A few days back we had an unusual leaflet through the door (at least I cannot remember receiving a similar one). It's from our newly-elected Conservative district and county councillors, thanking us for electing them.
It does not mention the general election at all, but is clearly a Conservative leaflet. I wondered if this could be a slightly sneaky way of overcoming election expenses as it is clearly a Conservative leaflet.
It would be odd to want to cheat here in South Cambs, as there's f'all chance of anyone but Heidi Allen from winning.
Are leaflets like this unusual, or do I need to take off my tinfoil hat?
Christopher Hope @christopherhope It looks likely #ge2017 campaign won't start til Monday... "Tom Watson announces his campaign is on hold" http://po.st/5d1wOJ via @po_st
Monday? way too long, especially as it's a bank holiday/half-term.
Edit: Or not?
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor BREAKING Jeremy Corbyn tells staff at Labour HQ that local campaigning will resume tomorrow, with the national campaign re-starting Friday.
Top Labour campaigners are desperate to keep the focus on local rather than national issues. Now they have a black swan to justify it. Fortunately, it looks like Corbyn is ignoring their advice.
Game on from tomorrow. Less feeling, more action.
If the Tories are sensible they will announce that Hammond will take charge of the campaign while May stays at No. 10 to focus on the terror threat.
The octo-lemur claim May will win a majority of 102.
Worth noting two things: they got the EU referendum absolutely spot on (52-48 for Leave) they're prone to taking the piss [don't ask them for lottery numbers].
Completely pathetic by all involved if the campaigning is suspended for any longer than the end of today..
Tough one for the government. They surely have to nullify any immediate threats if possible, but yes - the public and the media will start asking questions if its postponed for any longer than a couple of days.
Norman Smith (the BBC fella with the giant hands) was specualting about next Tuesday. That would certainly start raising eyebrows.
Most of the Left aren't like that (80% of Labour MPs have no confidence in Corbyn). It's just that Corbyn's leadership has brought all the nutters crawling out of the woodwork.
I often think in these situations that it is all very well Owen Jones sat on his IMac drinking coffee churning out copy for his column, but if he he or someone close to him were directly affected by terrorism then I wonder how it would change him.
The one thing I admired about David Cameron was his openness about his disabled son. He had clearly used the NHS a despite his social standing, and it shaped his view of it.
I'd love for one of the Corbyn loving celebs who to put their hand in their pocket and send a cheque to HMRC every month for the increase in taxes they think should be paid to improve society. Rather than being a part of the tax dodge by setting up a company etc, demonstrate all taxes are paid, and then even more mailed to the tax office. That would be something I could get behind.
She claims to be shouting at the government, not the soldiers. She's "the voice of the people", and she's speaking for the soldiers not against them. And she's called Tina.
Didn’t know what the woman in the video was prattling on about until she turned around to reveal Corbyn’s face on her duffle bag. Tis a shame we can no longer deport angry nutters..
Christopher Hope @christopherhope It looks likely #ge2017 campaign won't start til Monday... "Tom Watson announces his campaign is on hold" http://po.st/5d1wOJ via @po_st
Monday? way too long, especially as it's a bank holiday/half-term.
Edit: Or not?
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor BREAKING Jeremy Corbyn tells staff at Labour HQ that local campaigning will resume tomorrow, with the national campaign re-starting Friday.
Top Labour campaigners are desperate to keep the focus on local rather than national issues. Now they have a black swan to justify it. Fortunately, it looks like Corbyn is ignoring their advice.
Game on from tomorrow. Less feeling, more action.
If the Tories are sensible they will announce that Hammond will take charge of the campaign while May stays at No. 10 to focus on the terror threat.
Actually, I don't think she's mad. Just very very passionate, and I guess that's fair enough. However this frothing is most-offputting to the regular voter.
The far left had their chance to win in the 1980s, but they lost. They think they have a second chance under Corbyn.
My mother voted tory for first time,she hates the traitor(That what's she calls him)
she's the voice of the people don't you know.....
My brother is a labour member, He will struggle to know what to do at the election because he hates Corbyn, and would not want to tacitly support him. I imagine he will stay at Joe, or spoil his paper.
The cynic might say that both Labour and the Conservatives benefit from pausing the campaign.
The Tories because their job is being done for them (and the PM has more important things to do right now).
And Labour because if Corbyn opens his mouth, he's only going to make it worse.
That Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.....
Corbyn must be terrified on a personal level, he wouldn't be human if he wasn't. When those three letters come out of Neil's mouth...I...R....A.
No notes, no assistants to save him, no Corbynistas to shield him.
Just him, Neil, and millions of viewers - no hiding place, not anymore.
Painful.
He will woolly his way through - he's done it many times before - and if pushed too hard will rebut that Neil is taking advantage of a tense situation to suggest impropriety where there was none. I'm already convinced on Corbyn in any case, but he's survived and thrived long past the point I thought he would, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up that people will 'wake up' as a result of Neil probing him.
Christopher Hope @christopherhope It looks likely #ge2017 campaign won't start til Monday... "Tom Watson announces his campaign is on hold" http://po.st/5d1wOJ via @po_st
Monday? way too long, especially as it's a bank holiday/half-term.
Edit: Or not?
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor BREAKING Jeremy Corbyn tells staff at Labour HQ that local campaigning will resume tomorrow, with the national campaign re-starting Friday.
Top Labour campaigners are desperate to keep the focus on local rather than national issues. Now they have a black swan to justify it. Fortunately, it looks like Corbyn is ignoring their advice.
Game on from tomorrow. Less feeling, more action.
If the Tories are sensible they will announce that Hammond will take charge of the campaign while May stays at No. 10 to focus on the terror threat.
Hammond the manifesto breaker ?
He's useless.
As I recall May was Prime Minister at the time - she approved breaching the manifesto pledge, or didn't notice it. If he was useless, she was worse, since she's his boss.
The cynic might say that both Labour and the Conservatives benefit from pausing the campaign.
The Tories because their job is being done for them (and the PM has more important things to do right now).
And Labour because if Corbyn opens his mouth, he's only going to make it worse.
That Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.....
Corbyn must be terrified on a personal level, he wouldn't be human if he wasn't. When those three letters come out of Neil's mouth...I...R....A.
No notes, no assistants to save him, no Corbynistas to shield him.
Just him, Neil, and millions of viewers - no hiding place, not anymore.
Painful.
He will woolly his way through - he's done it many times before - and if pushed too hard will rebut that Neil is taking advantage of a tense situation to suggest impropriety where there was none. I'm already convinced on Corbyn in any case, but he's survived and thrived long past the point I thought he would, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up that people will 'wake up' as a result of Neil probing him.
The public will see straight through those tactics, kle. There's no hiding place for Corbyn after that Sun front page splash. What's more, there can be no hiding place from the things he did and said of his own free will. It's not even as if he has a credible defence - he doesn't.
My wish is that Neil does not soften the blow bwcause of what's happened through some misguided sense of decency. It is more important now than ever before to expose Corbyn for what he is.
Most of the Left aren't like that (80% of Labour MPs have no confidence in Corbyn). It's just that Corbyn's leadership has brought all the nutters crawling out of the woodwork.
While that may be true Corbyn is the leader and face of the British Left today and these are his acolytes. The rest of the Labour MPs had multiple ways to stop Corbyn from being their leader but decided that keeping the Labour Party whole was more important than leaving Corbyn behind. That was their bed, they can lie in it. They are tacitly and explicitly putting Corbyn up as their leader to become Prime Minister.
Latest Labour campaign slogan: "If you decide to vote for May instead now, the terrorists have won."
I don't get it.
Don't let a tragedy change your voting intention. Though of course they would not use such a slogan.
I changed my mind from leave to remain a day before Jo Cox died I think.
Is the great British Jo Cox day still going ahead in June ? And have any events actually been organised ? Will be a good wake for the Corbynites - a week after the country votes for 5 more years of Tory rule and nailed on Brexit.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
My mother voted tory for first time,she hates the traitor(That what's she calls him)
she's the voice of the people don't you know.....
My brother is a labour member, He will struggle to know what to do at the election because he hates Corbyn, and would not want to tacitly support him. I imagine he will stay at Joe, or spoil his paper.
Vote Lib.Dem or Green?
The only choices for me; Labour doesn't understand remote rural areas and doesn't campaign seriously here. I live in what's been a safe to very safe seat since ...
not 1945 not 1918 but ... the Liberal landslide of 1906.
Kay burley on Sky reporting that yesterday the PM raised the threat level to critical. She's really not a very good journalist.
I don't follow you there ?
The threat level is not set by the PM, apparently, but by JTAC. Which seems a small distinction, except that some people were critical of May deciding to raise it, so it is relevant.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Very true. It's identical to the dementia tax furore as well. The so-called Labour surge may have happened anyway, but like you say, we'll never know for certain.
I think the Con>Lab drift in the last couple of weeks will entirely reverse. Apologies if any posters/lurkers are personally affected, but, to be blunt - I fully expect Manchester to give TM a second polling honeymoon of similar or greater magnitude to her first post-election announcement bounce.
I recon C2DE's & 50+'s are pretty much universally behind TM in their VI's right now.
And they'll vote.
The only way May could f*ck this up is with a De Menezes.
I think that is a correct reading of the situation.
May is a limited politician, but she really does not need too much ability to get this right from here.
Apart from de Menezes, the only other f*ck up might be if a terrorist's presence in the country could be directly ascribed to her long and not especially distinguished tenure at the Home Office.
The chances of either of these occurring seem slight, so I would say we are looking at a substantial Tory majority (130-150) from here.
The cynic might say that both Labour and the Conservatives benefit from pausing the campaign.
The Tories because their job is being done for them (and the PM has more important things to do right now).
And Labour because if Corbyn opens his mouth, he's only going to make it worse.
That Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.....
Corbyn must be terrified on a personal level, he wouldn't be human if he wasn't. When those three letters come out of Neil's mouth...I...R....A.
No notes, no assistants to save him, no Corbynistas to shield him.
Just him, Neil, and millions of viewers - no hiding place, not anymore.
Painful.
He will woolly his way through - he's done it many times before - and if pushed too hard will rebut that Neil is taking advantage of a tense situation to suggest impropriety where there was none. I'm already convinced on Corbyn in any case, but he's survived and thrived long past the point I thought he would, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up that people will 'wake up' as a result of Neil probing him.
The public will see straight through those tactics, kle. There's no hiding place for Corbyn after that Sun front page splash. What's more, there can be no hiding place from the things he did and said of his own free will. It's not even as if he has a credible defence - he doesn't.
My wish is that Neil does not soften the blow bwcause of what's happened through some misguided sense of decency. It is more important now than ever before to expose Corbyn for what he is.
I don't think I can predict anymore - not many will see it live, if he doesn't implode will anyone pick it up as it is breathlessly shared, has it been priced in? I do not think Corbyn is an evil man, but I think he and his views are unsuitable in all sorts of ways to be PM, and I'd hope that people would agree with that when they see him (whether that means voting LD, COn or someone else), but he's resilient.
< Didn’t know what the woman in the video was prattling on about until she turned around to reveal Corbyn’s face on her duffle bag. Tis a shame we can no longer deport angry nutters..
We live in a free society and she is allowed to express her opinion. Hopefully there'll be no charge or arrest because I fail to see what she has done "wrong" apart from being annoying and if everyone annoying was locked up, there'd be no one left.
As for the outrage about the Police being heckled, the Police have been heckled at times by both sides of the political spectrum. I've attended local Neighbourhood meetings where the local Inspector is pilloried for the actions of his officers (or usually inaction) and the language used against the Police is robust and the criticism trenchant (and often justified in terms of resources).
The Police are public servants and are therefore accountable to the public but they shouldn't be abused while doing their duty but as individuals we have the right to hold them and their actions to account.
A few days back we had an unusual leaflet through the door (at least I cannot remember receiving a similar one). It's from our newly-elected Conservative district and county councillors, thanking us for electing them.
It does not mention the general election at all, but is clearly a Conservative leaflet. I wondered if this could be a slightly sneaky way of overcoming election expenses as it is clearly a Conservative leaflet.
It would be odd to want to cheat here in South Cambs, as there's f'all chance of anyone but Heidi Allen from winning.
Are leaflets like this unusual, or do I need to take off my tinfoil hat?
When I was a Lib Dem activist in Hants in the '90s, "thank you" leaflets were absolutely de rigeur.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
I'd love for one of the Corbyn loving celebs who to put their hand in their pocket and send a cheque to HMRC every month for the increase in taxes they think should be paid to improve society. Rather than being a part of the tax dodge by setting up a company etc, demonstrate all taxes are paid, and then even more mailed to the tax office. That would be something I could get behind.
Personally I think the tax and honours systems should be combined so that you automatically get a gong if you have paid £1 million, £5 million, £10 million etc in income tax and NI. At some point you would automatically sit in the Lords, reformed into the House of Taxpayers. In effect the top 300 or so income tax payers in the land would form the upper house. These people would then scrutinise legislation for value for money, on account of it's mostly going to be their money.
The only person I have ever heard express gratitude to the higher rate taxpayers who basically fund everything is John McDonnell, bizarrely.
It would also silence rich tax-dodging hypocrites for good. If Jimmy Carr started to bang on about rich people dodging tax, he could be asked why he hasn't raised the matter in the HoTP. What's that Jimmy? You've not paid enough income tax to qualify for entry?
The cynic might say that both Labour and the Conservatives benefit from pausing the campaign.
The Tories because their job is being done for them (and the PM has more important things to do right now).
And Labour because if Corbyn opens his mouth, he's only going to make it worse.
That Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.....
Corbyn must be terrified on a personal level, he wouldn't be human if he wasn't. When those three letters come out of Neil's mouth...I...R....A.
No notes, no assistants to save him, no Corbynistas to shield him.
Just him, Neil, and millions of viewers - no hiding place, not anymore.
Painful.
He will woolly his way through - he's done it many times before - and if pushed too hard will rebut that Neil is taking advantage of a tense situation to suggest impropriety where there was none. I'm already convinced on Corbyn in any case, but he's survived and thrived long past the point I thought he would, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up that people will 'wake up' as a result of Neil probing him.
Labour has put on about 8 points since the start of the campaign, not least because Corbyn hasn't looked useless when he's been on the campaign trail - holding rallies and spouting platitudes is what he does best and where he feels most at home. But it's not long Labour was polling in the mid-20s and it wouldn't take too much to send them back there.
However, the party has shown commendable discipline and the media and strategy units have got popular policies into the news. There are probably quite a lot of voters who look at him and forget the serial incompetence or the unsavoury attitudes. That said, I wouldn't expect the viewing figures to be high or the impact - unless magnified by secondary reporting - to be great.
A few days back we had an unusual leaflet through the door (at least I cannot remember receiving a similar one). It's from our newly-elected Conservative district and county councillors, thanking us for electing them.
It does not mention the general election at all, but is clearly a Conservative leaflet. I wondered if this could be a slightly sneaky way of overcoming election expenses as it is clearly a Conservative leaflet.
It would be odd to want to cheat here in South Cambs, as there's f'all chance of anyone but Heidi Allen from winning.
Are leaflets like this unusual, or do I need to take off my tinfoil hat?
When I was a Lib Dem activist in Hants in the '90s, "thank you" leaflets were absolutely de rigeur.
< Didn’t know what the woman in the video was prattling on about until she turned around to reveal Corbyn’s face on her duffle bag. Tis a shame we can no longer deport angry nutters..
We live in a free society and she is allowed to express her opinion. Hopefully there'll be no charge or arrest because I fail to see what she has done "wrong" apart from being annoying and if everyone annoying was locked up, there'd be no one left.
As for the outrage about the Police being heckled, the Police have been heckled at times by both sides of the political spectrum. I've attended local Neighbourhood meetings where the local Inspector is pilloried for the actions of his officers (or usually inaction) and the language used against the Police is robust and the criticism trenchant (and often justified in terms of resources).
The Police are public servants and are therefore accountable to the public but they shouldn't be abused while doing their duty but as individuals we have the right to hold them and their actions to account.
We certainly do, and the duty to do so even. Yelling at them in the street isn't doing that of course, and if someone pretends them doing it is they are a fool, though as you suggest being annoying and/or a fool is not a crime and should not be a matter for anything official.
Kay burley on Sky reporting that yesterday the PM raised the threat level to critical. She's really not a very good journalist.
I don't follow you there ?
The threat level is not set by the PM, apparently, but by JTAC. Which seems a small distinction, except that some people were critical of May deciding to raise it, so it is relevant.
JTAC recommend but the PM ultimately decides.
It's difficult to perceive of a situation where a PM wouldn't accept their independent analysis and recommendation.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
That's a good idea, and I guess easier to do now that most polls are online rather than by phone. I'd imagine that a phone pollster would have been told where to get off if they'd tried ringing people in the last couple of days.
I wonder how the media deal with the election impartiality rules at a time like this, when clearly the PM and Home Sec are front and centre of the coverage by necessity and we have seen and heard little from other politicians. The theory would be that it shows the incumbents in a good light, but as you suggest it would be interesting to poll the same people that were polled on Monday today. I'd have thought someone must have had a poll running on Monday night, given the PMs statement earlier in the day on the social care policy clarification, followed by her interview with Andrew Neil in the evening.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
"Bomber was 'identified by bank card in his pocket' The update from police comes as US media reports that the bomber was identified by a bank card in his pocket.
According to NBC News, citing a US intelligence official, members of the bomber's family warned security officials about him in the past, saying that he was “dangerous”.
The official told the broadcaster that Abedi likely "had help" making “big and sophisticated bomb"."
I am never really sure how helpful to anybody tv crews running around following police raids and theedcamped outside while the police are trying to do their job.
Often the Police have arranged for them to be on site in advance.
For example, the BBC being outside when that famous singer's house was raided - the one who definitely didn't touch any children.
The cynic might say that both Labour and the Conservatives benefit from pausing the campaign.
The Tories because their job is being done for them (and the PM has more important things to do right now).
And Labour because if Corbyn opens his mouth, he's only going to make it worse.
That Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.....
Corbyn must be terrified on a personal level, he wouldn't be human if he wasn't. When those three letters come out of Neil's mouth...I...R....A.
No notes, no assistants to save him, no Corbynistas to shield him.
Just him, Neil, and millions of viewers - no hiding place, not anymore.
Painful.
He will woolly his way through - he's done it many times before - and if pushed too hard will rebut that Neil is taking advantage of a tense situation to suggest impropriety where there was none. I'm already convinced on Corbyn in any case, but he's survived and thrived long past the point I thought he would, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up that people will 'wake up' as a result of Neil probing him.
The public will see straight through those tactics, kle. There's no hiding place for Corbyn after that Sun front page splash. What's more, there can be no hiding place from the things he did and said of his own free will. It's not even as if he has a credible defence - he doesn't.
My wish is that Neil does not soften the blow bwcause of what's happened through some misguided sense of decency. It is more important now than ever before to expose Corbyn for what he is.
I don't think I can predict anymore - not many will see it live, if he doesn't implode will anyone pick it up as it is breathlessly shared, has it been priced in? I do not think Corbyn is an evil man, but I think he and his views are unsuitable in all sorts of ways to be PM, and I'd hope that people would agree with that when they see him (whether that means voting LD, COn or someone else), but he's resilient.
Evil is an interesting word. The most generous description I could give Corbyn is ambivalent, or equivocating. Those are his lifelong default positions regarding the West, uncluding Britain, and especially America.
He looks and sounds banal, inoffensive, puddled even, but underneath lurks something far more sinister. He is very good at hiding it. I really do think he's quite mad. I don't see how else it can be explained that he could rub shoulders with terrorist murderers waging war against the British State, and to then portray himself as a gentle, tree hugging pacifist.
It's just not possible, unless you are seriously bonkers.
A few days back we had an unusual leaflet through the door (at least I cannot remember receiving a similar one). It's from our newly-elected Conservative district and county councillors, thanking us for electing them.
It does not mention the general election at all, but is clearly a Conservative leaflet. I wondered if this could be a slightly sneaky way of overcoming election expenses as it is clearly a Conservative leaflet.
It would be odd to want to cheat here in South Cambs, as there's f'all chance of anyone but Heidi Allen from winning.
Are leaflets like this unusual, or do I need to take off my tinfoil hat?
When I was a Lib Dem activist in Hants in the '90s, "thank you" leaflets were absolutely de rigeur.
Ah, thanks.
And delivered during a GE it would be declarable for expenses, anyway.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
The cynic might say that both Labour and the Conservatives benefit from pausing the campaign.
The Tories because their job is being done for them (and the PM has more important things to do right now).
And Labour because if Corbyn opens his mouth, he's only going to make it worse.
That Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.....
Corbyn must be terrified on a personal level, he wouldn't be human if he wasn't. When those three letters come out of Neil's mouth...I...R....A.
No notes, no assistants to save him, no Corbynistas to shield him.
Just him, Neil, and millions of viewers - no hiding place, not anymore.
Painful.
He will woolly his way through - he's done it many times before - and if pushed too hard will rebut that Neil is taking advantage of a tense situation to suggest impropriety where there was none. I'm already convinced on Corbyn in any case, but he's survived and thrived long past the point I thought he would, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up that people will 'wake up' as a result of Neil probing him.
Labour has put on about 8 points since the start of the campaign, not least because Corbyn hasn't looked useless when he's been on the campaign trail - holding rallies and spouting platitudes is what he does best and where he feels most at home. But it's not long Labour was polling in the mid-20s and it wouldn't take too much to send them back there.
However, the party has shown commendable discipline and the media and strategy units have got popular policies into the news. There are probably quite a lot of voters who look at him and forget the serial incompetence or the unsavoury attitudes. That said, I wouldn't expect the viewing figures to be high or the impact - unless magnified by secondary reporting - to be great.
Given the chaos of their internal politics over the past few years, despite a few stumbles (Abbott for instance), Labour's discipline has been pretty good, they have had what I would say is an excellent campaign, and Corbyn has been either invisible or unobjectionable in most situations. Which as someone who thinks he needs to lose big (and do worse than Ed M vote wise) for the good of Labour and the country, is a little annoying.
The cynic might say that both Labour and the Conservatives benefit from pausing the campaign.
The Tories because their job is being done for them (and the PM has more important things to do right now).
And Labour because if Corbyn opens his mouth, he's only going to make it worse.
That Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.....
Corbyn must be terrified on a personal level, he wouldn't be human if he wasn't. When those three letters come out of Neil's mouth...I...R....A.
No notes, no assistants to save him, no Corbynistas to shield him.
Just him, Neil, and millions of viewers - no hiding place, not anymore.
Painful.
He will woolly his way through - he's done it many times before - and if pushed too hard will rebut that Neil is taking advantage of a tense situation to suggest impropriety where there was none. I'm already convinced on Corbyn in any case, but he's survived and thrived long past the point I thought he would, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up that people will 'wake up' as a result of Neil probing him.
The public will see straight through those tactics, kle. There's no hiding place for Corbyn after that Sun front page splash. What's more, there can be no hiding place from the things he did and said of his own free will. It's not even as if he has a credible defence - he doesn't.
My wish is that Neil does not soften the blow bwcause of what's happened through some misguided sense of decency. It is more important now than ever before to expose Corbyn for what he is.
I don't think I can predict anymore - not many will see it live, if he doesn't implode will anyone pick it up as it is breathlessly shared, has it been priced in? I do not think Corbyn is an evil man, but I think he and his views are unsuitable in all sorts of ways to be PM, and I'd hope that people would agree with that when they see him (whether that means voting LD, COn or someone else), but he's resilient.
Evil is an interesting word. The most generous description I could give Corbyn is ambivalent, or equivocating. Those are his lifelong default positions regarding the West, uncluding Britain, and especially America.
He looks and sounds banal, inoffensive, puddled even, but underneath lurks something far more sinister. He is very good at hiding it. I really do think he's quite mad. I don't see how else it can be explained that he could rub shoulders with terrorist murderers waging war against the British State, and to then portray himself as a gentle, tree hugging pacifist.
It's just not possible, unless you are seriously bonkers.
"Bomber was 'identified by bank card in his pocket' The update from police comes as US media reports that the bomber was identified by a bank card in his pocket.
According to NBC News, citing a US intelligence official, members of the bomber's family warned security officials about him in the past, saying that he was “dangerous”.
The official told the broadcaster that Abedi likely "had help" making “big and sophisticated bomb"."
The cynic might say that both Labour and the Conservatives benefit from pausing the campaign.
The Tories because their job is being done for them (and the PM has more important things to do right now).
And Labour because if Corbyn opens his mouth, he's only going to make it worse.
That Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.....
Corbyn must be terrified on a personal level, he wouldn't be human if he wasn't. When those three letters come out of Neil's mouth...I...R....A.
No notes, no assistants to save him, no Corbynistas to shield him.
Just him, Neil, and millions of viewers - no hiding place, not anymore.
Painful.
He will woolly his way through - he's done it many times before - and if pushed too hard will rebut that Neil is taking advantage of a tense situation to suggest impropriety where there was none. I'm already convinced on Corbyn in any case, but he's survived and thrived long past the point I thought he would, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up that people will 'wake up' as a result of Neil probing him.
Labour has put on about 8 points since the start of the campaign, not least because Corbyn hasn't looked useless when he's been on the campaign trail - holding rallies and spouting platitudes is what he does best and where he feels most at home. But it's not long Labour was polling in the mid-20s and it wouldn't take too much to send them back there.
However, the party has shown commendable discipline and the media and strategy units have got popular policies into the news. There are probably quite a lot of voters who look at him and forget the serial incompetence or the unsavoury attitudes. That said, I wouldn't expect the viewing figures to be high or the impact - unless magnified by secondary reporting - to be great.
Millions read The Sun, tho, and millions more see the front page every day. So they will have seen the Sun's coverage of Jezbollah's IRA links on the same day that Manchester was blown up (again).
It's hard to believe this won't have SOME effect. It might just stop Labour surging, is all. It might actually lose them votes. As NPXMP says, we will never know.
I wonder what effect, if any, it will have in Greater Manchester with seats like Bury S, Oldham E and Worsley in play for the Cons.
The cynic might say that both Labour and the Conservatives benefit from pausing the campaign.
The Tories because their job is being done for them (and the PM has more important things to do right now).
And Labour because if Corbyn opens his mouth, he's only going to make it worse.
That Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.....
Corbyn must be terrified on a personal level, he wouldn't be human if he wasn't. When those three letters come out of Neil's mouth...I...R....A.
No notes, no assistants to save him, no Corbynistas to shield him.
Just him, Neil, and millions of viewers - no hiding place, not anymore.
Painful.
My wish is that Neil does not soften the blow bwcause of what's happened through some misguided sense of decency. It is more important now than ever before to expose Corbyn for what he is.
I don't think I can predict anymore - not many will see it live, if he doesn't implode will anyone pick it up as it is breathlessly shared, has it been priced in? I do not think Corbyn is an evil man, but I think he and his views are unsuitable in all sorts of ways to be PM, and I'd hope that people would agree with that when they see him (whether that means voting LD, COn or someone else), but he's resilient.
Evil is an interesting word. The most generous description I could give Corbyn is ambivalent, or equivocating. Those are his lifelong default positions regarding the West, uncluding Britain, and especially America.
He looks and sounds banal, inoffensive, puddled even, but underneath lurks something far more sinister. He is very good at hiding it. I really do think he's quite mad. I don't see how else it can be explained that he could rub shoulders with terrorist murderers waging war against the British State, and to then portray himself as a gentle, tree hugging pacifist.
It's just not possible, unless you are seriously bonkers.
"Bomber was 'identified by bank card in his pocket' The update from police comes as US media reports that the bomber was identified by a bank card in his pocket.
According to NBC News, citing a US intelligence official, members of the bomber's family warned security officials about him in the past, saying that he was “dangerous”.
The official told the broadcaster that Abedi likely "had help" making “big and sophisticated bomb"."
I think the Con>Lab drift in the last couple of weeks will entirely reverse. Apologies if any posters/lurkers are personally affected, but, to be blunt - I fully expect Manchester to give TM a second polling honeymoon of similar or greater magnitude to her first post-election announcement bounce.
I recon C2DE's & 50+'s are pretty much universally behind TM in their VI's right now.
And they'll vote.
The only way May could f*ck this up is with a De Menezes.
I think that is a correct reading of the situation.
May is a limited politician, but she really does not need too much ability to get this right from here.
Apart from de Menezes, the only other f*ck up might be if a terrorist's presence in the country could be directly ascribed to her long and not especially distinguished tenure at the Home Office.
The chances of either of these occurring seem slight, so I would say we are looking at a substantial Tory majority (130-150) from here.
Looks more and more like 1983: Thatcher had a 143 majority, aided by a split opposition. May seems to be headed towards 143 even without a split opposition, because the LD vote is headed towards <<10%.
I'm not even sure that Thatcher's 'war victory' had a huge influence in 1983. Her percent vote was down 1-2 percent points compared to 1979. Without the split Labour/SDP vote, she'd have had a John Major kind of majority, i.e. 10-20.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
It's surprising how similar the odds are for No Overall Majority and for Corbyn to be PM after the GE.
I would have thought there should be quite a significant difference - if Con get 313 seats then May must be 100% certain to remain PM (at least in the short-term) with DUP/UUP support.
Even a bit below 313 it's surely inconceivable that the LDs would agree to Corbyn becoming PM - they've said no to any coalition but even a supply / confidence deal would surely be dependent upon a new mainstream Labour leader.
In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
"Bomber was 'identified by bank card in his pocket' The update from police comes as US media reports that the bomber was identified by a bank card in his pocket.
According to NBC News, citing a US intelligence official, members of the bomber's family warned security officials about him in the past, saying that he was “dangerous”.
The official told the broadcaster that Abedi likely "had help" making “big and sophisticated bomb"."
The cynic might say that both Labour and the Conservatives benefit from pausing the campaign.
The Tories because their job is being done for them (and the PM has more important things to do right now).
And Labour because if Corbyn opens his mouth, he's only going to make it worse.
That Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.....
Corbyn must be terrified on a personal level, he wouldn't be human if he wasn't. When those three letters come out of Neil's mouth...I...R....A.
No notes, no assistants to save him, no Corbynistas to shield him.
Just him, Neil, and millions of viewers - no hiding place, not anymore.
Painful.
He will woolly his way through - he's done it many times before - and if pushed too hard will rebut that Neil is taking advantage of a tense situation to suggest impropriety where there was none. I'm already convinced on Corbyn in any case, but he's survived and thrived long past the point I thought he would, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up that people will 'wake up' as a result of Neil probing him.
Labour has put on about 8 points since the start of the campaign, not least because Corbyn hasn't looked useless when he's been on the campaign trail - holding rallies and spouting platitudes is what he does best and where he feels most at home. But it's not long Labour was polling in the mid-20s and it wouldn't take too much to send them back there.
However, the party has shown commendable discipline and the media and strategy units have got popular policies into the news. There are probably quite a lot of voters who look at him and forget the serial incompetence or the unsavoury attitudes. That said, I wouldn't expect the viewing figures to be high or the impact - unless magnified by secondary reporting - to be great.
Given the chaos of their internal politics over the past few years, despite a few stumbles (Abbott for instance), Labour's discipline has been pretty good, they have had what I would say is an excellent campaign, and Corbyn has been either invisible or unobjectionable in most situations. Which as someone who thinks he needs to lose big (and do worse than Ed M vote wise) for the good of Labour and the country, is a little annoying.
I think one of the issues was that the succesful campaign to monster Ed Miliband was based on utter fluff and nonsense for the most part Bacon sarnies, beating his brother (How dare he !) in a leadership contest, and the unforced tablet of stone error of course.
Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott is a whole different kettle of fish to the sane trio of Miliband/Balls/Cooper
My mother voted tory for first time,she hates the traitor(That what's she calls him)
she's the voice of the people don't you know.....
My brother is a labour member, He will struggle to know what to do at the election because he hates Corbyn, and would not want to tacitly support him. I imagine he will stay at Joe, or spoil his paper.
Vote Lib.Dem or Green?
The only choices for me; Labour doesn't understand remote rural areas and doesn't campaign seriously here. I live in what's been a safe to very safe seat since ...
not 1945 not 1918 but ... the Liberal landslide of 1906 Deleted.
Using the term Limp Dim just taints any argument you then subsequently put forward. It is not as if you are in the middle of a heated argument or it being a good joke.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
It's surprising how similar the odds are for No Overall Majority and for Corbyn to be PM after the GE.
I would have thought there should be quite a significant difference - if Con get 313 seats then May must be 100% certain to remain PM (at least in the short-term) with DUP/UUP support.
Even a bit below 313 it's surely inconceivable that the LDs would agree to Corbyn becoming PM - they've said no to any coalition but even a supply / confidence deal would surely be dependent upon a new mainstream Labour leader.
In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
Well quite. Anyway folk were quite happy to back Jez at 11.5
Yes and no. If I understand correctly, raising the threat level automatically triggers this response.
Seems so, yes. They'll have a list of places that need permanent armed protection, then outside London/Manchester they'll want extra counter-terror response units spread around to improve reaction times (in case of Bombay style roaming gun attacks). Presumably special forces are on short notice w/ helicopters, but for a lot of scenarios that's going to be too slow.
It's a major weakness of a mostly unarmed police force: we have only a few thousand armed specialists nationally, so those get used up pretty quickly in a situation like this.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
It's surprising how similar the odds are for No Overall Majority and for Corbyn to be PM after the GE.
I would have thought there should be quite a significant difference - if Con get 313 seats then May must be 100% certain to remain PM (at least in the short-term) with DUP/UUP support.
Even a bit below 313 it's surely inconceivable that the LDs would agree to Corbyn becoming PM - they've said no to any coalition but even a supply / confidence deal would surely be dependent upon a new mainstream Labour leader.
In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
I imagine that there's quite a few people who would lay Corbyn at the prevailing prices more aggressively than has been the case if it wasn't such an awful double whammy to lose the bet and have him as next PM. For similar reasons I might hesitate to lay 1.01s on Abbott to be next Home Sec.
A few days back we had an unusual leaflet through the door (at least I cannot remember receiving a similar one). It's from our newly-elected Conservative district and county councillors, thanking us for electing them.
It does not mention the general election at all, but is clearly a Conservative leaflet. I wondered if this could be a slightly sneaky way of overcoming election expenses as it is clearly a Conservative leaflet.
It would be odd to want to cheat here in South Cambs, as there's f'all chance of anyone but Heidi Allen from winning.
Are leaflets like this unusual, or do I need to take off my tinfoil hat?
When I was a Lib Dem activist in Hants in the '90s, "thank you" leaflets were absolutely de rigeur.
It's either that or full page advertisements in local newspapers.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
It's surprising how similar the odds are for No Overall Majority and for Corbyn to be PM after the GE.
I would have thought there should be quite a significant difference - if Con get 313 seats then May must be 100% certain to remain PM (at least in the short-term) with DUP/UUP support.
Even a bit below 313 it's surely inconceivable that the LDs would agree to Corbyn becoming PM - they've said no to any coalition but even a supply / confidence deal would surely be dependent upon a new mainstream Labour leader.
In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
I imagine that there's quite a few people who would lay Corbyn at the prevailing prices more aggressively than has been the case if it wasn't such an awful double whammy to lose the bet and have him as next PM. For similar reasons I might hesitate to lay 1.01s on Abbott to be next Home Sec.
I like a bit of safety margin when my liability is over 4 figures.
They can't use the whole Corbyn etc are terrorist sympathisers/supporters etc now because it would look like they are exploiting a tragedy.
That's what I said last night.
I guess the thing is the press can do the job for them.
Plus it's undoubtedly helped them changing the focus to national security and away from social care.
I don't think it's been mentioned but I think May's really lucky break was that Manchester didn't happen 24 hours earlier. The point being that she just got in her social care U-turn in time and closed down the issue - the general perception now being it has been sorted.
If Manchester had happened 24 hours earlier she would have had to come back to social care when the campaign restarted - and the closing down of the issue wouldn't have been so tidy - it would have dragged on much more - causing more political damage.
They can't use the whole Corbyn etc are terrorist sympathisers/supporters etc now because it would look like they are exploiting a tragedy.
They don't have to - the blanket media coverage is like a multi-million-pound ad campaign ramming home the message "Vote For Security". Who's going to win if that's the issue uppermost in voters' minds? Salience is key.
p.s. I very much doubt the Sun etc will hold back on attacking Jez's record in the final week in any event.
They can't use the whole Corbyn etc are terrorist sympathisers/supporters etc now because it would look like they are exploiting a tragedy.
They don't have to. People can join up the dots for themselves.
The live Question Time event could be very interesting as a member of the public is sure to bring up the terrorism connection and it'll be harder for Corbyn to bat away.
Burnham has uttered the nothing to do with Islam mantra today. The guy rightly called.him out on this and how it is totally counter productive.
As well as being dishonest, Interestingly a recent freakonomics podcast also provided evidence from the US that this kind of state actually doesn't even achieve the desired aim of calming matters, it was shown to stoke more anger.
One of my least favourite cliches, one that presumes we are all a mob waiting to happen, where if you acknowledge part of a group has a problem, we will descent en masse on the whole group, when I'd like to think our society is robust enough to be more than that, and denying any connection just creates anger. 'No connection to true x' would be better at least, if he said that.
It's one reason I like the BBC usually go with 'so called Islamic state' - it acknowledges what they claim and what unfortunately too many people in the world believe about their claims, but indicates skepticism of that, and the misuse of the word islamic should, one hopes, anger those who disagree with IS.
The Beeb is question whether they are "state" not whether they are Islamic....
I think the Con>Lab drift in the last couple of weeks will entirely reverse. Apologies if any posters/lurkers are personally affected, but, to be blunt - I fully expect Manchester to give TM a second polling honeymoon of similar or greater magnitude to her first post-election announcement bounce.
I recon C2DE's & 50+'s are pretty much universally behind TM in their VI's right now.
And they'll vote.
The only way May could f*ck this up is with a De Menezes.
I think that is a correct reading of the situation.
May is a limited politician, but she really does not need too much ability to get this right from here.
Apart from de Menezes, the only other f*ck up might be if a terrorist's presence in the country could be directly ascribed to her long and not especially distinguished tenure at the Home Office.
The chances of either of these occurring seem slight, so I would say we are looking at a substantial Tory majority (130-150) from here.
Looks more and more like 1983: Thatcher had a 143 majority, aided by a split opposition. May seems to be headed towards 143 even without a split opposition, because the LD vote is headed towards <<10%.
I'm not even sure that Thatcher's 'war victory' had a huge influence in 1983. Her percent vote was down 1-2 percent points compared to 1979. Without the split Labour/SDP vote, she'd have had a John Major kind of majority, i.e. 10-20. </p>
The Falklands killed the Alliance's momentum. It's impossible to say what would have happened without the war (a general election in 1984, probably, for a start). The SDP and Liberals might have continued to make the running against both a Labour Party which was divided and suffering from an ineffective leader and an insurgent left but could it have done the same to the Tories, as the economy recovered, growth returned and inflation and interest rates fell? I don't think there was anything at all nailed on about Thatcher's second 42%.
Comments
Corbyn must be terrified on a personal level, he wouldn't be human if he wasn't. When those three letters come out of Neil's mouth...I...R....A.
No notes, no assistants to save him, no Corbynistas to shield him.
Just him, Neil, and millions of viewers - no hiding place, not anymore.
Painful.
A few days back we had an unusual leaflet through the door (at least I cannot remember receiving a similar one). It's from our newly-elected Conservative district and county councillors, thanking us for electing them.
It does not mention the general election at all, but is clearly a Conservative leaflet. I wondered if this could be a slightly sneaky way of overcoming election expenses as it is clearly a Conservative leaflet.
It would be odd to want to cheat here in South Cambs, as there's f'all chance of anyone but Heidi Allen from winning.
Are leaflets like this unusual, or do I need to take off my tinfoil hat?
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/867389825204318209
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/11/uk-police-hold-dna-profiles-of-7800-terrorism-suspects
and presumably there are others besides these of whom they do not know. A Gallup poll found that nearly 40% of Muslims thought 9/11 was justified
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjj2JXC4ojUAhXn4IMKHelLB5UQFggpMAA&url=https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx&usg=AFQjCNF53qulqd15eG9oxc2TF_yKef3ddQ
so I suggest your estimate could be several orders of magnitude off, which is an uncomfortable thought.
Worth noting two things:
they got the EU referendum absolutely spot on (52-48 for Leave)
they're prone to taking the piss [don't ask them for lottery numbers].
Norman Smith (the BBC fella with the giant hands) was specualting about next Tuesday. That would certainly start raising eyebrows.
The one thing I admired about David Cameron was his openness about his disabled son. He had clearly used the NHS a despite his social standing, and it shaped his view of it.
I'd love for one of the Corbyn loving celebs who to put their hand in their pocket and send a cheque to HMRC every month for the increase in taxes they think should be paid to improve society. Rather than being a part of the tax dodge by setting up a company etc, demonstrate all taxes are paid, and then even more mailed to the tax office. That would be something I could get behind.
He's useless.
I'm going -
Con - 47%
Lab - 33%
Limp Dim - 9%
UKIP - 6%
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
or "Vote Corbyn and the terrorists are in no 10"
Might win Amsterdam East I suppose.
My wish is that Neil does not soften the blow bwcause of what's happened through some misguided sense of decency. It is more important now than ever before to expose Corbyn for what he is.
Corbyn is not an evil traitor, but a harmless old potterer in his shed.
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/867386902709776392
The only choices for me; Labour doesn't understand remote rural areas and doesn't campaign seriously here. I live in what's been a safe to very safe seat since ...
not 1945
not 1918
but ... the Liberal landslide of 1906.
May is a limited politician, but she really does not need too much ability to get this right from here.
Apart from de Menezes, the only other f*ck up might be if a terrorist's presence in the country could be directly ascribed to her long and not especially distinguished tenure at the Home Office.
The chances of either of these occurring seem slight, so I would say we are looking at a substantial Tory majority (130-150) from here.
As for the outrage about the Police being heckled, the Police have been heckled at times by both sides of the political spectrum. I've attended local Neighbourhood meetings where the local Inspector is pilloried for the actions of his officers (or usually inaction) and the language used against the Police is robust and the criticism trenchant (and often justified in terms of resources).
The Police are public servants and are therefore accountable to the public but they shouldn't be abused while doing their duty but as individuals we have the right to hold them and their actions to account.
The only person I have ever heard express gratitude to the higher rate taxpayers who basically fund everything is John McDonnell, bizarrely.
It would also silence rich tax-dodging hypocrites for good. If Jimmy Carr started to bang on about rich people dodging tax, he could be asked why he hasn't raised the matter in the HoTP. What's that Jimmy? You've not paid enough income tax to qualify for entry?
However, the party has shown commendable discipline and the media and strategy units have got popular policies into the news. There are probably quite a lot of voters who look at him and forget the serial incompetence or the unsavoury attitudes. That said, I wouldn't expect the viewing figures to be high or the impact - unless magnified by secondary reporting - to be great.
It's difficult to perceive of a situation where a PM wouldn't accept their independent analysis and recommendation.
I wonder how the media deal with the election impartiality rules at a time like this, when clearly the PM and Home Sec are front and centre of the coverage by necessity and we have seen and heard little from other politicians. The theory would be that it shows the incumbents in a good light, but as you suggest it would be interesting to poll the same people that were polled on Monday today. I'd have thought someone must have had a poll running on Monday night, given the PMs statement earlier in the day on the social care policy clarification, followed by her interview with Andrew Neil in the evening.
"Bomber was 'identified by bank card in his pocket'
The update from police comes as US media reports that the bomber was identified by a bank card in his pocket.
According to NBC News, citing a US intelligence official, members of the bomber's family warned security officials about him in the past, saying that he was “dangerous”.
The official told the broadcaster that Abedi likely "had help" making “big and sophisticated bomb"."
For example, the BBC being outside when that famous singer's house was raided - the one who definitely didn't touch any children.
He looks and sounds banal, inoffensive, puddled even, but underneath lurks something far more sinister. He is very good at hiding it. I really do think he's quite mad. I don't see how else it can be explained that he could rub shoulders with terrorist murderers waging war against the British State, and to then portray himself as a gentle, tree hugging pacifist.
It's just not possible, unless you are seriously bonkers.
I'm not even sure that Thatcher's 'war victory' had a huge influence in 1983. Her percent vote was down 1-2 percent points compared to 1979. Without the split Labour/SDP vote, she'd have had a John Major kind of majority, i.e. 10-20.
I would have thought there should be quite a significant difference - if Con get 313 seats then May must be 100% certain to remain PM (at least in the short-term) with DUP/UUP support.
Even a bit below 313 it's surely inconceivable that the LDs would agree to Corbyn becoming PM - they've said no to any coalition but even a supply / confidence deal would surely be dependent upon a new mainstream Labour leader.
In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
#trident
Bacon sarnies, beating his brother (How dare he !) in a leadership contest, and the unforced tablet of stone error of course.
Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott is a whole different kettle of fish to the sane trio of Miliband/Balls/Cooper
The true face of JC?
This terrorism thing is bad for the Tories.
They can't use the whole Corbyn etc are terrorist sympathisers/supporters etc now because it would look like they are exploiting a tragedy.
It's a major weakness of a mostly unarmed police force: we have only a few thousand armed specialists nationally, so those get used up pretty quickly in a situation like this.
...(ducks for cover)........
I guess the thing is the press can do the job for them.
Plus it's undoubtedly helped them changing the focus to national security and away from social care.
I don't think it's been mentioned but I think May's really lucky break was that Manchester didn't happen 24 hours earlier. The point being that she just got in her social care U-turn in time and closed down the issue - the general perception now being it has been sorted.
If Manchester had happened 24 hours earlier she would have had to come back to social care when the campaign restarted - and the closing down of the issue wouldn't have been so tidy - it would have dragged on much more - causing more political damage.
p.s. I very much doubt the Sun etc will hold back on attacking Jez's record in the final week in any event.