefore aligns with parti pris opposition to Conservative PMs in particular.
I am sure there are all sorts of examples for other allegiances.
Is there a word for taking a high-minded view on a matter which happens also to align conveniently with one's own personal interests? Murderers expressing principled opposition to the death sentence, for example, or car parking offenders who object on moral grounds to wheel clamps? It feels like there ought to be. It's like casuistry but more so.
The FTPA encourages slightly longer term thinking and removes an unfair advantage for the governing party of the day.
I've always thought that having some uncertainty over the next election date is a good way of making sure the opposition is always 'on its toes' and holding the Government to account throughout its term rather than just disappearing for four and a half years.
Just catching up with the thread. So if, I've got this right, in future you will only be allowed to vote if you need to collect a parcel from the sorting office?
snip
In a democracy, personation is one of the worst crimes there is. Who steals my purse, steals trash, but casting 10 moody votes amounts to stealing ten times my own democratic stake in the country. If confused old biddies aren't gonna vote that's a shame (and party activists can mitigate the problem by identifying them and helping them get some sort of ID) but it is nowhere compared to the absolute necessity of ensuring that one man gets one vote.
The same applies in spades to postal voting.
Here's a helpful publication from the HoC Library.
"but it is nowhere compared to the absolute necessity of ensuring that one man gets one vote."
The question is how far you go down the road of ensuring that without making it so that one man cannot vote. There are other priorities that are just as, if not more important: for example ensuring that the vote remains secret, and that everyone eligible to vote has a reasonable opportunity to vote.
The whole voting process is a compromise - a balance - between sometimes competing requirements.
But again, I ask what the purpose of this change is? What problem is it trying to solve?
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
In that case, can you explain why forbidding photography in polling stations is thought to be a deterrent?
I must confess I hadn't read it carefully enough to find the bit you quote. Perhaps this is testing the waters before restricting postal voting?
I thought the photography point was to stop people 'proving' how they've voted in response to potential bribes or threats? Most of our election rules derive from an age when the principal concern was preventing the wealthy and powerful from corrupting the secret ballot.
G-Live - Summary from last night's ITV leader debate.
There’s a reason why PMQs attracts so much interest at Westminster, even though the quality of “debate” is often poor. It’s because, when the prime minister and the leader of the opposition are speaking, there’s a hinge that connects the arguments to decisions that get taken, things that happen, stuff that matters etc. The PM and opposition leader have to defend what they do, and so whether they can defend it or not convincingly actually counts.
But if the people who are engaged in a political debate don’t have that sort of authority, even if they speak with the wit and intellect of characters from an Aaron Sorkin drama, it is not going to have the same edge. And no one would confuse what happened tonight with a Sorkin script.
Which is a round-about way of saying it was all a bit dull, and it does not really matter. In fact, I’m not quite sure why I’m still here.
I'm sure it's been covered well on here over the last 24 hours but there's no getting away from the fact the Tories have scored a significant own goal over social care. The policy they propose is similar to the one BBC Moneybox's in -house raging lefty Paul Lewis mooted and is supported by the Polly Twaddles of this world. Very dangerous political territory indeed - we know how the polls shifted sharply to the Tories in October 2007 when Osborne as shadow chancellor proposed raising the IHT threshold to £1m - the converse could happen now . Time to start buying Labour in some of the Tories more outlandish targets.
The first time I heard about the Brexit campaign was overhearing John Gaunt mentioning it way way back around 2012 (I think) in the Coventry Rugby club bar.
I thought the photography point was to stop people 'proving' how they've voted in response to potential bribes or threats? Most of our election rules derive from an age when the principal concern was preventing the wealthy and powerful from corrupting the secret ballot.
Oh of course. I was thinking it was photographing people which was verboten. Doh.
A thought on voting intentions impact, triple lock pick and winter fuel means testing have been very heavily trailed already. They were not a surprise. Social care won't shift votes much. Don't bank on a May slump or a corbounce
"but it is nowhere compared to the absolute necessity of ensuring that one man gets one vote."
The question is how far you go down the road of ensuring that without making it so that one man cannot vote. There are other priorities that are just as, if not more important: for example ensuring that the vote remains secret, and that everyone eligible to vote has a reasonable opportunity to vote.
The whole voting process is a compromise - a balance - between sometimes competing requirements.
But again, I ask what the purpose of this change is? What problem is it trying to solve?
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
Yes, it's a difficult one this, with the balance between ensuring that everyone gets a vote but also ensuring that everyone entitled has the opportunity to vote.
Hopefully the recent re-registration exercise has removed a lot of the opportunity for fraud, as would tighter control of postal votes (perhaps accompanied by early voting). Allowing the list of ID that Royal Mail uses might be a starting point, I believe the Electoral Commission have already suggested something similar.
We need to stay well away from making access to voting a partisan issue, as it is in the USA, where both sides bring up well rehearsed arguments for and against all sorts of things related to voting, when it's clear the reasons behind their position are purely partisan. Getting multi-party support behind an EC proposal is probably the correct way forward here.
There's also the added, shall we say "Cultural" issues in certain "Communities", which give their own problems. These are best resolved by better policing on the day of the election, especially around polling stations.
Maybe they feel it's a shoe in that they will win and have been a bit riskier with their manifesto ideas.
I think so. When you're 15 or 16 points ahead, you can blow 5 or 6 on something necessary but unpopular, and still win.
What was always odd about Blair was that despite being in that position twice, he never stood on anything particularly radical. If he had run in 2001 on a platform of "I'm going to invade a random Middle Eastern country" he would still have won.
What was always odd about Blair was that despite being in that position twice, he never stood on anything particularly radical. If he had run in 2001 on a platform of "I'm going to invade a random Middle Eastern country" he would still have won.
Or more realistically - 'We're going to joint the Euro'.
If he'd done that his political capital would have been used up on something worthwhile and he might have had to fall in with the mainstream European position on Iraq too.
Maybe they feel it's a shoe in that they will win and have been a bit riskier with their manifesto ideas.
I think so. When you're 15 or 16 points ahead, you can blow 5 or 6 on something necessary but unpopular, and still win.
What was always odd about Blair was that despite being in that position twice, he never stood on anything particularly radical. If he had run in 2001 on a platform of "I'm going to invade a random Middle Eastern country" he would still have won.
Blair won in 2005 on a platform of "I've already invaded a random Middle East country"!
**Betting tip** - Labour to gain Leeds North West at 10/1 with bet365.com. Even when Michael Foot took Labour to disaster in 1983 the party was still able to make 4 seat gains in the process. Leeds North West looks like it could be one of the very few gains of the night for Labour this time. With the current polling it’s probably fair to look at this seat as a 3-way marginal. With the Liberal Democrats struggling against expectations in the general election Greg Mulholland looks vulnerable to Corbyn’s Labour in a constituency with a lot of students and young graduates.
Corbyn visited the constituency last week and so big were the crowds that roads had to be closed. While Corbynmania might not be present in the vast majority of marginal seats, it’s fair to say that that it is very clearly here as the news reports show:
The results in 2015 were: Lib Dem 15,948 Labour 13,041 Con 8,083 Green 3,041 UKIP 2,997
The only downside for Labour is that UKIP aren’t standing a candidate and the Greens are. But this is probably a seat with a bit of a ceiling to the number of people who would vote Conservative. I think Labour are right in the mix here and I wouldn’t be sleeping easy if I were Greg Mulholland. Ladbrokes price a Labour gain at 5/1 (which I still think represents value) but the 10s with Bet365 is very generous:
What was always odd about Blair was that despite being in that position twice, he never stood on anything particularly radical. If he had run in 2001 on a platform of "I'm going to invade a random Middle Eastern country" he would still have won.
Or more realistically - 'We're going to joint the Euro'.
If he'd done that his political capital would have been used up on something worthwhile and he might have had to fall in with the mainstream European position on Iraq too.
And we and Germany could be joining hands to bend Greece over a barrel.
Taking food out of kiddies tummies will lose more votes than mums detached pile
No it won't as universal school meals for key stage 1 don't solve anything. A free breakfast is a far better use of less resources....
Equally the only people who care about that is a few parents with pre-school children - the inheritance is somewthing a lot more people may care about.
Either way May at least is suggesting something and not kicking it down the road for another 5 years....
Taking food out of kiddies tummies will lose more votes than mums detached pile
Setting good eating habits via school meals is not just a poverty issue, it is a health issue. We have a childhood obesity epidemic, which will make for very unhealthy adults. Lunchboxes are full of unhealthy items, often just sweets, biscuits and crisps.
It is the middle aged with frail parents whose votes may be shifted by the social care funding issue, from the secondary effects.
Even if most ££ is from Uncle Len, I assume they have slightly more to spend on this election than 2015 with the incoming money from new members. Is it possible that the Tory-Labour spending imbalance will be less, affecting the outcome slightly in key marginals? Every Ilford North, Hampstead, Hove, Exeter and even Chester matters!
Posters these days are more for the media than the billboard - they save a lot of money that way.
Agreed, but if they want a rapid rebuttal unit complete with poster designers - a picture being worth 1000 words - I assume they have to pay them? The Tories pay people to do the opposite.
Taking food out of kiddies tummies will lose more votes than mums detached pile
Except that it's not true. The Tory poll bounce in Oct 2007 came in part from people who didn't even have sufficient assets to benefit from the Inheritance Tax cut. It's perceptions that count.
And we and Germany could be joining hands to bend Greece over a barrel.
If we had had a different opinion about how to handle Greece we would have played a major role, instead of washing our hands of it and using it for propagandistic purposes.
Taking food out of kiddies tummies will lose more votes than mums detached pile
No it won't as universal school meals for key stage 1 don't solve anything. A free breakfast is a far better use of less resources....
Equally the only people who care about that is a few parents with pre-school children - the inheritance is somewthing a lot more people may care about.
Either way May at least is suggesting something and not kicking it down the road for another 5 years....
Not debating the validity of the policy, just it's perception and impact
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
If the EU will, we will
Also a difference between those with permanent right to remain and those who have chosen to utilise a more temporary arrangement based on an agreement between states
When you resort to such sophistry you are losing, Charles. EU citizens had no reason to believe they were utilising a temporary arrangement. You know that, whatever you may write here.
Not sophistry. If someone has a permanent right to remain they have entered into a contract with the British state. If someone is relying on an agreement between their home state and the state in which they are resident they are assuming that those rights will remain unchanged, but they have no guarantee that is the case
Sophistry, I'm afraid. Your case would not stand up in court. The UK's membership of the European Union was never intended to be a temporary arrangement. The fact that the practicalities of leaving are so extraordinarily complex demonstrates that.
Taking food out of kiddies tummies will lose more votes than mums detached pile
No it won't as universal school meals for key stage 1 don't solve anything. A free breakfast is a far better use of less resources....
Well I think it's ridiculous that we've come to this situation. There's no excuse on this planet that parents cannot afford to feed their children. My mother always said that she would go without before I went hungry. If parents thought about/knew, real needs from wants then a lot of these issues would disappear.
Taking food out of kiddies tummies will lose more votes than mums detached pile
Except that it's not true. The Tory poll bounce in Oct 2007 came in part from people who didn't even have sufficient assets to benefit from the Inheritance Tax cut. It's perceptions that count.
Death happens regardless. Care at home for dementia sometimes happens, to a few. One is toxic, the other is a worry. The opprobrium appears to be mostly from grasping middle agers with their greedy mitts out.
It cuts both ways. It's also a message to the UK that if we focus on the money, we can forget about a deal.
No, the problem was that they were wanting a guarantee from us of shedloads of money, with no guarantee from them of a deal in return. They seem gradually to be edging towards the realisation that that approach is completely ludicrous.
Had they bothered to read PB.com over the last year, they would already know that.
The question is whether they are edging towards sanity on that question fast enough to be able to reach an agreement before it's too late. I'm not sure they are.
So with no deal, how does Mrs May deliver the improvements to living standards she is promising and the elimination of the deficit within eight years? A cynic might conclude she is making promises she knows she cannot keep in the hope of being able to pin the blame for failure on the European Union. Surely not.
I'm not sure 'sense of entitlement' is a card the SNP gets to play any more - least of all against a farm worker's son.....that said, I think Robertson will hold on - even against the EU/Fisheries & sindyRef winds.....
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
If the EU will, we will
Also a difference between those with permanent right to remain and those who have chosen to utilise a more temporary arrangement based on an agreement between states
When you resort to such sophistry you are losing, Charles. EU citizens had no reason to believe they were utilising a temporary arrangement. You know that, whatever you may write here.
Not sophistry. If someone has a permanent right to remain they have entered into a contract with the British state. If someone is relying on an agreement between their home state and the state in which they are resident they are assuming that those rights will remain unchanged, but they have no guarantee that is the case
Sophistry, I'm afraid. Your case would not stand up in court. The UK's membership of the European Union was never intended to be a temporary arrangement. The fact that the practicalities of leaving are so extraordinarily complex demonstrates that.
Not sophistry. A nice distinction. But this could all have been resolved if Merkel had accepted May's proposal
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
If the EU will, we will
Also a difference between those with permanent right to remain and those who have chosen to utilise a more temporary arrangement based on an agreement between states
When you resort to such sophistry you are losing, Charles. EU citizens had no reason to believe they were utilising a temporary arrangement. You know that, whatever you may write here.
Not sophistry. If someone has a permanent right to remain they have entered into a contract with the British state. If someone is relying on an agreement between their home state and the state in which they are resident they are assuming that those rights will remain unchanged, but they have no guarantee that is the case
Sophistry, I'm afraid. Your case would not stand up in court. The UK's membership of the European Union was never intended to be a temporary arrangement. The fact that the practicalities of leaving are so extraordinarily complex demonstrates that.
Not sophistry. A nice distinction. But this could all have been resolved if Merkel had accepted May's proposal
Taking food out of kiddies tummies will lose more votes than mums detached pile
Except that it's not true. The Tory poll bounce in Oct 2007 came in part from people who didn't even have sufficient assets to benefit from the Inheritance Tax cut. It's perceptions that count.
Death happens regardless. Care at home for dementia sometimes happens, to a few. One is toxic, the other is a worry. The opprobrium appears to be mostly from grasping middle agers with their greedy mitts out.
And how many of those grasping middle agers are going to vote instead for a Marxist who thinks personal property is theft?
That's Mrs May's calculation, and I think it's the right one. At least one politician has the guts to look at what's a bloody difficult issue that politicians have kicked down the road for decades.
Even if most ££ is from Uncle Len, I assume they have slightly more to spend on this election than 2015 with the incoming money from new members. Is it possible that the Tory-Labour spending imbalance will be less, affecting the outcome slightly in key marginals? Every Ilford North, Hampstead, Hove, Exeter and even Chester matters!
It's a take off of the famous LABOUR'S DOUBLE WHAMMY – HIGHER TAXES, RISING PRICES.
Even if most ££ is from Uncle Len, I assume they have slightly more to spend on this election than 2015 with the incoming money from new members. Is it possible that the Tory-Labour spending imbalance will be less, affecting the outcome slightly in key marginals? Every Ilford North, Hampstead, Hove, Exeter and even Chester matters!
It's a take off of the famous LABOUR'S DOUBLE WHAMMY – HIGHER TAXES, RISING PRICES.
**Betting tip** - Labour to gain Leeds North West at 10/1 with bet365.com. Even when Michael Foot took Labour to disaster in 1983 the party was still able to make 4 seat gains in the process. Leeds North West looks like it could be one of the very few gains of the night for Labour this time. With the current polling it’s probably fair to look at this seat as a 3-way marginal. With the Liberal Democrats struggling against expectations in the general election Greg Mulholland looks vulnerable to Corbyn’s Labour in a constituency with a lot of students and young graduates.
Corbyn visited the constituency last week and so big were the crowds that roads had to be closed. While Corbynmania might not be present in the vast majority of marginal seats, it’s fair to say that that it is very clearly here as the news reports show:
The results in 2015 were: Lib Dem 15,948 Labour 13,041 Con 8,083 Green 3,041 UKIP 2,997
The only downside for Labour is that UKIP aren’t standing a candidate and the Greens are. But this is probably a seat with a bit of a ceiling to the number of people who would vote Conservative. I think Labour are right in the mix here and I wouldn’t be sleeping easy if I were Greg Mulholland. Ladbrokes price a Labour gain at 5/1 (which I still think represents value) but the 10s with Bet365 is very generous:
But this could all have been resolved if Merkel had accepted May's proposal
A certain kind of Brexiteer will cling to this delusion throughout the entire disastrous process. It'll all be because Merkel is a 'bloody difficult woman'.
**Betting tip** - Labour to gain Leeds North West at 10/1 with bet365.com. Even when Michael Foot took Labour to disaster in 1983 the party was still able to make 4 seat gains in the process. Leeds North West looks like it could be one of the very few gains of the night for Labour this time. With the current polling it’s probably fair to look at this seat as a 3-way marginal. With the Liberal Democrats struggling against expectations in the general election Greg Mulholland looks vulnerable to Corbyn’s Labour in a constituency with a lot of students and young graduates.
Corbyn visited the constituency last week and so big were the crowds that roads had to be closed. While Corbynmania might not be present in the vast majority of marginal seats, it’s fair to say that that it is very clearly here as the news reports show:
The results in 2015 were: Lib Dem 15,948 Labour 13,041 Con 8,083 Green 3,041 UKIP 2,997
The only downside for Labour is that UKIP aren’t standing a candidate and the Greens are. But this is probably a seat with a bit of a ceiling to the number of people who would vote Conservative. I think Labour are right in the mix here and I wouldn’t be sleeping easy if I were Greg Mulholland. Ladbrokes price a Labour gain at 5/1 (which I still think represents value) but the 10s with Bet365 is very generous:
Maybe they feel it's a shoe in that they will win and have been a bit riskier with their manifesto ideas.
I think so. When you're 15 or 16 points ahead, you can blow 5 or 6 on something necessary but unpopular, and still win.
What was always odd about Blair was that despite being in that position twice, he never stood on anything particularly radical. If he had run in 2001 on a platform of "I'm going to invade a random Middle Eastern country" he would still have won.
Blair won in 2005 on a platform of "I've already invaded a random Middle East country"!
Well, not quite, Sandy - he won on a platform of "I invaded a provenly dangerous Middle Eastern country", which isn't quite the same thing. I am flippantly suggesting he could actually have run on an invade-a-random-country ticket and still not lost enough support to lose the election.
Williamglenn's counter-example of joining the euro is much better, in that it's something out-there that he'd have liked to do. Of course the reason that specific policy never happened was because Blair was at odds with his own Chancellor. One is left with the odd feeling that Blair wanted to be PM because he wanted to be PM because he wanted to be PM (and this was certainly the case with Brown).
It seems a bit odd to have politicians who so obviously enter politics to be PM as an end in itself with no particular agenda in mind. It's as though their parties are just franchises that may take them where they want to be, in the same way that a businessman doesn't much care if he runs a Honda franchise or a BMW franchise as long as it pays.
I suppose though that this is true of all politicians these last 40 years, apart from Thatcher, Farage and the SNP.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
If the EU will, we will
Also a difference between those with permanent right to remain and those who have chosen to utilise a more temporary arrangement based on an agreement between states
When you resort to such sophistry you are losing, Charles. EU citizens had no reason to believe they were utilising a temporary arrangement. You know that, whatever you may write here.
Not sophistry. If someone has a permanent right to remain they have entered into a contract with the British state. If someone is relying on an agreement between their home state and the state in which they are resident they are assuming that those rights will remain unchanged, but they have no guarantee that is the case
Sophistry, I'm afraid. Your case would not stand up in court. The UK's membership of the European Union was never intended to be a temporary arrangement. The fact that the practicalities of leaving are so extraordinarily complex demonstrates that.
So you think we had lost our sovereignty after all. Without asking the electorates opinion.
I've just thought, if the proposals for residential care go through, what's to stop councils in the affluent south setting up 5 star luxury homes staffed with overpaid hangers on, paid for by the £ millions of equity languishing in old Londoners piles?
**Betting tip** - Labour to gain Leeds North West at 10/1 with bet365.com. Even when Michael Foot took Labour to disaster in 1983 the party was still able to make 4 seat gains in the process. Leeds North West looks like it could be one of the very few gains of the night for Labour this time. With the current polling it’s probably fair to look at this seat as a 3-way marginal. With the Liberal Democrats struggling against expectations in the general election Greg Mulholland looks vulnerable to Corbyn’s Labour in a constituency with a lot of students and young graduates.
Corbyn visited the constituency last week and so big were the crowds that roads had to be closed. While Corbynmania might not be present in the vast majority of marginal seats, it’s fair to say that that it is very clearly here as the news reports show:
The results in 2015 were: Lib Dem 15,948 Labour 13,041 Con 8,083 Green 3,041 UKIP 2,997
The only downside for Labour is that UKIP aren’t standing a candidate and the Greens are. But this is probably a seat with a bit of a ceiling to the number of people who would vote Conservative. I think Labour are right in the mix here and I wouldn’t be sleeping easy if I were Greg Mulholland. Ladbrokes price a Labour gain at 5/1 (which I still think represents value) but the 10s with Bet365 is very generous:
Great tip. BACKED. First and possibly only bet of the election for me. I like a longshot value bet. Note to PBers: THIS DOES NOT MEAN I AM PREDICTING A LAB WIN IN LEEDS NW. But I have backed it.
But this could all have been resolved if Merkel had accepted May's proposal
A certain kind of Brexiteer will cling to this delusion throughout the entire disastrous process. It'll all be because Merkel is a 'bloody difficult woman'.
If Brexit does not go well many, many people will get the blame - including a wide range of foreigners and any number of government critics. What you can be absolutely sure of, though, is that the wealthy, right-wing Brexiteers who sold the snake oil in the first place, and told everybody that there would be little to no downside in leaving, will accept absolutely no responsibility whatsoever.
Went shopping with my father this morning who is recovering from a wrist operation and can't push a trolley or lift bags.
Anyway I was surprised at a lot of the anti Theresa May talk I overheard by pensioners as we were going around the supermarkets in Accrington and Great Harwood, kept hearing the word 'betrayed'. That's of course only at 3 supermarkets we went to, but I do wonder if elsewhere and across the country there is a rising unhappiness with her with a demographic that usually votes Tory and does actually get out and vote.
Have heard the same round here. The "Baby Boomers" are in revolt lol!!!!!
I'm expecting quite a big hit for the Tories in the weekend polls 2-3% down.
Now they've unrelieved their manifesto they need to get back on to Brexit and Corbyn 24/7 from now until 8th June.
If it wasn't for Brexit and the threat of Corbyn I doubt I could vote for TMay. Too many stupid, nannying ideas. Ugh.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
If enough think like him, then Corbyn will get enough votes to hang on.
**Betting tip** - Labour to gain Leeds North West at 10/1 with bet365.com. Even when Michael Foot took Labour to disaster in 1983 the party was still able to make 4 seat gains in the process. Leeds North West looks like it could be one of the very few gains of the night for Labour this time. With the current polling it’s probably fair to look at this seat as a 3-way marginal. With the Liberal Democrats struggling against expectations in the general election Greg Mulholland looks vulnerable to Corbyn’s Labour in a constituency with a lot of students and young graduates.
Corbyn visited the constituency last week and so big were the crowds that roads had to be closed. While Corbynmania might not be present in the vast majority of marginal seats, it’s fair to say that that it is very clearly here as the news reports show:
The results in 2015 were: Lib Dem 15,948 Labour 13,041 Con 8,083 Green 3,041 UKIP 2,997
The only downside for Labour is that UKIP aren’t standing a candidate and the Greens are. But this is probably a seat with a bit of a ceiling to the number of people who would vote Conservative. I think Labour are right in the mix here and I wouldn’t be sleeping easy if I were Greg Mulholland. Ladbrokes price a Labour gain at 5/1 (which I still think represents value) but the 10s with Bet365 is very generous:
As I posted the other day, I can't understand why I am not being directed to campaign in Leeds NW rather than in safe Leeds Central.
Indeed. The seat includes Leeds 6 (Headingley area) which has one of the highest concentrations of students in the UK. 10-1 is absurd value. Thanks to Henry for the tip.
I read that on here, that she doesn't drink because it affects her diabetes. As you are mates with her, maybe you can confirm it?
She certainly wasn't teetotal at University. She was President of the Edmund Burke Society whose purposes were 'The making of funny speeches, the consumption of port and the minimisation of the President's bank balance' (the President paid for the port and you got an extra glass if you spoke...)
But this could all have been resolved if Merkel had accepted May's proposal
A certain kind of Brexiteer will cling to this delusion throughout the entire disastrous process. It'll all be because Merkel is a 'bloody difficult woman'.
No, it won't be.
I understand why Merkel took this position - having spent years of my life (which I will never get back) negotiating with Germans they take a very structured and methodical approach ("A before B before C").
Anglo-Saxons tend to be more outcome orientated.
It is clear that the right outcome is a reciprocal deal. But from a negotiation standpoint you simply can't make a unilateral gesture. May has made a conditional offer to secure the right outcome. Merkel's response was "A before B" ("no negotiation before Article 50")
Cultural differences like this are part of the reason why the EU doesn't work for the UK
Basically the Nats have lost their one-time supporters who respect democratic decisions.
The swing in Banff and Buchan could be around 20% I reckon. Will be the biggest pro-TOry swing of the entire election.
The constituency was 61% leave, miles higher than anywhere else in Scotland.
One battle doesn't win the war. May has outflanked Sturgeon by calling the election just after she called for Indy Ref 2, so the SNP will lose a few MPs as a result, but the SNP will still have 40+ MPs, plus control of the Scottish government. Tories and Brexiteers are still the minority and that isn't going to change. If Sturgeon continues to play her hand badly, she'll be replaced but Scotland and the SNP will remain a thorn in May's side. And if Brexit continues to be mishandled in Westminster the new Scottish Tory MSPs and MPs will be run out of town.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
So with no deal, how does Mrs May deliver the improvements to living standards she is promising and the elimination of the deficit within eight years? A cynic might conclude she is making promises she knows she cannot keep in the hope of being able to pin the blame for failure on the European Union. Surely not.
A cynic, or more likely a partisan supporter of an opposition party, might well say that, but would be entirely wrong to do so. She's made it absolutely clear that she wants a deal. She's made it very clear what kind of deal she wants - one which is very much in the interests of both sides. She's done everything she could, including calling this election, to make such a deal more likely.
If she's unsuccessful, it will be entirely because the EU27 don't want to do a deal. That would be very unfortunate, for both sides, and it will indeed make the economic position worse. No reasonable person would be able to blame her for that.
Went shopping with my father this morning who is recovering from a wrist operation and can't push a trolley or lift bags.
Anyway I was surprised at a lot of the anti Theresa May talk I overheard by pensioners as we were going around the supermarkets in Accrington and Great Harwood, kept hearing the word 'betrayed'. That's of course only at 3 supermarkets we went to, but I do wonder if elsewhere and across the country there is a rising unhappiness with her with a demographic that usually votes Tory and does actually get out and vote.
Have heard the same round here. The "Baby Boomers" are in revolt lol!!!!!
I'm expecting quite a big hit for the Tories in the weekend polls 2-3% down.
Now they've unrelieved their manifesto they need to get back on to Brexit and Corbyn 24/7 from now until 8th June.
If it wasn't for Brexit and the threat of Corbyn I doubt I could vote for TMay. Too many stupid, nannying ideas. Ugh.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
A lot of lefties are now talking that way Sean. The thinking seems to be that Corbyn will go anyway if he loses by 60+ seats but then Labour will be in contention to win again in 2022. My view is that any vote will be interpreted as a vote for Corbyn, although I think it's much harder than people think (or the PB Tories desperately wishfully think) for him to hang on in the face of even a modestly thumping defeat.
Agree about May. Ugh. She's a meddling busybody. A provincial dullard.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
The one thing I will admit Nick is that Corbyn is having a good campaign – he seems to like campaigning, whereas the other leaders clearly loathe it (May in particular looks like she desperately wants the whole thing to end). He is certainly not as bad as the caricature. I'll give him that.
Agree about the polling – I think the PB Tory panic is just the normal bedwetting. They'll be back up to around a 20pt lead by Sunday night, I should think.
If she's unsuccessful, it will be entirely becuase the EU27 don't want to do a deal. That would be very unfortunate, for both sides, and it will indeed make the economic position worse. No reasonable person would be able to blame her for that.
How many times in how many ways should the EU state that it is not going to offer a 'have cake and eat it' deal before it ceases to be news? Seeking such a deal is unfortunate and will be met with an entirely predictable and consistent response.
**Betting tip** - Labour to gain Leeds North West at 10/1 with bet365.com. Even when Michael Foot took Labour to disaster in 1983 the party was still able to make 4 seat gains in the process. Leeds North West looks like it could be one of the very few gains of the night for Labour this time. With the current polling it’s probably fair to look at this seat as a 3-way marginal. With the Liberal Democrats struggling against expectations in the general election Greg Mulholland looks vulnerable to Corbyn’s Labour in a constituency with a lot of students and young graduates.
Corbyn visited the constituency last week and so big were the crowds that roads had to be closed. While Corbynmania might not be present in the vast majority of marginal seats, it’s fair to say that that it is very clearly here as the news reports show:
The results in 2015 were: Lib Dem 15,948 Labour 13,041 Con 8,083 Green 3,041 UKIP 2,997
The only downside for Labour is that UKIP aren’t standing a candidate and the Greens are. But this is probably a seat with a bit of a ceiling to the number of people who would vote Conservative. I think Labour are right in the mix here and I wouldn’t be sleeping easy if I were Greg Mulholland. Ladbrokes price a Labour gain at 5/1 (which I still think represents value) but the 10s with Bet365 is very generous:
As I posted the other day, I can't understand why I am not being directed to campaign in Leeds NW rather than in safe Leeds Central.
Indeed. The seat includes Leeds 6 (Headingley area) which has one of the highest concentrations of students in the UK. 10-1 is absurd value. Thanks to Henry for the tip.
In terms of constituency bets Labour are currently big value in a) Lib Dem facing seats b) London marginals c) Welsh marginals d) Seats with high ethnic demographic
Any seat that contains "ex-mining towns" or a large "white working class vote", avoid with a giant stick.
I read that on here, that she doesn't drink because it affects her diabetes. As you are mates with her, maybe you can confirm it?
She certainly wasn't teetotal at University. She was President of the Edmund Burke Society whose purposes were 'The making of funny speeches, the consumption of port and the minimisation of the President's bank balance' (the President paid for the port and you got an extra glass if you spoke...)
I am sure I read somewhere (here?) that she was now a teetotaller, on account of her diabetes. I'm not able to verify it easily – apologies if it is inaccurate.
I read that on here, that she doesn't drink because it affects her diabetes. As you are mates with her, maybe you can confirm it?
She certainly wasn't teetotal at University. She was President of the Edmund Burke Society whose purposes were 'The making of funny speeches, the consumption of port and the minimisation of the President's bank balance' (the President paid for the port and you got an extra glass if you spoke...)
I read that on here, that she doesn't drink because it affects her diabetes. As you are mates with her, maybe you can confirm it?
She certainly wasn't teetotal at University. She was President of the Edmund Burke Society whose purposes were 'The making of funny speeches, the consumption of port and the minimisation of the President's bank balance' (the President paid for the port and you got an extra glass if you spoke...)
**Betting tip** - Labour to gain Leeds North West at 10/1 with bet365.com. Even when Michael Foot took Labour to disaster in 1983 the party was still able to make 4 seat gains in the process. Leeds North West looks like it could be one of the very few gains of the night for Labour this time. With the current polling it’s probably fair to look at this seat as a 3-way marginal. With the Liberal Democrats struggling against expectations in the general election Greg Mulholland looks vulnerable to Corbyn’s Labour in a constituency with a lot of students and young graduates.
Corbyn visited the constituency last week and so big were the crowds that roads had to be closed. While Corbynmania might not be present in the vast majority of marginal seats, it’s fair to say that that it is very clearly here as the news reports show:
The results in 2015 were: Lib Dem 15,948 Labour 13,041 Con 8,083 Green 3,041 UKIP 2,997
The only downside for Labour is that UKIP aren’t standing a candidate and the Greens are. But this is probably a seat with a bit of a ceiling to the number of people who would vote Conservative. I think Labour are right in the mix here and I wouldn’t be sleeping easy if I were Greg Mulholland. Ladbrokes price a Labour gain at 5/1 (which I still think represents value) but the 10s with Bet365 is very generous:
As I posted the other day, I can't understand why I am not being directed to campaign in Leeds NW rather than in safe Leeds Central.
Indeed. The seat includes Leeds 6 (Headingley area) which has one of the highest concentrations of students in the UK. 10-1 is absurd value. Thanks to Henry for the tip.
6/1 now sadly, still a great tip.
Damn, missed the 10/1, the power of PB again. Great tip @HenryGManson
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
Hmm. It's possible Labour might not gain, but I find it hard to believe the Tories won't take a hit from their utterly stupid social care policies (stupid as in badly presented and very hard to sell).
Dementia Tax. It's already a meme. Calamitously inept politics.
Like the 'bedroom tax' it is only a meme in areas that are unlikely to swing Tory, amongst those who like to moan about Tories. Many JAMs will be pleased that they don't have to spend their life savings so that Mr Richbags can have subsidelised care within his expensive house....
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
Yes, it's a difficult one this, with the balance between ensuring that everyone gets a vote but also ensuring that everyone entitled has the opportunity to vote.
Hopefully the recent re-registration exercise has removed a lot of the opportunity for fraud, as would tighter control of postal votes (perhaps accompanied by early voting). Allowing the list of ID that Royal Mail uses might be a starting point, I believe the Electoral Commission have already suggested something similar.
We need to stay well away from making access to voting a partisan issue, as it is in the USA, where both sides bring up well rehearsed arguments for and against all sorts of things related to voting, when it's clear the reasons behind their position are purely partisan. Getting multi-party support behind an EC proposal is probably the correct way forward here.
There's also the added, shall we say "Cultural" issues in certain "Communities", which give their own problems. These are best resolved by better policing on the day of the election, especially around polling stations.
Voter ID probably won't get through the Lords, and quite a few Tories would rebel too. As has been said so often, it's trying to solve a problem that hasn't been shown to exist, and therefore looks partisan. Postal voting has been a much bigger problem and one that still has to be resolved.
Went shopping with my father this morning who is recovering from a wrist operation and can't push a trolley or lift bags.
Anyway I was surprised at a lot of the anti Theresa May talk I overheard by pensioners as we were going around the supermarkets in Accrington and Great Harwood, kept hearing the word 'betrayed'. That's of course only at 3 supermarkets we went to, but I do wonder if elsewhere and across the country there is a rising unhappiness with her with a demographic that usually votes Tory and does actually get out and vote.
Have heard the same round here. The "Baby Boomers" are in revolt lol!!!!!
I'm expecting quite a big hit for the Tories in the weekend polls 2-3% down.
Now they've unrelieved their manifesto they need to get back on to Brexit and Corbyn 24/7 from now until 8th June.
If it wasn't for Brexit and the threat of Corbyn I doubt I could vote for TMay. Too many stupid, nannying ideas. Ugh.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
A lot of lefties are now talking that way Sean. The thinking seems to be that Corbyn will go anyway if he loses by 60+ seats but then Labour will be in contention to win again in 2022. My view is that any vote will be interpreted as a vote for Corbyn, although I think it's much harder than people think (or the PB Tories desperately wishfully think) for him to hang on in the face of even a modestly thumping defeat.
Agree about May. Ugh. She's a meddling busybody. A provincial dullard.
It's very telling that you repeatedly use "provincial" as an insult (you've done it at least twice in this thread alone!). Has it occurred to you that it may say more about you than it does about the provinces (whatever they are?)
In terms of constituency bets Labour are currently big value in a) Lib Dems facing seats b) London marginals c) Welsh marginals d) Seats with high ethnic demographic
Any seat that contains "ex-mining towns" or a large "white working class vote", avoid with a giant stick.
Went shopping with my father this morning who is recovering from a wrist operation and can't push a trolley or lift bags.
Anyway I was surprised at a lot of the anti Theresa May talk I overheard by pensioners as we were going around the supermarkets in Accrington and Great Harwood, kept hearing the word 'betrayed'. That's of course only at 3 supermarkets we went to, but I do wonder if elsewhere and across the country there is a rising unhappiness with her with a demographic that usually votes Tory and does actually get out and vote.
Have heard the same round here. The "Baby Boomers" are in revolt lol!!!!!
I'm expecting quite a big hit for the Tories in the weekend polls 2-3% down.
Now they've unrelieved their manifesto they need to get back on to Brexit and Corbyn 24/7 from now until 8th June.
If it wasn't for Brexit and the threat of Corbyn I doubt I could vote for TMay. Too many stupid, nannying ideas. Ugh.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I for one. I'm even out delivering leaflets in the nextdoor marginal to try and stop the Tory taking it.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
Hmm. It's possible Labour might not gain, but I find it hard to believe the Tories won't take a hit from their utterly stupid social care policies (stupid as in badly presented and very hard to sell).
Dementia Tax. It's already a meme. Calamitously inept politics.
PS My lefty friend is also hopeful that Corbyn will retire, immediately after a defeat, and be replaced by someone sensible and moderate. I pointed out that moderate lefties like him, returning to Labour to prevent a Tory landslide, are paradoxically guaranteeing that Corbyn will stay on, after a decent result.
He hadn't thought of that: he winced at the idea.
So he might change his mind, again.
I don't know why they didn't just keep hammering Corbyn and Brexit and issue a manifesto with just a few key (and vague) pledges.
Cameron made the same mistake in 2010 when instead of keeping the focus on Brown and the economy he got side-tracked with that big society rubbish.
Was probably the difference between a hung parliament and an overall majority.
Theresa's mistake will probably be the difference between a workable majority 40-50 and what could've been a landslide.
I read that on here, that she doesn't drink because it affects her diabetes. As you are mates with her, maybe you can confirm it?
She certainly wasn't teetotal at University. She was President of the Edmund Burke Society whose purposes were 'The making of funny speeches, the consumption of port and the minimisation of the President's bank balance' (the President paid for the port and you got an extra glass if you spoke...)
Does she fake it now?
That's just a bracing glass of fox blood. To be taken naked, twice a day.
If she's unsuccessful, it will be entirely becuase the EU27 don't want to do a deal. That would be very unfortunate, for both sides, and it will indeed make the economic position worse. No reasonable person would be able to blame her for that.
How many times in how many ways should the EU state that it is not going to offer a 'have cake and eat it' deal before it ceases to be news? Seeking such a deal is unfortunate and will be met with an entirely predictable and consistent response.
A free trade deal is not 'have cake and eat it', it's mutually beneficial. Indeed, many Remainers argued we needed to stay in the EU because it's good at making trade deals. Then half of Belgium nearly scuppered a deal with Canada 7 years in the making, people remembered that actually the EU is incompetent at making trade deals, like it is at most other things, and said we should have stayed because of how difficult making a trade deal with the EU is.
Bottom line is that if we don't get a trade deal it will be bad for both sides and it will be down to EU ineptitude/nastiness.
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
Yes, it's a difficult one this, with the balance between ensuring that everyone gets a vote but also ensuring that everyone entitled has the opportunity to vote.
Hopefully the recent re-registration exercise has removed a lot of the opportunity for fraud, as would tighter control of postal votes (perhaps accompanied by early voting). Allowing the list of ID that Royal Mail uses might be a starting point, I believe the Electoral Commission have already suggested something similar.
We need to stay well away from making access to voting a partisan issue, as it is in the USA, where both sides bring up well rehearsed arguments for and against all sorts of things related to voting, when it's clear the reasons behind their position are purely partisan. Getting multi-party support behind an EC proposal is probably the correct way forward here.
There's also the added, shall we say "Cultural" issues in certain "Communities", which give their own problems. These are best resolved by better policing on the day of the election, especially around polling stations.
Voter ID probably won't get through the Lords, and quite a few Tories would rebel too. As has been said so often, it's trying to solve a problem that hasn't been shown to exist, and therefore looks partisan. Postal voting has been a much bigger problem and one that still has to be resolved.
It's in the manifesto so why would the Lords block it or Tories rebel?
How many times in how many ways should the EU state that it is not going to offer a 'have cake and eat it' deal before it ceases to be news? Seeking such a deal is unfortunate and will be met with an entirely predictable and consistent response.
In which case there's little to discuss: our EU friends will be getting the sum total of zero as an exit payment, both sides will suffer severe economic damage, the Irish border question will be an unholy mess, and there will be utter chaos in a whole range of fields from air travel to medicines to security cooperation to financing of EU companies.
It's up to them whether they want this outcome, which as you say seems to be their current position. It's clearly not the UK's position. Therefore, it's not hard to see where the blame will lie.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
The one thing I will admit Nick is that Corbyn is having a good campaign – he seems to like campaigning, whereas the other leaders clearly loathe it (May in particular looks like she desperately wants the whole thing to end). He is certainly not as bad as the caricature. I'll give him that.
Agree about the polling – I think the PB Tory panic is just the normal bedwetting. They'll be back up to around a 20pt lead by Sunday night, I should think.
JC has had a good war and it's a long way from over. Like all right thinking people I refused to believe the stupid old twat could win but I thought that about Brexit and Trump vs HRC right up to the death.
I read that on here, that she doesn't drink because it affects her diabetes. As you are mates with her, maybe you can confirm it?
She certainly wasn't teetotal at University. She was President of the Edmund Burke Society whose purposes were 'The making of funny speeches, the consumption of port and the minimisation of the President's bank balance' (the President paid for the port and you got an extra glass if you spoke...)
Does she fake it now?
That's just a bracing glass of fox blood. To be taken naked, twice a day.
No it's not. Don't you know that when you eat baby stewed in its own juices, it's the done thing to drink the liquor out of a wine glass?
Comments
Principled opposition to a sitting PM's right in general to determine election timing therefore aligns with parti pris opposition to Conservative PMs in particular.
I am sure there are all sorts of examples for other allegiances.
Is there a word for taking a high-minded view on a matter which happens also to align conveniently with one's own personal interests? Murderers expressing principled opposition to the death sentence, for example, or car parking offenders who object on moral grounds to wheel clamps? It feels like there ought to be. It's like casuistry but more so.
I'm expecting quite a big hit for the Tories in the weekend polls 2-3% down.
Now they've unrelieved their manifesto they need to get back on to Brexit and Corbyn 24/7 from now until 8th June.
Of course, all this stuff gets loaded into her car and carted from one supermarket to another, and I reckon that factoring in petrol and other running costs (to say nothing of time) she might as well just pick any supermarket that isn't M&S or Waitrose and stay there. But what do I know?
Might be an old habit or routine, because my late mother was the one who was really into shopping around and he seems to be carrying it on.
I must confess I hadn't read it carefully enough to find the bit you quote. Perhaps this is testing the waters before restricting postal voting?
General Election analysis: 'If the vote was held only among the under-50s, Corbyn could beat May'
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-analysis-if-the-vote-was-held-only-among-the-under50s-corbyn-could-beat-may-a3543176.html
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/tories-gunning-angus-robertson-bullish-10450565
It certainly sounds like game on.
There’s a reason why PMQs attracts so much interest at Westminster, even though the quality of “debate” is often poor. It’s because, when the prime minister and the leader of the opposition are speaking, there’s a hinge that connects the arguments to decisions that get taken, things that happen, stuff that matters etc. The PM and opposition leader have to defend what they do, and so whether they can defend it or not convincingly actually counts.
But if the people who are engaged in a political debate don’t have that sort of authority, even if they speak with the wit and intellect of characters from an Aaron Sorkin drama, it is not going to have the same edge. And no one would confuse what happened tonight with a Sorkin script.
Which is a round-about way of saying it was all a bit dull, and it does not really matter. In fact, I’m not quite sure why I’m still here.
Hopefully the recent re-registration exercise has removed a lot of the opportunity for fraud, as would tighter control of postal votes (perhaps accompanied by early voting). Allowing the list of ID that Royal Mail uses might be a starting point, I believe the Electoral Commission have already suggested something similar.
We need to stay well away from making access to voting a partisan issue, as it is in the USA, where both sides bring up well rehearsed arguments for and against all sorts of things related to voting, when it's clear the reasons behind their position are purely partisan. Getting multi-party support behind an EC proposal is probably the correct way forward here.
There's also the added, shall we say "Cultural" issues in certain "Communities", which give their own problems. These are best resolved by better policing on the day of the election, especially around polling stations.
What was always odd about Blair was that despite being in that position twice, he never stood on anything particularly radical. If he had run in 2001 on a platform of "I'm going to invade a random Middle Eastern country" he would still have won.
If he'd done that his political capital would have been used up on something worthwhile and he might have had to fall in with the mainstream European position on Iraq too.
Probably just an issue with the latest patch but given it's a week today since the cyber attack it's kind of worrying.
No formal response from MB yet.
Corbyn visited the constituency last week and so big were the crowds that roads had to be closed. While Corbynmania might not be present in the vast majority of marginal seats, it’s fair to say that that it is very clearly here as the news reports show:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-just-held-election-10428984
The results in 2015 were:
Lib Dem 15,948
Labour 13,041
Con 8,083
Green 3,041
UKIP 2,997
The only downside for Labour is that UKIP aren’t standing a candidate and the Greens are. But this is probably a seat with a bit of a ceiling to the number of people who would vote Conservative. I think Labour are right in the mix here and I wouldn’t be sleeping easy if I were Greg Mulholland. Ladbrokes price a Labour gain at 5/1 (which I still think represents value) but the 10s with Bet365 is very generous:
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/leeds-north-west/winning-party
Equally the only people who care about that is a few parents with pre-school children - the inheritance is somewthing a lot more people may care about.
Either way May at least is suggesting something and not kicking it down the road for another 5 years....
It is the middle aged with frail parents whose votes may be shifted by the social care funding issue, from the secondary effects.
One is toxic, the other is a worry.
The opprobrium appears to be mostly from grasping middle agers with their greedy mitts out.
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/865519295417077760
That's Mrs May's calculation, and I think it's the right one. At least one politician has the guts to look at what's a bloody difficult issue that politicians have kicked down the road for decades.
Very neat, very clever. Anyone know the agency?
Williamglenn's counter-example of joining the euro is much better, in that it's something out-there that he'd have liked to do. Of course the reason that specific policy never happened was because Blair was at odds with his own Chancellor. One is left with the odd feeling that Blair wanted to be PM because he wanted to be PM because he wanted to be PM (and this was certainly the case with Brown).
It seems a bit odd to have politicians who so obviously enter politics to be PM as an end in itself with no particular agenda in mind. It's as though their parties are just franchises that may take them where they want to be, in the same way that a businessman doesn't much care if he runs a Honda franchise or a BMW franchise as long as it pays.
I suppose though that this is true of all politicians these last 40 years, apart from Thatcher, Farage and the SNP.
So you think we had lost our sovereignty after all. Without asking the electorates opinion.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2017/05/manifesto-small-print-1-terraced-streets-not-tower-blocks-for-new-homes.html
The only people making anything of this are SNP activists who appear determined to disrupt the event.
If enough think like him, then Corbyn will get enough votes to hang on.
And completely annihilate the Labour party.
https://www.research-live.com/article/opinion/economy--makes-way-for-brexit-in-voters-minds/id/5022682#.WR7FNc0Ictw.twitter
I understand why Merkel took this position - having spent years of my life (which I will never get back) negotiating with Germans they take a very structured and methodical approach ("A before B before C").
Anglo-Saxons tend to be more outcome orientated.
It is clear that the right outcome is a reciprocal deal. But from a negotiation standpoint you simply can't make a unilateral gesture. May has made a conditional offer to secure the right outcome. Merkel's response was "A before B" ("no negotiation before Article 50")
Cultural differences like this are part of the reason why the EU doesn't work for the UK
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
If she's unsuccessful, it will be entirely because the EU27 don't want to do a deal. That would be very unfortunate, for both sides, and it will indeed make the economic position worse. No reasonable person would be able to blame her for that.
Agree about May. Ugh. She's a meddling busybody. A provincial dullard.
Agree about the polling – I think the PB Tory panic is just the normal bedwetting. They'll be back up to around a 20pt lead by Sunday night, I should think.
a) Lib Dem facing seats
b) London marginals
c) Welsh marginals
d) Seats with high ethnic demographic
Any seat that contains "ex-mining towns" or a large "white working class vote", avoid with a giant stick.
A review here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/harrow-west-corbyn-people-are-more-likely-to-raise-fly-tipping
Cameron made the same mistake in 2010 when instead of keeping the focus on Brown and the economy he got side-tracked with that big society rubbish.
Was probably the difference between a hung parliament and an overall majority.
Theresa's mistake will probably be the difference between a workable majority 40-50 and what could've been a landslide.
Bottom line is that if we don't get a trade deal it will be bad for both sides and it will be down to EU ineptitude/nastiness.
It's up to them whether they want this outcome, which as you say seems to be their current position. It's clearly not the UK's position. Therefore, it's not hard to see where the blame will lie.