The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.
Quite. Where is Hammond btw? Surely the media don't think he's too boring to be of interest.
The Tories have the slight problem that they didn't trouble themselves with costing their own manifesto.
From the IFS analysis it was steady as she goes from the Tory manifesto, without many new spending commitments. I don't recall any mention of a black hole on the Tory side.
The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.
Quite. Where is Hammond btw? Surely the media don't think he's too boring to be of interest.
The Tories have the slight problem that they didn't trouble themselves with costing their own manifesto.
From the IFS analysis it was steady as she goes from the Tory manifesto, without many new spending commitments. I don't recall any mention of a black hole on the Tory side.
For example, net immigration back to the tens of thousands - that means £6bn.
Finally, the Maybot has agreed to a proper return of fire.
Or has Boris just gone off-piste?
The great thing about letting Boris do it is that if it backfires she can let everythone think he's gone off-piste even if he hasn't.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! GO BORIS! AT BLOODY LAST!
Yes, in one corner we have a sneering entitled Old Etonian Bullingdon Clubber who was made Foreign Secretary having never been in the cabinet before, never been in the shadow cabinet, and without any foreign policy experience whatsoever, a man sacked twice from jobs in the "real world" for telling lies, a thug who conspired to have a journalist beaten up. And in the other corner, we have a man who sticks to his principles and wants to raise taxes for the rich. The electorate may be susceptible to right wing overtures when they make use of xenophobia, but this is different. This is a rich boarding school bully against the Labour leader.
BRING IT ON!
In one corner, we have an Old Etonian. In the other corner, we have a terrorist sympathiser and IS appeaser. Guess which one of these two outrages the Left more.
The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.
Quite. Where is Hammond btw? Surely the media don't think he's too boring to be of interest.
The Tories have the slight problem that they didn't trouble themselves with costing their own manifesto.
From the IFS analysis it was steady as she goes from the Tory manifesto, without many new spending commitments. I don't recall any mention of a black hole on the Tory side.
For example, net immigration back to the tens of thousands - that means £6bn.
Yeah, but as Fallon said, there is no time frame on that one
The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.
Quite. Where is Hammond btw? Surely the media don't think he's too boring to be of interest.
The Tories have the slight problem that they didn't trouble themselves with costing their own manifesto.
From the IFS analysis it was steady as she goes from the Tory manifesto, without many new spending commitments. I don't recall any mention of a black hole on the Tory side.
Eh? There are barely any numbers in the Tory manifesto. Their social care proposals aren't costed. Their means-tested WFA proposal isn't costed. They haven't carried out any economic assessment of Brexit. They haven't carried out any economic assessment of their commitment to almost close off immigration. There are no costed proposals to achieve their commitment to eliminate the deficit before the Sun engulfs the Earth, or whenever was their proposed deferral, I can't remember.
Labour's numbers are fanciful, but at least they tried to answer the question, rather than just putting their name at the top of the exam paper as the Tories have done. The LibDems have provided the most convincing costing (and by far the fairest, according to the IFS review), for all the good it will do them.
That is 100% the point. They fell over themselves to say "what a silly tweet" because they knew that, and focused on the tweeter when the tweet itself was a carbon copy of Remainer thinking.
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.
So the PM and senior ministers are tied up in London doing COBR etc? Isn't it time for them to go on bended knee to ask Cameron and Major to do the former PM bit over the weekend?
"Being PM is a serious business". "I know who is trust". "Judge a man by his friends".
That sort of thing?
David Cameron and Sir John Major would probably oblige. It's more than the Conservative party would deserve, given what so many headbanging Conservatives have said about each of them in the last year.
So have we had any notable PB meltdowns while I've been doing something I'm paid to do ?
Now to give some comfort to PB Tory nervousness I've compared the lowest Conservative poll rating per election to the actual result and the worst Conservative rating against Labour compared to the actual result.
And in every election from 1974 to 2015 the Conservatives actual vote was higher than their lowest poll rating by between 1% and 7% (average 5%) and their actual vote difference against Labour was always better than their worst poll by between 4% and 21% (average 10%).
So if we assume that the pattern holds and that the lowest Conservative poll is 42% and their lowest poll lead is 5% then the actual vote should have a Conservative vote of between 43% and 49% (average 47%) and a Conservative lead of between 9% and 26% (average 15%).
The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.
It might work but the problem is the Conservatives have refused to rule out tax rises, which means they might be vulnerable, though there is still two weeks for a cast-iron guarantee to be forged. I doubt Labour will have the wit to draw attention to the Tories' debt mountains or ever-shifting targets.
The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.
It might work but the problem is the Conservatives have refused to rule out tax rises, which means they might be vulnerable, though there is still two weeks for a cast-iron guarantee to be forged. I doubt Labour will have the wit to draw attention to the Tories' debt mountains or ever-shifting targets.
McDonnell was doing a pretty good job of it last weekend
"I voted against the renewal, everybody knows that, because I wanted to go in a different direction. That decision has been taken, I respect that decision," said Mr Corbyn.
He added: "It's there in the programme, it's there in the manifesto, it will be carried out... it's the position we are adopting as a party and we will take into government."
He could have added the words, "I am a democrat, therefore, agree with the party policy".
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.
Eh? There are barely any numbers in the Tory manifesto. Their social care proposals aren't costed. Their means-tested WFA proposal isn't costed. They haven't carried out any economic assessment of Brexit. They haven't carried out any economic assessment of their commitment to almost close off immigration. There are no costed proposals to achieve their commitment to eliminate the deficit before the Sun engulfs the Earth, or whenever was their proposed deferral, I can't remember.
Labour's numbers are fanciful, but at least they tried to answer the question, rather than just putting their name at the top of the exam paper as the Tories have done. The LibDems have provided the most convincing costing (and by far the fairest, according to the IFS review), for all the good it will do them.
There are barely any numbers because there are barely any policies in it. You would hope that the social care and WFA proposals would be a net plus for the exchequer, but agree that detail is lacking on those fronts (painfully so on the first one!)
That is 100% the point. They fell over themselves to say "what a silly tweet" because they knew that, and focused on the tweeter when the tweet itself was a carbon copy of Remainer thinking.
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.
Bullshit ! I heard it myself in the BBC News. IanB2 covers it below.
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.
It'll be loads of stealth taxes, fiddling about with the detail of the tax code, adjusting NI, reviewing tax reliefs, etc. etc., all undisclosed, as well as uncosted. Their 2015 cast iron guarantees on Tax haven't been thrown overboard for no reason.
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.
Bullshit ! I heard it myself in the BBC News. IanB2 covers it below.
The IFS said the Tories' plan will raise £10bn less than they say? And I didn't realise the Tories were also planning on raising corporation tax.
The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.
Complacency is a consequence of:
1) Thinking yourself more talented than you are 2) Unwillingness to do detailed work
Its a trait very, very common among modern politicians.
That is 100% the point. They fell over themselves to say "what a silly tweet" because they knew that, and focused on the tweeter when the tweet itself was a carbon copy of Remainer thinking.
More to the point - does protecting our security include cutting police numbers and armed police numbers specifically? Were the police really scaremongering when they said the cuts might make us less secure?
Unfortunately for Labour, though, whatever May has done, nobody believes Corbyn would do any better.
So have we had any notable PB meltdowns while I've been doing something I'm paid to do ?
Now to give some comfort to PB Tory nervousness I've compared the lowest Conservative poll rating per election to the actual result and the worst Conservative rating against Labour compared to the actual result.
And in every election from 1974 to 2015 the Conservatives actual vote was higher than their lowest poll rating by between 1% and 7% (average 5%) and their actual vote difference against Labour was always better than their worst poll by between 4% and 21% (average 10%).
So if we assume that the pattern holds and that the lowest Conservative poll is 42% and their lowest poll lead is 5% then the actual vote should have a Conservative vote of between 43% and 49% (average 47%) and a Conservative lead of between 9% and 26% (average 15%).
That is 100% the point. They fell over themselves to say "what a silly tweet" because they knew that, and focused on the tweeter when the tweet itself was a carbon copy of Remainer thinking.
I am still confused. Why ? Apart from perhaps 10 nations, no other nation has nuclear weapons. Are they weak ?
Precisely. As I said below, the chance Labour is missing is to use just a proportion of the Trident saving to outflank the Tories on conventional defence, security and policing.
This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
"I voted against the renewal, everybody knows that, because I wanted to go in a different direction. That decision has been taken, I respect that decision," said Mr Corbyn.
He added: "It's there in the programme, it's there in the manifesto, it will be carried out... it's the position we are adopting as a party and we will take into government."
He could have added the words, "I am a democrat, therefore, agree with the party policy".
He also refused to say if the defence review would commit to renewing Trident. i.e. he's considering ditching it. And given that the leader WANTS to ditch it, we have to accept that there is a very good chance a Corbyn government will try to get rid of our deterrent.
Fair enough - what's the point in having it, if the PM would never use it anyway.... the only way it would seem it might be a deterrent under Corbynista Labour is if there's time for a party meeting to agree the party position on what to do and perhaps form a committee.
LOL at PBTories complaining about the supposed "lack of scrutiny" of Labour's proposals.
Mrs May passed up the opportunity to put as much direct scrutiny on Labour as she wanted, in the TV debates. It was you guys who wanted a stage-managed campaign with no meaningful scrutiny or discussion of policy proposals, no point crying about it now because it's not working to your favour like you thought it would.
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.
Bullshit ! I heard it myself in the BBC News. IanB2 covers it below.
Nope. The IFS did not say Con tax rises will raise £10bn less than planned - because Con has not set out any specifics re the amount of extra tax they plan to raise.
If you don't give a number, your number can't be wrong.
I would agree with you that Con may do anything - they may raise direct taxes, they may do stealth taxes - sure - but that is not the point I was making.
This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
+1. Given the illiberalism rampant within both Tory and Labour, that would be the ultimate tragedy and condemnation of our broken political system.
zerohedge @zerohedge CONSERVATIVES 44%, LABOUR 36% IN SUN/SURVEYMONKEY POLL: BBG
One more push......
May i ask who you will be voting for roger ?
I'm away for the election and forgot to get a postal vote. I would have voted Lib Dem but not because of Corbyn's dalliance with terrorists but because he'd bankrupt me. I try not to worry about that sort of thing normally but selling the Big Issue in winter is a job for a younger man
That's quite a touching admission Here's hoping others feel the same!
So have we had any notable PB meltdowns while I've been doing something I'm paid to do ?
Now to give some comfort to PB Tory nervousness I've compared the lowest Conservative poll rating per election to the actual result and the worst Conservative rating against Labour compared to the actual result.
And in every election from 1974 to 2015 the Conservatives actual vote was higher than their lowest poll rating by between 1% and 7% (average 5%) and their actual vote difference against Labour was always better than their worst poll by between 4% and 21% (average 10%).
So if we assume that the pattern holds and that the lowest Conservative poll is 42% and their lowest poll lead is 5% then the actual vote should have a Conservative vote of between 43% and 49% (average 47%) and a Conservative lead of between 9% and 26% (average 15%).
Good. Go and have a ****
Seems I'm not the only one who's been rattled today.
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.
Bullshit ! I heard it myself in the BBC News. IanB2 covers it below.
Nope. The IFS did not say Con tax rises will raise £10bn less than planned - because Con has not set out any specifics re the amount of extra tax they plan to raise.
If you don't give a number, your number can't be wrong.
I would agree with you that Con may do anything - they may raise direct taxes, they may do stealth taxes - sure - but that is not the point I was making.
If you just write your name at the top of the exam paper, and otherwise leave the sheets blank, none of your answers are wrong. But I wouldn't hold your breath for a pass.
This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
The Lib Dems are doing a pretty good job of wiping themselves out, and neither half of their party's name has aged terribly well.
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
"I voted against the renewal, everybody knows that, because I wanted to go in a different direction. That decision has been taken, I respect that decision," said Mr Corbyn.
He added: "It's there in the programme, it's there in the manifesto, it will be carried out... it's the position we are adopting as a party and we will take into government."
He could have added the words, "I am a democrat, therefore, agree with the party policy".
He also refused to say if the defence review would commit to renewing Trident. i.e. he's considering ditching it. And given that the leader WANTS to ditch it, we have to accept that there is a very good chance a Corbyn government will try to get rid of our deterrent.
Was the strategic defence review of 2015 conducted on the assumption that Trident must be renewed?
This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
+1. Given the illiberalism rampant within both Tory and Labour, that would be the ultimate tragedy and condemnation of our broken political system.
I see no liberalism in the Lib Dems. They are as fond of this stifling, PC, identitarian, illiberal new left politics as Labour. They are Labour within Union funds, and with a tiny dash of homophobic Methodism.
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.
Bullshit ! I heard it myself in the BBC News. IanB2 covers it below.
Nope. The IFS did not say Con tax rises will raise £10bn less than planned - because Con has not set out any specifics re the amount of extra tax they plan to raise.
If you don't give a number, your number can't be wrong.
I would agree with you that Con may do anything - they may raise direct taxes, they may do stealth taxes - sure - but that is not the point I was making.
If you just write your name at the top of the exam paper, and otherwise leave the sheets blank, none of your answers are wrong. But I wouldn't hold your breath for a pass.
Very true - but not of much relevance here.
The point is that Con is putting forward a status quo proposition. That might be good, it might be bad - anyone can form a view but it's status quo so there are no changes - nothing new to challenge but then nothing new to applaud either.
In contrast Lab is offering big tax and spending changes. So, in contrast, there is lots new to potentially challenge and lots new to potentially applaud.
So have we had any notable PB meltdowns while I've been doing something I'm paid to do ?
Now to give some comfort to PB Tory nervousness I've compared the lowest Conservative poll rating per election to the actual result and the worst Conservative rating against Labour compared to the actual result.
And in every election from 1974 to 2015 the Conservatives actual vote was higher than their lowest poll rating by between 1% and 7% (average 5%) and their actual vote difference against Labour was always better than their worst poll by between 4% and 21% (average 10%).
So if we assume that the pattern holds and that the lowest Conservative poll is 42% and their lowest poll lead is 5% then the actual vote should have a Conservative vote of between 43% and 49% (average 47%) and a Conservative lead of between 9% and 26% (average 15%).
Whilst no doubt technically true , in 1983 every single poll bar 1 forecast a higher Conservative vote share than they actually achieved .
That last sentence should have ended with the words: "because he has consistently voted against the measures to counter terrorism and make you more secure. He has been more concerned with being friends with terrorists."
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
Who's hoping for a wipe out of the liberal tendency? There's been people hoping for a wipe out of the Liberal Democrats but they are not the "liberal tendency" of this country.
There's lots of MPs in different parties who are of a "liberal tendency" while the so-called Lib Dems can be both illiberal and undemocratic at times.
Not too late to piss on Labour's appeasement parade.
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCES
Grrr.
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
I can't vote labour because of their obsession with the unions and nationalization. I can't vote Tory because having watched them in local government they are only interested in control to the expense of all else and their continued denial about facing the real problems facing the uk. In the end I now live in Spain, pause for derision, but for many personal reasons it's better than banging your head against a brick wall. If Tasman is out there can you pm me please.
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
Only an idiot presses the button
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
Not too late to piss on Labour's appeasement parade.
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCES
Grrr.
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.
YouGov: 67% agree with Jez that our foreign wars have led to terrorism
That's the first big mis-step by Labour in a week. But will anyone notice?
He personally doesn't want Trident, and won't say if it will be renewed under Labour. He's still what he always was: a unilateralist. He wants all our enemies to have weapons, but he wants us disarmed.
FFS CCHQ. That's an open goal.
Clearly a man we can trust on defence and security when he won't even answer a straight question, or questions, about his own party's policy.
Finally, the Maybot has agreed to a proper return of fire.
Or has Boris just gone off-piste?
The great thing about letting Boris do it is that if it backfires she can let everythone think he's gone off-piste even if he hasn't.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! GO BORIS! AT BLOODY LAST!
Yes, in one corner we have a sneering entitled Old Etonian Bullingdon Clubber who was made Foreign Secretary having never been in the cabinet before, never been in the shadow cabinet, and without any foreign policy experience whatsoever, a man sacked twice from jobs in the "real world" for telling lies, a thug who conspired to have a journalist beaten up. And in the other corner, we have a man who sticks to his principles and wants to raise taxes for the rich. The electorate may be susceptible to right wing overtures when they make use of xenophobia, but this is different. This is a rich boarding school bully against the Labour leader.
BRING IT ON!
"never been in the shadow cabinet, and without any foreign policy experience whatsoever" surely applies to Corbyn?
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
Only an idiot presses the button
Only an idiot says he won't, as that means having the cost of the deterrent without actually having any deterrent effect...
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
Only an idiot presses the button
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
Not too late to piss on Labour's appeasement parade.
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCES
Grrr.
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.
YouGov: 67% agree with Jez that our foreign wars have led to terrorism
That question is worthless without asking the follow-up: "And if so, what should we do about it?"
Labour's answer is appeasement, pure and simple. And no way is appeasement getting 67% approval in Britain.
Despite being a dark blue Tory, I would take Corbyn over Burnham any day.
A signpost rather than a weather vane.
Is Burnham substantial enough to be classed even as a weather vane? They are pretty solid, reliable-looking things, even if their orientation is a tad stochastic.
I see him more like a discarded plastic bag, bobbing along in the breeze, resting upon whichever branch it snags while waiting for the next gust to decide what position it will land on next.
(Disgust at the possibility of Andy Burnham PM was also one of the reasons I voted for Corbyn...)
This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
The Lib Dems are doing a pretty good job of wiping themselves out, and neither half of their party's name has aged terribly well.
Harsh, but fair. And such brevity of condemnation! I like it. Top post.
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
Only an idiot presses the button
BJO - you are wasting your time trying to explain the obvious to the PB Tories. Let's be honest, they're not the brightest peas in the pod (and they are ugly and uncool too!)
Anyway, as I keep reassuring them, JC is crap and you guys are going to win, possibly even win big. Man up FFS. Reading dowthread that an 8 point Tory lead is cheered to the rafters. FFS!
This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
Who's hoping for a wipe out of the liberal tendency? There's been people hoping for a wipe out of the Liberal Democrats but they are not the "liberal tendency" of this country.
There's lots of MPs in different parties who are of a "liberal tendency" while the so-called Lib Dems can be both illiberal and undemocratic at times.
Well said. It is the adage that proves itself true time and time again - the Liberal Democrats are neither Liberal nor Democratic.
Not too late to piss on Labour's appeasement parade.
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCES
Grrr.
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.
Boris and May are as hard hitting as a wet blancmange , Mr and Mrs Weak and Wobbly
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
Only an idiot presses the button
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacks
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON
May would only press the button if Trump gave permission.
Despite being a dark blue Tory, I would take Corbyn over Burnham any day.
A signpost rather than a weather vane.
Is Burnham substantial enough to be classed even as a weather vane? They are pretty solid, reliable-looking things, even if their orientation is a tad stochastic.
I see him more like a discarded plastic bag, bobbing along in the breeze, resting upon whichever branch it snags while waiting for the next gust to decide what position it will land on next.
(Disgust at the possibility of Andy Burnham PM was also one of the reasons I voted for Corbyn...)
This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
The Lib Dems are doing a pretty good job of wiping themselves out, and neither half of their party's name has aged terribly well.
Harsh, but fair. And such brevity of condemnation! I like it. Top post.
Fair - your comparison is much better and I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to any weather vanes I may have offended.
That last sentence should have ended with the words: "because he has consistently voted against the measures to counter terrorism and make you more secure. He has been more concerned with being friends with terrorists."
Honestly, she needs to put the knife in.
Apart from one or two who obvious ones 'terrorism' is a very subjective judgement. Jeremy Bowen did a very interesting piece on radio 4 today about the tail end of the Lebanese conflict where Hezbollah were trying to prevent Israel incursions into Southern Lebanon. He left no listener in any doubt that he considered the Israelis to be the aggressors and Hezbollah to be the legitimate resistance.
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
Only an idiot presses the button
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacks
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON
For Bristol?
I mean, I'd press the button for London or Cambridge or St Ives. But Bristol. Hmmmm.
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
Only an idiot presses the button
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacks
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON
For Bristol?
I mean, I'd press the button for London or Cambridge or St Ives. But Bristol. Hmmmm.
It'd destroy the SS Great Britain, and the Clifton Suspension Bridge might get damaged as well. We can't let the destruction of such industrial heritage go unpunished ...
Not too late to piss on Labour's appeasement parade.
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCES
Grrr.
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.
Boris and May are as hard hitting as a wet blancmange , Mr and Mrs Weak and Wobbly
Does anyone in the WORLD think Boris is anything other than a moron and an idiot?
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
Only an idiot presses the button
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacks
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON
For Bristol?
I mean, I'd press the button for London or Cambridge or St Ives. But Bristol. Hmmmm.
To be fair the cathedral is quite nice. It'd be a shame to lose that.
Thanks for this. Daesh have changed their tune in recent issues of that magazine. Earlier they published material ostensibly written by their (British) prisoner John Cantlie about a truce, saying they couldn't work with the West but a truce was a different matter. An article attributed to Cantlie quoted Jonathan Powell, who called for talks with Daesh. The "we will hate you forever" line does fit better with recruiting an army of brainwashed madmen who think they are "serving God" when they murder innocents.
So have we had any notable PB meltdowns while I've been doing something I'm paid to do ?
Now to give some comfort to PB Tory nervousness I've compared the lowest Conservative poll rating per election to the actual result and the worst Conservative rating against Labour compared to the actual result.
And in every election from 1974 to 2015 the Conservatives actual vote was higher than their lowest poll rating by between 1% and 7% (average 5%) and their actual vote difference against Labour was always better than their worst poll by between 4% and 21% (average 10%).
So if we assume that the pattern holds and that the lowest Conservative poll is 42% and their lowest poll lead is 5% then the actual vote should have a Conservative vote of between 43% and 49% (average 47%) and a Conservative lead of between 9% and 26% (average 15%).
Whilst no doubt technically true , in 1983 every single poll bar 1 forecast a higher Conservative vote share than they actually achieved .
Indeed - 1983 was the election where the actual Conservative vote was most under what the polls predicted. It was also the election where the Conservatives had their biggest majority.
I've not looked but I would guess that there were elections - 1992 and 2015 most likely and October 1974 and 2001 possibly - where every poll had the Conservatives lower than their actual vote and / or every poll had the Conservatives in a worse position against Labour than the actual vote.
Of course its only an amusing bit of statistical analysis - patterns can change.
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
Only an idiot presses the button
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacks
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON
For Bristol?
I mean, I'd press the button for London or Cambridge or St Ives. But Bristol. Hmmmm.
What's wrong with the city of Brunel ?
And didn't the Sunday Times describe it as the best place to live in Britain ?
Not too late to piss on Labour's appeasement parade.
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCES
Grrr.
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.
Boris and May are as hard hitting as a wet blancmange , Mr and Mrs Weak and Wobbly
Does anyone in the WORLD think Boris is anything other than a moron and an idiot?
1.1 million Londoners in 2008 and 1.05 million Londoners in 2012?
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
Only an idiot presses the button
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacks
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON
For Bristol?
I mean, I'd press the button for London or Cambridge or St Ives. But Bristol. Hmmmm.
What's wrong with the city of Brunel ?
And didn't the Sunday Times describe it as the best place to live in Britain ?
As a Tory voter, I'm rather more nervous now than I would like to be. True, the Conservatives are still some way in front but the polls have been narrowing consistently in the last two weeks thanks to a rather lazy Tory campaign, complete with social care cock-up, while Labour have not had a 1983-Foot-esque disaster of a campaign as was perhaps expected.
Being generous, I suspect the Conservative plan was to let Labour set out their stall (and fall out over it), on the basis that while there would be a movement to them of disillusioned and anti-Conservative voters, while moderate and Tory-inclined voters would either scratch their heads or grow more nervous about the possibility of a Labour led government. A couple of weeks out from the polling day, the guns of the Tories and supporters on the press would then fully turn on Corbyn and the Labour manifesto, with a focus on Labour's extravagant economic policies, Corbyn's association with various unsavoury groups and a more general "who do you trust to run the country competently? Us or them?"
However, this has not turned out as planned. Firstly, the Labour manifesto is more superficially attractive than thought and has also offloaded some of the more offputting policies that might have been in there (such as uncosted spending/heavy tax rises, failure to commit to Trident equivocation on Brexit, lack of credible immigration policy etc). Secondly, it has come with some easy-to-sell policies (abolition of tuition fees) which get their supporters enthused. Thirdly, Labour has had a much better campaign (in part because Corbyn has been kept out of the limelight, and any infighting has largely been kept out of the headlines) and finally, the Conservatives have made some significant unforced errors of their own.
This has led to Labour having a bigger surge than expected due to them sweeping up the anti-Tory odds and sods, and some previously Conservative inclined voters returning to 'don't know'.
That all said, I think the Tories will still come through with a majority of around 100. Both they and the press are going to spend the next couple of week contrasting perceived Conservative competence in government and reliability on the key issues of the day, with Corbyn's own past associations and unreliability on defence and security, and Labour's lack of credibility on economic issues. Also, the Tories' VI still seems pretty securely in the mid-40s, which since 1970 has been enough for a substantial majority.
But where I expected that would be the outcome a couple of weeks ago, I now only think it is, because the Tories have shown themselves perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot this time around. We can't rule out further misfires.
In terms of black swans, while by their nature these can't be accurately predicted, these might be plausible:
1) something linking police cuts under the Conservatives directly to the Manchester bombing, like lack of resources meaning they couldn't check out the bomber/his key associates; 2) something from Corbyn's past that hasn't come up in the press coming back to haunt him (such as passing information to Eastern European security services in the 80s or IRA, that sort of thing). I should of course just make clear that I'm not alleging that he did anything of the sort, just speculating.
Comments
Read more at http://talkradio.co.uk/news/manchester-mayor-andy-burnham-says-jeremy-corbyn-terror-speech-wrong-17052614328#GiWTvXU1htbzuUeZ.99
Labour's numbers are fanciful, but at least they tried to answer the question, rather than just putting their name at the top of the exam paper as the Tories have done. The LibDems have provided the most convincing costing (and by far the fairest, according to the IFS review), for all the good it will do them.
Now to give some comfort to PB Tory nervousness I've compared the lowest Conservative poll rating per election to the actual result and the worst Conservative rating against Labour compared to the actual result.
And in every election from 1974 to 2015 the Conservatives actual vote was higher than their lowest poll rating by between 1% and 7% (average 5%) and their actual vote difference against Labour was always better than their worst poll by between 4% and 21% (average 10%).
So if we assume that the pattern holds and that the lowest Conservative poll is 42% and their lowest poll lead is 5% then the actual vote should have a Conservative vote of between 43% and 49% (average 47%) and a Conservative lead of between 9% and 26% (average 15%).
"I voted against the renewal, everybody knows that, because I wanted to go in a different direction. That decision has been taken, I respect that decision," said Mr Corbyn.
He added: "It's there in the programme, it's there in the manifesto, it will be carried out... it's the position we are adopting as a party and we will take into government."
He could have added the words, "I am a democrat, therefore, agree with the party policy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSIs5rYG0Bk
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/867883087887249409
1) Thinking yourself more talented than you are
2) Unwillingness to do detailed work
Its a trait very, very common among modern politicians.
Unfortunately for Labour, though, whatever May has done, nobody believes Corbyn would do any better.
I'm sure we'll be served with a volley of VI polls.
Compare with Price Charles who thought bombing Al Qaeda during Ramadan might upset Muslims.
Mrs May passed up the opportunity to put as much direct scrutiny on Labour as she wanted, in the TV debates. It was you guys who wanted a stage-managed campaign with no meaningful scrutiny or discussion of policy proposals, no point crying about it now because it's not working to your favour like you thought it would.
If you don't give a number, your number can't be wrong.
I would agree with you that Con may do anything - they may raise direct taxes, they may do stealth taxes - sure - but that is not the point I was making.
The point is that Con is putting forward a status quo proposition. That might be good, it might be bad - anyone can form a view but it's status quo so there are no changes - nothing new to challenge but then nothing new to applaud either.
In contrast Lab is offering big tax and spending changes. So, in contrast, there is lots new to potentially challenge and lots new to potentially applaud.
Honestly, she needs to put the knife in.
There's lots of MPs in different parties who are of a "liberal tendency" while the so-called Lib Dems can be both illiberal and undemocratic at times.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
Labour's answer is appeasement, pure and simple. And no way is appeasement getting 67% approval in Britain.
I see him more like a discarded plastic bag, bobbing along in the breeze, resting upon whichever branch it snags while waiting for the next gust to decide what position it will land on next.
(Disgust at the possibility of Andy Burnham PM was also one of the reasons I voted for Corbyn...) Harsh, but fair. And such brevity of condemnation! I like it. Top post.
Anyway, as I keep reassuring them, JC is crap and you guys are going to win, possibly even win big. Man up FFS. Reading dowthread that an 8 point Tory lead is cheered to the rafters. FFS!
I mean, I'd press the button for London or Cambridge or St Ives. But Bristol. Hmmmm.
Hmmmm. That is going to be tested to destruction.....
It'd be a shame to lose that.
I've not looked but I would guess that there were elections - 1992 and 2015 most likely and October 1974 and 2001 possibly - where every poll had the Conservatives lower than their actual vote and / or every poll had the Conservatives in a worse position against Labour than the actual vote.
Of course its only an amusing bit of statistical analysis - patterns can change.
And didn't the Sunday Times describe it as the best place to live in Britain ?
As a Tory voter, I'm rather more nervous now than I would like to be. True, the Conservatives are still some way in front but the polls have been narrowing consistently in the last two weeks thanks to a rather lazy Tory campaign, complete with social care cock-up, while Labour have not had a 1983-Foot-esque disaster of a campaign as was perhaps expected.
Being generous, I suspect the Conservative plan was to let Labour set out their stall (and fall out over it), on the basis that while there would be a movement to them of disillusioned and anti-Conservative voters, while moderate and Tory-inclined voters would either scratch their heads or grow more nervous about the possibility of a Labour led government. A couple of weeks out from the polling day, the guns of the Tories and supporters on the press would then fully turn on Corbyn and the Labour manifesto, with a focus on Labour's extravagant economic policies, Corbyn's association with various unsavoury groups and a more general "who do you trust to run the country competently? Us or them?"
However, this has not turned out as planned. Firstly, the Labour manifesto is more superficially attractive than thought and has also offloaded some of the more offputting policies that might have been in there (such as uncosted spending/heavy tax rises, failure to commit to Trident equivocation on Brexit, lack of credible immigration policy etc). Secondly, it has come with some easy-to-sell policies (abolition of tuition fees) which get their supporters enthused. Thirdly, Labour has had a much better campaign (in part because Corbyn has been kept out of the limelight, and any infighting has largely been kept out of the headlines) and finally, the Conservatives have made some significant unforced errors of their own.
This has led to Labour having a bigger surge than expected due to them sweeping up the anti-Tory odds and sods, and some previously Conservative inclined voters returning to 'don't know'.
(1/2)
The contrast with the May interview is stark
But where I expected that would be the outcome a couple of weeks ago, I now only think it is, because the Tories have shown themselves perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot this time around. We can't rule out further misfires.
In terms of black swans, while by their nature these can't be accurately predicted, these might be plausible:
1) something linking police cuts under the Conservatives directly to the Manchester bombing, like lack of resources meaning they couldn't check out the bomber/his key associates;
2) something from Corbyn's past that hasn't come up in the press coming back to haunt him (such as passing information to Eastern European security services in the 80s or IRA, that sort of thing). I should of course just make clear that I'm not alleging that he did anything of the sort, just speculating.