politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The election that looked boring and a certainty now becomes harder to predict
TONIGHT: Iconic psephologist @SirDavidButler tells @maitlis he's never seen such a big movement of opinion in election polls #newsnight pic.twitter.com/MSaQXOAykM
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
If this were "the Brexit election", you could imagine many UKIP voters who had previously voted Labour switching to the Tories as "the Brexit party". But if my auntie were my uncle she'd have a pair of knackers. It isn't and it won't become the Brexit election. That was Theresa May's big mistake.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
People are not voting for a candidate they are voting for CHANGE
See Obama 2008, Attlee 1945
Voting for hope after despair. Voting for fat bellies after thin gruel.
Whether they will get it or not is another matter.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
If this were "the Brexit election", you could imagine many UKIP voters who had previously voted Labour switching to the Tories as "the Brexit party". But if my auntie were my uncle she'd have a pair of knackers. It isn't and it won't become the Brexit election. That was Theresa May's big mistake.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
If this were "the Brexit election", you could imagine many UKIP voters who had previously voted Labour switching to the Tories as "the Brexit party". But if my auntie were my uncle she'd have a pair of knackers. It isn't and it won't become the Brexit election. That was Theresa May's big mistake.
And, I'm beginning to fear, Tim Farron's.
Tim Farron positioned himself on the entirely correct and sensible side of Corbyn's speech today. Unfortunately that probably seals all the Lib/Lab Lib Dem marginal candidates.
Corbyn's support below the line in the Daily Mail comments is seriously worrying too.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
The amount spent on the police seems to have little correlation with the number of crimes committed.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
The amount spent on the police seems to have little correlation with the number of crimes committed.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
The amount spent on the police seems to have little correlation with the number of crimes committed.
Great ! Then let's close it down.
Up to a point The trick is finding what that point is.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
To avoid national bankruptcy from Gordon Brown's legacy.
Normality can resume once the deficit is gone, how you think that will happen with Corbynism is beyond me.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
It's not suggested that Briish intervention abroad is the only cause of Islamic extremism, or that it led to the creation of ISIS. But it is clearly true that our habit of intervening in one Middle East country after another and then leaving a divided a warring country to get on with it (cf. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) has greatly helped ISIS and Al Qaeda attract new recruits. The idea that we should intervene elsewhere merely if Mr Trump asks us to, which is current Government policy (according to Boris, explicitly citing Mrs May), is simply bonkers.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
To avoid national bankruptcy from Gordon Brown's legacy.
Normality can resume once the deficit is gone, how you think that will happen with Corbynism is beyond me.
You mean the global financial crisis that started in America and from which the economy was recovering when Labour left office, only for George Osborne to flatline it. Brown was, of course, the last Chancellor to run a surplus, and Labour has had more budget surpluses than the Conservatives since the war.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
It's not suggested that Briish intervention abroad is the only cause of Islamic extremism, or that it led to the creation of ISIS. But it is clearly true that our habit of intervening in one Middle East country after another and then leaving a divided a warring country to get on with it (cf. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) has greatly helped ISIS and Al Qaeda attract new recruits. The idea that we should intervene elsewhere merely if Mr Trump asks us to, which is current Government policy (according to Boris, explicitly citing Mrs May), is simply bonkers.
Isn't the implication that if we do less intervention we'll be on the receiving end of less terrorism?
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
To avoid national bankruptcy from Gordon Brown's legacy.
Normality can resume once the deficit is gone, how you think that will happen with Corbynism is beyond me.
You mean the global financial crisis that started in America and from which the economy was recovering when Labour left office, only for George Osborne to flatline it. Brown was, of course, the last Chancellor to run a surplus, and Labour has had more budget surpluses than the Conservatives since the war.
Gordon Brown's "recovery" was sustainable? Who knew.....
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
If this were "the Brexit election", you could imagine many UKIP voters who had previously voted Labour switching to the Tories as "the Brexit party". But if my auntie were my uncle she'd have a pair of knackers. It isn't and it won't become the Brexit election. That was Theresa May's big mistake.
Although Theresa May claimed to be calling an election to win a mandate for her take on Brexit, since she has not come anywhere close to spelling out what this is, we can assume the cynics were right and she was running scared of losing her majority over the expenses scandal.
Oops! Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. takes "full responsibility" for the leak of British intelligence from its investigation into the Manchester bombing.
"We take full responsibility for that and we are, we obviously regret that that happened," Tillerson said during a visit with London Mayor Boris Johnson. Tillerson made the trip Friday as an expression of U.S. solidarity with the U.K. following the attack at a Manchester concert, which left 22 dead and dozens of others injured.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
To avoid national bankruptcy from Gordon Brown's legacy.
Normality can resume once the deficit is gone, how you think that will happen with Corbynism is beyond me.
You mean the global financial crisis that started in America and from which the economy was recovering when Labour left office, only for George Osborne to flatline it. Brown was, of course, the last Chancellor to run a surplus, and Labour has had more budget surpluses than the Conservatives since the war.
Ah, Brown. The genius who sold half the gold at the bottom of the market, and warned everyone about it.
The newly elected Greater Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham, said he did not agree with Corbyn’s interpretation of the influence of foreign policy on terrorism. “I have a different view to Jeremy on this,” he told TalkRadio. “9/11 happened before any interventions overseas, and the ideology was in existence before that … The people who committed this appalling act are responsible for it, 100%.”
Burnham said radical Islamists had “used things” to justify violence. “We didn’t create it. [There’s] a tendency to blame governments for everything, and I don’t think we should.”
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
To avoid national bankruptcy from Gordon Brown's legacy.
Normality can resume once the deficit is gone, how you think that will happen with Corbynism is beyond me.
You mean the global financial crisis that started in America and from which the economy was recovering when Labour left office, only for George Osborne to flatline it. Brown was, of course, the last Chancellor to run a surplus, and Labour has had more budget surpluses than the Conservatives since the war.
Ah, Brown. The genius who sold half the gold at the bottom of the market, and warned everyone about it.
Second, you can't sell that much gold without telling people about it; first, the market price of gold had been more-or-less static before the bull market; third, the amount it "cost" -- around £1 to £3 billion depending on assumptions, was negligible in the scheme of things and when compared with Tory privatisations, which were almost all below the market price; fourth, how come the gold bugs never complain that Cameron should have sold gold at its peak five years ago?
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
To avoid national bankruptcy from Gordon Brown's legacy.
Normality can resume once the deficit is gone, how you think that will happen with Corbynism is beyond me.
You mean the global financial crisis that started in America and from which the economy was recovering when Labour left office, only for George Osborne to flatline it. Brown was, of course, the last Chancellor to run a surplus, and Labour has had more budget surpluses than the Conservatives since the war.
Ah, Brown. The genius who sold half the gold at the bottom of the market, and warned everyone about it.
Second, you can't sell that much gold without telling people about it; first, the market price of gold had been more-or-less static before the bull market; third, the amount it "cost" -- around £1 to £3 billion depending on assumptions, was negligible in the scheme of things and when compared with Tory privatisations, which were almost all below the market price; fourth, how come the gold bugs never complain that Cameron should have sold gold at its peak five years ago?
I love the idea that 3 billion is negligible. No wonder Labour are not trusted with the nations finances. They screw it up every time they gain power.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
It's not suggested that Briish intervention abroad is the only cause of Islamic extremism, or that it led to the creation of ISIS. But it is clearly true that our habit of intervening in one Middle East country after another and then leaving a divided a warring country to get on with it (cf. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) has greatly helped ISIS and Al Qaeda attract new recruits. The idea that we should intervene elsewhere merely if Mr Trump asks us to, which is current Government policy (according to Boris, explicitly citing Mrs May), is simply bonkers.
Yet you also ignore the consequences of us not doing anything in those situations. Afghanistan is a particularly ludicrous example to quote, given the situation back in 2002.
These evil people will use whatever we do as an excuse. We should not be blaming ourselves, but them.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
To avoid national bankruptcy from Gordon Brown's legacy.
Normality can resume once the deficit is gone, how you think that will happen with Corbynism is beyond me.
You mean the global financial crisis that started in America and from which the economy was recovering when Labour left office, only for George Osborne to flatline it. Brown was, of course, the last Chancellor to run a surplus, and Labour has had more budget surpluses than the Conservatives since the war.
Ah, Brown. The genius who sold half the gold at the bottom of the market, and warned everyone about it.
Second, you can't sell that much gold without telling people about it; first, the market price of gold had been more-or-less static before the bull market; third, the amount it "cost" -- around £1 to £3 billion depending on assumptions, was negligible in the scheme of things and when compared with Tory privatisations, which were almost all below the market price; fourth, how come the gold bugs never complain that Cameron should have sold gold at its peak five years ago?
I love the idea that 3 billion is negligible. No wonder Labour are not trusted with the nations finances. They screw it up every time they gain power.
£3 billion is less than a fortnight's rise in the national debt since 2010. That's under Conservative chancellors, of course.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
It is with some irony worth pointing out that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP may in fact also suffer from the Jeremy Corbyn effect in some seats where they could really do without it. They are going to lose some votes to the Labour party in this GE among younger voters where they can ill afford it, and while older Labour and the Libdems are switching to the Scottish Conservatives as they tactically vote to oust the incumbent SNP MPs in the same seats. Add in the No voters that leant the SNP their vote in the 2015 GE to represent them at Westminster after they thought the Independence Referendum had been for a generation... And some of those huge SNP majorities will melt away like the snow just as those Labour marjorities they overcame.
While the SNP have talked the talk, they have failed to walk the walk when it comes to progressive policies, especially with the young more ideologically driven voters. My middle son was a card carrying member of the SNP who voted for Independence in 2014, but he voted Labour at the Holyrood election last year in our constituency despite it being a straight fight between the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives where Labour didn't have a chance. And he voted Labour because the SNP would not commit to the 50% tax band. And then you have the older more disillusioned voters that are now seeing not only their local services suffering due to SNP cuts, but also wider public services like the NHS and policing effected. Add in the parents whose children are currently going through the education system, and there is now a growing volume of discontent.
Since the right wing press started these attacks on Corbyn, justified or not, his stock has risen. At some point plan B will be needed.
Interesting that you characterise an account as an "attack" - what's inaccurate about it?
Interesting that you missed "justified or not". I've not read the Mail's piece but am saying what ought to be obvious from the opinion polls -- it is not working. Regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks voters ought to be repelled by Corbyn's views on Ireland, plainly they are not. Whether it is already priced in, or is dismissed as ancient history, or whatever, the rise in Corbyn's stock has confounded his detractors. It ain't working.
Corbyn is a nutter, we all know that. He's consistently chosen to support views that are anti-establishment, and has happily embraced the supporters of terror in doing so. Putting him in charge of the country's security and defence is a very unwise idea. I don't think he'll intend to do anything harmful to the nation as a whole, but if he can hurt the rich, powerful and the successful he will, and he doesn't care about the cost. Now that's pretty bad. There is far more to worry about though - the economy. He plans to raid all manner of sources for money, and almost without exception those sources will contract - upper rate taxpayers will pay less tax. He's also planning to spend far more in areas that often will expand to soak up even more money. The sums don't add up now, and they'll look increasingly stupid if he ever tries to implement the policies. And then he plans to borrow vast sums - the bond markets may allow him to do so, but he'll pay substantially more than the current interest rates, and he'll increase the refinancing costs of all the rest of the debt. Corbyn's great spending plans would effectively be simply paying much more interest, there won't be any money left for anything else.
"There’s never been an election campaign where a party was chalking up 20%+ poll leads only to see a decline to single figure leads in a week and a half and one pollster having it at 5%."
"There’s never been an election campaign where a party was chalking up 20%+ poll leads only to see a decline to single figure leads in a week and a half and one pollster having it at 5%."
People have consistently underestimated Corbyn: both outside his party and inside. He's proven remarkably resilient, and now we're seeing the same in this election campaign.
Leaving aside his many negative attributes, his mettle's impressive. So far, May's hasn't been.
People have consistently underestimated Corbyn: both outside his party and inside. He's proven remarkably resilient, and now we're seeing the same in this election campaign.
Leaving aside his many negative attributes, his mettle's impressive. So far, May's hasn't been.
He's very relaxed, and I think he really enjoys the campaign. May does not. Not sure how that translates into competence for running the country though.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
It's not suggested that Briish intervention abroad is the only cause of Islamic extremism, or that it led to the creation of ISIS. But it is clearly true that our habit of intervening in one Middle East country after another and then leaving a divided a warring country to get on with it (cf. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) has greatly helped ISIS and Al Qaeda attract new recruits. The idea that we should intervene elsewhere merely if Mr Trump asks us to, which is current Government policy (according to Boris, explicitly citing Mrs May), is simply bonkers.
Yet you also ignore the consequences of us not doing anything in those situations. Afghanistan is a particularly ludicrous example to quote, given the situation back in 2002.
These evil people will use whatever we do as an excuse. We should not be blaming ourselves, but them.
Especially as choosing to do nothing is still a decision with consequences (eg Syria).
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
To avoid national bankruptcy from Gordon Brown's legacy.
Normality can resume once the deficit is gone, how you think that will happen with Corbynism is beyond me.
You mean the global financial crisis that started in America and from which the economy was recovering when Labour left office, only for George Osborne to flatline it. Brown was, of course, the last Chancellor to run a surplus, and Labour has had more budget surpluses than the Conservatives since the war.
Ah, Brown. The genius who sold half the gold at the bottom of the market, and warned everyone about it.
Second, you can't sell that much gold without telling people about it; first, the market price of gold had been more-or-less static before the bull market; third, the amount it "cost" -- around £1 to £3 billion depending on assumptions, was negligible in the scheme of things and when compared with Tory privatisations, which were almost all below the market price; fourth, how come the gold bugs never complain that Cameron should have sold gold at its peak five years ago?
I love the idea that 3 billion is negligible. No wonder Labour are not trusted with the nations finances. They screw it up every time they gain power.
£3 billion is less than a fortnight's rise in the national debt since 2010. That's under Conservative chancellors, of course.
Who could have predicted that it would be politically impossible to wipe out Brown's enormous deficit overnight?
People have consistently underestimated Corbyn: both outside his party and inside. He's proven remarkably resilient, and now we're seeing the same in this election campaign.
Leaving aside his many negative attributes, his mettle's impressive. So far, May's hasn't been.
He's very relaxed, and I think he really enjoys the campaign. May does not. Not sure how that translates into competence for running the country though.
It doesn't, especially in the hands of an ideologue like Corbyn.
Yet I cannot help but admire his mettle. Hes beaten off lots of competitors.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
Why should anyone in the centre vote for a Tory government which has cut 25% from the Police budget since 2010 ?
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
To avoid national bankruptcy from Gordon Brown's legacy.
Normality can resume once the deficit is gone, how you think that will happen with Corbynism is beyond me.
DELETED DUE TO SPACE PROBLEMS
Ah, Brown. The genius who sold half the gold at the bottom of the market, and warned everyone about it.
Second, you can't sell that much gold without telling people about it; first, the market price of gold had been more-or-less static before the bull market; third, the amount it "cost" -- around £1 to £3 billion depending on assumptions, was negligible in the scheme of things and when compared with Tory privatisations, which were almost all below the market price; fourth, how come the gold bugs never complain that Cameron should have sold gold at its peak five years ago?
I love the idea that 3 billion is negligible. No wonder Labour are not trusted with the nations finances. They screw it up every time they gain power.
£3 billion is less than a fortnight's rise in the national debt since 2010. That's under Conservative chancellors, of course.
Yeah Brown and Darling left an ANNUAL £156 billion turd on the doorstep when they left office, its going to take a lot longer to get rid of it and even longer the smell.. as I said Labour cannot be trusted on finances... and yet Corbyn want to splurge another 70 billion + a year.. bonkers
People have consistently underestimated Corbyn: both outside his party and inside. He's proven remarkably resilient, and now we're seeing the same in this election campaign.
Leaving aside his many negative attributes, his mettle's impressive. So far, May's hasn't been.
He's very relaxed, and I think he really enjoys the campaign. May does not. Not sure how that translates into competence for running the country though.
It doesn't, especially in the hands of an ideologue like Corbyn.
Yet I cannot help but admire his mettle. Hes beaten off lots of competitors.
I only wish May was more at ease. I do feel for her, I am the most anxious person ever when giving talks, although I like to think I am competent enough in other areas of my work.
The newly elected Greater Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham, said he did not agree with Corbyn’s interpretation of the influence of foreign policy on terrorism. “I have a different view to Jeremy on this,” he told TalkRadio. “9/11 happened before any interventions overseas, and the ideology was in existence before that … The people who committed this appalling act are responsible for it, 100%.”
Burnham said radical Islamists had “used things” to justify violence. “We didn’t create it. [There’s] a tendency to blame governments for everything, and I don’t think we should.”
Yeah Brown and Darling left an ANNUAL £156 billion turd on the doorstep when they left office, its going to take a lot longer to get rid of it and even longer the smell.. as I said Labour cannot be trusted on finances... and yet Corbyn want to splurge another 70 billion + a year.. bonkers
It makes me very angry to see such splurging. We should be aiming to have a balanced budget as soon as possible. Even the Tory commitment to "middle of the next decade" really got my hackles up, but I have nowhere else to go.
Corbyn is a nutter, we all know that. He's consistently chosen to support views that are anti-establishment, and has happily embraced the supporters of terror in doing so. Putting him in charge of the country's security and defence is a very unwise idea. I don't think he'll intend to do anything harmful to the nation as a whole, but if he can hurt the rich, powerful and the successful he will, and he doesn't care about the cost. Now that's pretty bad. There is far more to worry about though - the economy. He plans to raid all manner of sources for money, and almost without exception those sources will contract - upper rate taxpayers will pay less tax. He's also planning to spend far more in areas that often will expand to soak up even more money. The sums don't add up now, and they'll look increasingly stupid if he ever tries to implement the policies. And then he plans to borrow vast sums - the bond markets may allow him to do so, but he'll pay substantially more than the current interest rates, and he'll increase the refinancing costs of all the rest of the debt. Corbyn's great spending plans would effectively be simply paying much more interest, there won't be any money left for anything else.
Vote Corbyn - get IMF.
One of the big concerns about Corbyn, is not just that the plans are unaffordable, but how he would respond when the evidence that he isn't raising enough tax starts to become apparent. I suspect that his instinct would not be to change his plans but simply try and find more money to fund it (be it through trying to find further taxation and/or additional borrowing (because that's free money). In France Hollande started on a left wing path and was forced to back down on many proposals within months. I suspect Corbyn would plough on regardless, with god knows what consequences.
And certainly all the remainers fears for the City of London under Brexit would become irrelevant very quickly.
Not to mention his plans for public sector pay - how will he respond when the Unions start putting in 10% plus pay claims and go on strike to achieve it?
Yes, I know it was a very dodgy poll in the Sun yesterday. But, I guess all polls are very dodgy. As we said in 2010 polled respondents don't want to look thick so they parrot off what they have half heard being said by commentators on the TV in the background the night before.
But there has been movement, but there is also froth.
FWIW I still think Farron will struggle to hold W&L even though the agenda has moved on from Brexit. He gets verbal abuse shouted at him when he walks down Kendal Finkle Street - not by us I hasten to add. His agent seems to be a very worried man.
Corbyn is a nutter, we all know that. He's consistently chosen to support views that are anti-establishment, and has happily embraced the supporters of terror in doing so. Putting him in charge of the country's security and defence is a very unwise idea. I don't think he'll intend to do anything harmful to the nation as a whole, but if he can hurt the rich, powerful and the successful he will, and he doesn't care about the cost. Now that's pretty bad. There is far more to worry about though - the economy. He plans to raid all manner of sources for money, and almost without exception those sources will contract - upper rate taxpayers will pay less tax. He's also planning to spend far more in areas that often will expand to soak up even more money. The sums don't add up now, and they'll look increasingly stupid if he ever tries to implement the policies. And then he plans to borrow vast sums - the bond markets may allow him to do so, but he'll pay substantially more than the current interest rates, and he'll increase the refinancing costs of all the rest of the debt. Corbyn's great spending plans would effectively be simply paying much more interest, there won't be any money left for anything else.
Vote Corbyn - get IMF.
One of the big concerns about Corbyn, is not just that the plans are unaffordable, but how he would respond when the evidence that he isn't raising enough tax starts to become apparent. I suspect that his instinct would not be to change his plans but simply try and find more money to fund it (be it through trying to find further taxation and/or additional borrowing (because that's free money). In France Hollande started on a left wing path and was forced to back down on many proposals within months. I suspect Corbyn would plough on regardless, with god knows what consequences.
And certainly all the remainers fears for the City of London under Brexit would become irrelevant very quickly.
Not to mention his plans for public sector pay - how will he respond when the Unions start putting in 10% plus pay claims and go on strike to achieve it?
Hollande was held back by EU rules in a way that Corbyns Brexit Britain just wouldn't be. The joys of sovereignty!
The chance of a Labour majority is tiny, so no risk. A Labour minority government is more realistic, but slight. I think that a hung parliament is the best that we can hope for.
Corbyn is a nutter, we all know that. He's consistently chosen to support views that are anti-establishment, and has happily embraced the supporters of terror in doing so. Putting him in charge of the country's security and defence is a very unwise idea. I don't think he'll intend to do anything harmful to the nation as a whole, but if he can hurt the rich, powerful and the successful he will, and he doesn't care about the cost. Now that's pretty bad. There is far more to worry about though - the economy. He plans to raid all manner of sources for money, and almost without exception those sources will contract - upper rate taxpayers will pay less tax. He's also planning to spend far more in areas that often will expand to soak up even more money. The sums don't add up now, and they'll look increasingly stupid if he ever tries to implement the policies. And then he plans to borrow vast sums - the bond markets may allow him to do so, but he'll pay substantially more than the current interest rates, and he'll increase the refinancing costs of all the rest of the debt. Corbyn's great spending plans would effectively be simply paying much more interest, there won't be any money left for anything else.
Vote Corbyn - get IMF.
One of the big concerns about Corbyn, is not just that the plans are unaffordable, but how he would respond when the evidence that he isn't raising enough tax starts to become apparent. I suspect that his instinct would not be to change his plans but simply try and find more money to fund it (be it through trying to find further taxation and/or additional borrowing (because that's free money). In France Hollande started on a left wing path and was forced to back down on many proposals within months. I suspect Corbyn would plough on regardless, with god knows what consequences.
And certainly all the remainers fears for the City of London under Brexit would become irrelevant very quickly.
Not to mention his plans for public sector pay - how will he respond when the Unions start putting in 10% plus pay claims and go on strike to achieve it?
"I suspect that his instinct would not be to change his plans but simply try and find more money to fund it."
I think that's totally in character. He's had essentially the same politics and policies since the 1980s; if he gets a chance to test those policies and they don't work, he won't see the policies as being at fault.
"We've squeezed the rich until the squeak and we still don't have enough money? Well, squeeze them some more!"
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
It's not suggested that Briish intervention abroad is the only cause of Islamic extremism, or that it led to the creation of ISIS. But it is clearly true that our habit of intervening in one Middle East country after another and then leaving a divided a warring country to get on with it (cf. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) has greatly helped ISIS and Al Qaeda attract new recruits. The idea that we should intervene elsewhere merely if Mr Trump asks us to, which is current Government policy (according to Boris, explicitly citing Mrs May), is simply bonkers.
Yet you also ignore the consequences of us not doing anything in those situations. Afghanistan is a particularly ludicrous example to quote, given the situation back in 2002.
These evil people will use whatever we do as an excuse. We should not be blaming ourselves, but them.
Especially as choosing to do nothing is still a decision with consequences (eg Syria).
Our involvement in Afghanistan was a consequence of several series of bad decisions the most recent one starting with the Soviet invasion in 1979, although of course there were other issues before then. Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea for non-Afghani’s to get involved with Afghan affairs!
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
It's not suggested that Briish intervention abroad is the only cause of Islamic extremism, or that it led to the creation of ISIS. But it is clearly true that our habit of intervening in one Middle East country after another and then leaving a divided a warring country to get on with it (cf. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) has greatly helped ISIS and Al Qaeda attract new recruits. The idea that we should intervene elsewhere merely if Mr Trump asks us to, which is current Government policy (according to Boris, explicitly citing Mrs May), is simply bonkers.
Yet you also ignore the consequences of us not doing anything in those situations. Afghanistan is a particularly ludicrous example to quote, given the situation back in 2002.
These evil people will use whatever we do as an excuse. We should not be blaming ourselves, but them.
Especially as choosing to do nothing is still a decision with consequences (eg Syria).
Our involvement in Afghanistan was a consequence of several series of bad decisions the most recent one starting with the Soviet invasion in 1979, although of course there were other issues before then. Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea for non-Afghani’s to get involved with Afghan affairs!
They don't call it the graveyard of empires for no reason!
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
If this were "the Brexit election", you could imagine many UKIP voters who had previously voted Labour switching to the Tories as "the Brexit party". But if my auntie were my uncle she'd have a pair of knackers. It isn't and it won't become the Brexit election. That was Theresa May's big mistake.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
It's not suggested that Briish intervention abroad is the only cause of Islamic extremism, or that it led to the creation of ISIS. But it is clearly true that our habit of intervening in one Middle East country after another and then leaving a divided a warring country to get on with it (cf. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) has greatly helped ISIS and Al Qaeda attract new recruits. The idea that we should intervene elsewhere merely if Mr Trump asks us to, which is current Government policy (according to Boris, explicitly citing Mrs May), is simply bonkers.
Yet you also ignore the consequences of us not doing anything in those situations. Afghanistan is a particularly ludicrous example to quote, given the situation back in 2002.
These evil people will use whatever we do as an excuse. We should not be blaming ourselves, but them.
Especially as choosing to do nothing is still a decision with consequences (eg Syria).
Our involvement in Afghanistan was a consequence of several series of bad decisions the most recent one starting with the Soviet invasion in 1979, although of course there were other issues before then. Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea for non-Afghani’s to get involved with Afghan affairs!
I'd love to know what the 'we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan' crowd such as NPXMP expect us to have done. Left the Taliban alone so al Qaeda could attack again?
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
If this were "the Brexit election", you could imagine many UKIP voters who had previously voted Labour switching to the Tories as "the Brexit party". But if my auntie were my uncle she'd have a pair of knackers. It isn't and it won't become the Brexit election. That was Theresa May's big mistake.
Is Theresa the new Edward Heath?
Are you suggesting Tim Farron might be a new Jeremy Thorpe?
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
It's not suggested that Briish intervention abroad is the only cause of Islamic extremism, or that it led to the creation of ISIS. But it is clearly true that our habit of intervening in one Middle East country after another and then leaving a divided a warring country to get on with it (cf. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) has greatly helped ISIS and Al Qaeda attract new recruits. The idea that we should intervene elsewhere merely if Mr Trump asks us to, which is current Government policy (according to Boris, explicitly citing Mrs May), is simply bonkers.
Yet you also ignore the consequences of us not doing anything in those situations. Afghanistan is a particularly ludicrous example to quote, given the situation back in 2002.
These evil people will use whatever we do as an excuse. We should not be blaming ourselves, but them.
Especially as choosing to do nothing is still a decision with consequences (eg Syria).
Our involvement in Afghanistan was a consequence of several series of bad decisions the most recent one starting with the Soviet invasion in 1979, although of course there were other issues before then. Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea for non-Afghani’s to get involved with Afghan affairs!
I'd love to know what the 'we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan' crowd such as NPXMP expect us to have done. Left the Taliban alone so al Qaeda could attack again?
The problem with that logic is that they have attacked us many times since anyway. Admittedly not as spectacularly as 9/11, but that may be due to improved airline security as much as anything else.
Arguably however the real mistake was the Iraq war, which distracted Western governments, divided their forces and sucked out their resolve.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
If this were "the Brexit election", you could imagine many UKIP voters who had previously voted Labour switching to the Tories as "the Brexit party". But if my auntie were my uncle she'd have a pair of knackers. It isn't and it won't become the Brexit election. That was Theresa May's big mistake.
Is Theresa the new Edward Heath?
Are you suggesting Tim Farron might be a new Jeremy Thorpe?
Such a suggestion is, personally, probably actionable! Although it doesn’t (yet) feel like it, Liberal/Liberal Democrat wise.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
If this were "the Brexit election", you could imagine many UKIP voters who had previously voted Labour switching to the Tories as "the Brexit party". But if my auntie were my uncle she'd have a pair of knackers. It isn't and it won't become the Brexit election. That was Theresa May's big mistake.
Is Theresa the new Edward Heath?
Are you suggesting Tim Farron might be a new Jeremy Thorpe?
Such a suggestion is, personally, probably actionable! Although it doesn’t (yet) feel like it, Liberal/Liberal Democrat wise.
Well, it's worth remembering he took over a party with a handful of seats - and lost more.
People have consistently underestimated Corbyn: both outside his party and inside. He's proven remarkably resilient, and now we're seeing the same in this election campaign.
Leaving aside his many negative attributes, his mettle's impressive. So far, May's hasn't been.
He's very relaxed, and I think he really enjoys the campaign. May does not. Not sure how that translates into competence for running the country though.
It doesn't, especially in the hands of an ideologue like Corbyn.
Yet I cannot help but admire his mettle. Hes beaten off lots of competitors.
I wonder if May would keep the same calm persona under constant attack from the MSM and many on her own side.Early indications suggest not.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
It's not suggested that Briish intervention abroad is the only cause of Islamic extremism, or that it led to the creation of ISIS. But it is clearly true that our habit of intervening in one Middle East country after another and then leaving a divided a warring country to get on with it (cf. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) has greatly helped ISIS and Al Qaeda attract new recruits. The idea that we should intervene elsewhere merely if Mr Trump asks us to, which is current Government policy (according to Boris, explicitly citing Mrs May), is simply bonkers.
Yet you also ignore the consequences of us not doing anything in those situations. Afghanistan is a particularly ludicrous example to quote, given the situation back in 2002.
These evil people will use whatever we do as an excuse. We should not be blaming ourselves, but them.
Especially as choosing to do nothing is still a decision with consequences (eg Syria).
Our involvement in Afghanistan was a consequence of several series of bad decisions the most recent one starting with the Soviet invasion in 1979, although of course there were other issues before then. Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea for non-Afghani’s to get involved with Afghan affairs!
I'd love to know what the 'we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan' crowd such as NPXMP expect us to have done. Left the Taliban alone so al Qaeda could attack again?
The problem with that logic is that they have attacked us many times since anyway. Admittedly not as spectacularly as 9/11, but that may be due to improved airline security as much as anything else.
Arguably however the real mistake was the Iraq war, which distracted Western governments, divided their forces and sucked out their resolve.
The ‘mistake’ was, surely, holding back in the first Iraq War. Saddam had made himself unpopular enough with his neighbours for everyone to want him gone and he coiuld, just about, have been replaced by a less undemocratic but still stable regime, without the religious bigotry which has recently been such a cause of problems in the country.
People have consistently underestimated Corbyn: both outside his party and inside. He's proven remarkably resilient, and now we're seeing the same in this election campaign.
Leaving aside his many negative attributes, his mettle's impressive. So far, May's hasn't been.
He's very relaxed, and I think he really enjoys the campaign. May does not. Not sure how that translates into competence for running the country though.
It doesn't, especially in the hands of an ideologue like Corbyn.
Yet I cannot help but admire his mettle. Hes beaten off lots of competitors.
I wonder if May would keep the same calm persona under constant attack from the MSM and many on her own side.Early indications suggest not.
If she had to defend being an apologist for the IRA, I suspect not.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
If this were "the Brexit election", you could imagine many UKIP voters who had previously voted Labour switching to the Tories as "the Brexit party". But if my auntie were my uncle she'd have a pair of knackers. It isn't and it won't become the Brexit election. That was Theresa May's big mistake.
Is Theresa the new Edward Heath?
Are you suggesting Tim Farron might be a new Jeremy Thorpe?
Such a suggestion is, personally, probably actionable! Although it doesn’t (yet) feel like it, Liberal/Liberal Democrat wise.
Well, it's worth remembering he took over a party with a handful of seats - and lost more.
IIRC under Thorpe the Libs sarted off with a loss (Carmarthen), improved, got hammered in 1970, but then started picking up seats both at by-elections and at the Feb 1974 general ekection.
The ‘mistake’ was, surely, holding back in the first Iraq War. Saddam had made himself unpopular enough with his neighbours for everyone to want him gone and he coiuld, just about, have been replaced by a less undemocratic but still stable regime, without the religious bigotry which has recently been such a cause of problems in the country.
Less religious bigotry? Wasn't Saddam notorious for discriminating against religious minorities? What is to suggest another strongman would have been any different?
Labour can win this. We have the momentum behind us. We have a manifesto offering hope for a better future that has clicked with a broad spectrum of people. We lead opinion polls on policy and ideas, only falling behind when asked "which party has the best programme for government" or "which leader would be the best PM".
And until 2 weeks ago that would have been that. Only question was a Tory majority of 50 or 150. But then it all changed. A Tory manifesto that repelled so many of their own supporters and repulsed everyone else. Offering a deepening of the grinding austerity which amongst other things removed so many police officers from our streets and leaves millions working but penniless and millions of others stuck in inadequate but expensive rented housing with no options for better.
Realising the misstep over the key headline Dementia Tax May then tries to u-turn. But in doing so leaves the door open on whether the policy will come in or not. In a manifesto woefully uncosted. And in doing so demolishes the Strong and Stable mantra which, alongside "I'm not Jeremy Corbyn", was the central pillar of her campaign. Knock away the central pillar and the ceiling falls in. And "ah but Corbyn loves terrorists" doesn't resonate any more - the clip of the police 2 years ago telling May that her police cuts would leave us wide open to terror attacks resonating far more powerfully.
Without the "Jeremy can't win" mantra you'd all be talking about how the Tories were in danger of being routed, how their massive paper lead was collapsing in the face of voters making real choices. Of people looking at their lives and once again realising that the deep blue sea may be better than the devil. Because what cards do the Tories have left to play to arrest their decline, never mind to seize the agenda again? Politics is story telling, spin a narrative people can believe in and you can get them to do anything - even vote for Trump. Or Brexit. Or a clown. Or a man in a monkey suit.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
If this were "the Brexit election", you could imagine many UKIP voters who had previously voted Labour switching to the Tories as "the Brexit party". But if my auntie were my uncle she'd have a pair of knackers. It isn't and it won't become the Brexit election. That was Theresa May's big mistake.
Is Theresa the new Edward Heath?
Are you suggesting Tim Farron might be a new Jeremy Thorpe?
Such a suggestion is, personally, probably actionable! Although it doesn’t (yet) feel like it, Liberal/Liberal Democrat wise.
Well, it's worth remembering he took over a party with a handful of seats - and lost more.
IIRC under Thorpe the Libs sarted off with a loss (Carmarthen), improved, got hammered in 1970, but then started picking up seats both at by-elections and at the Feb 1974 general ekection.
No, my comparison between Theresa and Heath was that Heath called an unnecessary election, tried to dictate what it was about and came a cropper.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
It's not suggested .
Yet you also ignore the consequences of us not doing anything in those situations. Afghanistan is a particularly ludicrous example to quote, given the situation back in 2002.
These evil people will use whatever we do as an excuse. We should not be blaming ourselves, but them.
Especially as choosing to do nothing is still a decision with consequences (eg Syria).
Our involvement in Afghanistan was a consequence of several series of bad decisions the most recent one starting with the Soviet invasion in 1979, although of course there were other issues before then. Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea for non-Afghani’s to get involved with Afghan affairs!
I'd love to know what the 'we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan' crowd such as NPXMP expect us to have done. Left the Taliban alone so al Qaeda could attack again?
There was considerable worldwide support for the NATO led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. International goodwill that was squandered in Iraq.
Though perhaps the longer view requires looking at the funding and arming of the Mujahadin against the Soviets by Maggie and Ronnie in the Eighties. That is how Bin Laden started, back when Islamist terrorists were considered the good guys by our press barons.
Looking at the state of Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen now it is hard to defend the case that our foreign policy has been flawless. We should at least consider what we would do differently the next time a MENA country tears itself apart. Lobbing bombs at civil wars has not worked out well.
Jezza was not arguing that Western Foreign policy was soley responsible for the rise of Islamism, but it is nessecary to at least consider how much it contributed. The War on Terror is a unique war where each side specialises in self harm.
The ‘mistake’ was, surely, holding back in the first Iraq War. Saddam had made himself unpopular enough with his neighbours for everyone to want him gone and he coiuld, just about, have been replaced by a less undemocratic but still stable regime, without the religious bigotry which has recently been such a cause of problems in the country.
Less religious bigotry? Wasn't Saddam notorious for discriminating against religious minorities? What is to suggest another strongman would have been any different?
Actually, while I stand to be corrected, Saddam didn’t seem to have a particular problem with religious minorities. It was any opposition, actual or percieved, that ‘upset’him! His right hand man, Tariq Aziz, was a Christian.
And "ah but Corbyn loves terrorists" doesn't resonate any more - the clip of the police 2 years ago telling May that her police cuts would leave us wide open to terror attacks resonating far more powerfully.
Love him or hate him Corbyn absolutely believes in what he says, has done for decades, a refreshing change from the vacuous chameleons such as Blair and Cameron. Perhaps his sincerity is appealing to people.
Still predict a very large majority for May but it'll be interesting watching the tories earn it.
The ‘mistake’ was, surely, holding back in the first Iraq War. Saddam had made himself unpopular enough with his neighbours for everyone to want him gone and he coiuld, just about, have been replaced by a less undemocratic but still stable regime, without the religious bigotry which has recently been such a cause of problems in the country.
Less religious bigotry? Wasn't Saddam notorious for discriminating against religious minorities? What is to suggest another strongman would have been any different?
Saddam discriminated against the majority Shia population, but was really a secular Fascist. He did not persecute the substantial Yazidi or Christian minorities of Iraq.
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
Some UKIP voters in 2015 are returning to Labour.
Given that UKIP are not standing in many constituencies, I and no doubt many others are likely to be tempted to do exactly this. Corbyn has accepted Brexit. Corbyn made an excellent well-balanced speech yesterday and TM's attack on him misquoted what he said. I applaud his non-interventionist attitude to foreign affairs, which was also shared by Farage.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
The idea that all of Labour's improvement is down to younger voters and "metropolitan" areas (thus meaning they would just "pile up" votes in safe seats) isn't really borne out by the evidence. Look at Wales -- that has very few truly "metropolitan" areas, and has a higher average age than any English region, yet the latest YouGov from Wales shows Labour up considerably on 2015. Also subsamples this past week have generally been giving Labour healthy leads in the North again.
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
If this were "the Brexit election", you could imagine many UKIP voters who had previously voted Labour switching to the Tories as "the Brexit party". But if my auntie were my uncle she'd have a pair of knackers. It isn't and it won't become the Brexit election. That was Theresa May's big mistake.
Is Theresa the new Edward Heath?
Are you suggesting Tim Farron might be a new Jeremy Thorpe?
Such a suggestion is, personally, probably actionable! Although it doesn’t (yet) feel like it, Liberal/Liberal Democrat wise.
Well, it's worth remembering he took over a party with a handful of seats - and lost more.
IIRC under Thorpe the Libs sarted off with a loss (Carmarthen), improved, got hammered in 1970, but then started picking up seats both at by-elections and at the Feb 1974 general ekection.
No, my comparison between Theresa and Heath was that Heath called an unnecessary election, tried to dictate what it was about and came a cropper.
Agree with your comparison. My response was to Dr ydoethur’s remark.
People have consistently underestimated Corbyn: both outside his party and inside. He's proven remarkably resilient, and now we're seeing the same in this election campaign.
Leaving aside his many negative attributes, his mettle's impressive. So far, May's hasn't been.
He's very relaxed, and I think he really enjoys the campaign. May does not. Not sure how that translates into competence for running the country though.
It doesn't, especially in the hands of an ideologue like Corbyn.
Yet I cannot help but admire his mettle. Hes beaten off lots of competitors.
I wonder if May would keep the same calm persona under constant attack from the MSM and many on her own side.Early indications suggest not.
If she had to defend being an apologist for the IRA, I suspect not.
Not having a contest just a coronation did Brown no favours nor May running for election has improved Corbyn .
People have consistently underestimated Corbyn: both outside his party and inside. He's proven remarkably resilient, and now we're seeing the same in this election campaign.
Leaving aside his many negative attributes, his mettle's impressive. So far, May's hasn't been.
He's very relaxed, and I think he really enjoys the campaign. May does not. Not sure how that translates into competence for running the country though.
It doesn't, especially in the hands of an ideologue like Corbyn.
Yet I cannot help but admire his mettle. Hes beaten off lots of competitors.
I wonder if May would keep the same calm persona under constant attack from the MSM and many on her own side.Early indications suggest not.
If she had to defend being an apologist for the IRA, I suspect not.
Not having a contest just a coronation did Brown no favours nor May running for election has improved Corbyn .
The election has forced the choice, with lots of the left coalescing around Labour. The Tories are down a bit from the peak after the dissolution, but are actually where they were prior to the election being declared.
People have consistently underestimated Corbyn: both outside his party and inside. He's proven remarkably resilient, and now we're seeing the same in this election campaign.
Leaving aside his many negative attributes, his mettle's impressive. So far, May's hasn't been.
He's very relaxed, and I think he really enjoys the campaign. May does not. Not sure how that translates into competence for running the country though.
It doesn't, especially in the hands of an ideologue like Corbyn.
Yet I cannot help but admire his mettle. Hes beaten off lots of competitors.
I wonder if May would keep the same calm persona under constant attack from the MSM and many on her own side.Early indications suggest not.
If she had to defend being an apologist for the IRA, I suspect not.
Not having a contest just a coronation did Brown no favours nor May running for election has improved Corbyn .
I completely agree with that. Mrs May's ability to campaign effectively has been seriously undermined by not having had the practice of fighting a proper leadership battle. It was the same as you say with Gordon Brown
Labour can win this. We have the momentum behind us. We have a manifesto offering hope for a better future that has clicked with a broad spectrum of people. We lead opinion polls on policy and ideas, only falling behind when asked "which party has the best programme for government" or "which leader would be the best PM".
And until 2 weeks ago that would have been that. Only question was a Tory majority of 50 or 150. But then it all changed. A Tory manifesto that repelled so many of their own supporters and repulsed everyone else. Offering a deepening of the grinding austerity which amongst other things removed so many police officers from our streets and leaves millions working but penniless and millions of others stuck in inadequate but expensive rented housing with no options for better.
Realising the misstep over the key headline Dementia Tax May then tries to u-turn. But in doing so leaves the door open on whether the policy will come in or not. In a manifesto woefully uncosted. And in doing so demolishes the Strong and Stable mantra which, alongside "I'm not Jeremy Corbyn", was the central pillar of her campaign. Knock away the central pillar and the ceiling falls in. And "ah but Corbyn loves terrorists" doesn't resonate any more - the clip of the police 2 years ago telling May that her police cuts would leave us wide open to terror attacks resonating far more powerfully.
Without the "Jeremy can't win" mantra you'd all be talking about how the Tories were in danger of being routed, how their massive paper lead was collapsing in the face of voters making real choices. Of people looking at their lives and once again realising that the deep blue sea may be better than the devil. Because what cards do the Tories have left to play to arrest their decline, never mind to seize the agenda again? Politics is story telling, spin a narrative people can believe in and you can get them to do anything - even vote for Trump. Or Brexit. Or a clown. Or a man in a monkey suit.
A manifesto offering hope for a better future? It's an uncosted wish list with no detail about how it will be paid for. There is nothing principled about that.
You are absolutely right about the effect of the U turn on the Tory narrative - they should never have made the election just about May.
And "ah but Corbyn loves terrorists" doesn't resonate any more - the clip of the police 2 years ago telling May that her police cuts would leave us wide open to terror attacks resonating far more powerfully.
Evidence for this?
Go talk to people. Police cuts have been a significant and growing issue for complaint in so many communities. People vote more on the here and now than the past, especially when the here and now threatens them and theirs. How can the Tories hope for "Corbyn is soft on terrorism" to suddenly gain traction when it hasn't before when the proof that May is soft on terrorism is in front of their eyes?
Interesting comments from Paul Mason on Newsnight who I think to be fair has been quite bullish about Lab prospects from the start of the campaign:
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
Some UKIP voters in 2015 are returning to Labour.
Given that UKIP are not standing in many constituencies, I and no doubt many others are likely to be tempted to do exactly this. Corbyn has accepted Brexit. Corbyn made an excellent well-balanced speech yesterday and TM's attack on him misquoted what he said. I applaud his non-interventionist attitude to foreign affairs, which was also shared by Farage.
There was a lot of speculation of Melenchon voters going to Le Pen a few weeks ago, but are we seeing the British equivalent in reverse. Le Pen to Melenchon in a British context is UKIP voters going back to Corbynite Labour.
To turn this into a Brexit election, Theresa has to outline her vision of Brexit. She has singularly failed to do so. She is an incompetent control freak which does not bode well, though I do expect Tories to gain seats.
How on earth anyone ANYWHERE near the centre ground could remotely consider voting for a party lead by Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbott is utterly beyond me.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
"What part of..." Yawn! That's rarely how causation works. Mill's methods.
It's not suggested that Briish intervention abroad is the only cause of Islamic extremism, or that it led to the creation of ISIS. But it is clearly true that our habit of intervening in one Middle East country after another and then leaving a divided a warring country to get on with it (cf. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) has greatly helped ISIS and Al Qaeda attract new recruits. The idea that we should intervene elsewhere merely if Mr Trump asks us to, which is current Government policy (according to Boris, explicitly citing Mrs May), is simply bonkers.
Yet you also ignore the consequences of us not doing anything in those situations. Afghanistan is a particularly ludicrous example to quote, given the situation back in 2002.
These evil people will use whatever we do as an excuse. We should not be blaming ourselves, but them.
Especially as choosing to do nothing is still a decision with consequences (eg Syria).
The West is not doing nothing in Syria. It is siding with the jidahists at the behest of the evil Saudi regime and has bombed Syrian government forces.
We have a manifesto offering hope for a better future.
You really, really haven't. Even Donald Trump's 'we'll build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it' is more realistic than Corbyn's education policy (for example).
There was considerable worldwide support for the NATO led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. International goodwill that was squandered in Iraq.
Though perhaps the longer view requires looking at the funding and arming of the Mujahadin against the Soviets by Maggie and Ronnie in the Eighties. That is how Bin Laden started, back when Islamist terrorists were considered the good guys by our press barons.
Looking at the state of Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen now it is hard to defend the case that our foreign policy has been flawless. We should at least consider what we would do differently the next time a MENA country tears itself apart. Lobbing bombs at civil wars has not worked out well.
Jezza was not arguing that Western Foreign policy was soley responsible for the rise of Islamism, but it is nessecary to at least consider how much it contributed. The War on Terror is a unique war where each side specialises in self harm.
I'm not arguing that our foreign policy has been flawless: far from. It's just that the extremists are far more responsive than we are, and are looking for reasons to be aggrieved.
bin Laden's an interesting example. Afghanistan is an odd place for a Saudi national to have got 'started', isn't it? Or perhaps he was radicalised elsewhere and went looking for a fight. And if that's the case, *any* intervention in *any* Muslim land, however valid, would lead to problems.
The final endpoint of your position is that we end up leaving all lands Muslim extremists call their own to them (even including places like much of Spain), and not to react when they preform heinous acts inside 'their' lands, or outside to us.
We can't go around not pandering to extremists, because they will always want more.
It's depressing that every leader this time appears inferior to those of two years ago.
It'd be interesting if it were May versus Miliband.
Ed Milliband was onto something with responsible capitalism but the timidity of his response people could not see the difference.That is why May is suggesting some of his policies.
Comments
1) He always thought it would be quite easy for Lab to get up to 35% by gathering all votes from the left. But then much harder to go much higher as that requires centrist votes.
2) He thinks big problem for Lab could well be piling up large numbers of extra votes in seats they win anyway - ie much less efficient votes to seats efficiency.
Can any Corbyn apologist remind me what part of Germany's interventionist foreign policy lead to a terrorist mowing down 12 souls in Berlin last christmas ?
While Labour has made improvements with pretty much every group, there's lots to suggest that they're making especially sharp improvements with their white working-class "traditional" voters, who they were struggling with so much at the beginning of the campaign.
See Obama 2008, Attlee 1945
Voting for hope after despair. Voting for fat bellies after thin gruel.
Whether they will get it or not is another matter.
Corbyn's support below the line in the Daily Mail comments is seriously worrying too.
Tim not cutting it.
Austerity has to go. Let normality return.
Normality can resume once the deficit is gone, how you think that will happen with Corbynism is beyond me.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. takes "full responsibility" for the leak of British intelligence from its investigation into the Manchester bombing.
"We take full responsibility for that and we are, we obviously regret that that happened," Tillerson said during a visit with London Mayor Boris Johnson. Tillerson made the trip Friday as an expression of U.S. solidarity with the U.K. following the attack at a Manchester concert, which left 22 dead and dozens of others injured.
http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/tillerson-says-u-s-takes-full-responsibility-for-leak-of-british-intel/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4546912/Corbyn-shameless-apologist-world-s-men-evil.html
The newly elected Greater Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham, said he did not agree with Corbyn’s interpretation of the influence of foreign policy on terrorism. “I have a different view to Jeremy on this,” he told TalkRadio. “9/11 happened before any interventions overseas, and the ideology was in existence before that … The people who committed this appalling act are responsible for it, 100%.”
Burnham said radical Islamists had “used things” to justify violence. “We didn’t create it. [There’s] a tendency to blame governments for everything, and I don’t think we should.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/26/may-puts-manchester-bombing-at-heart-of-election-with-attack-on-corbyn
Meanwhile, I hear the Remainers trust in Tim Farron is going spiffingly well...
Con: 45
Lab: 4
UKIP : 28
These evil people will use whatever we do as an excuse. We should not be blaming ourselves, but them.
While the SNP have talked the talk, they have failed to walk the walk when it comes to progressive policies, especially with the young more ideologically driven voters. My middle son was a card carrying member of the SNP who voted for Independence in 2014, but he voted Labour at the Holyrood election last year in our constituency despite it being a straight fight between the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives where Labour didn't have a chance. And he voted Labour because the SNP would not commit to the 50% tax band. And then you have the older more disillusioned voters that are now seeing not only their local services suffering due to SNP cuts, but also wider public services like the NHS and policing effected. Add in the parents whose children are currently going through the education system, and there is now a growing volume of discontent.
Net Favourable April 20 / May 22 /. May 25
May: +10 / -8 / +1
Corbyn: -42 / -11 / -16
Farron: -26 / -26 / -29
Vote Corbyn - get IMF.
1997?
Leaving aside his many negative attributes, his mettle's impressive. So far, May's hasn't been.
May: +25
Corbyn: -18
Rudd: -16
Abbott: -53
May lead vs Corbyn: +43 points, Rudd lead vs Abbott: +37 points.
Yet I cannot help but admire his mettle. Hes beaten off lots of competitors.
And certainly all the remainers fears for the City of London under Brexit would become irrelevant very quickly.
Not to mention his plans for public sector pay - how will he respond when the Unions start putting in 10% plus pay claims and go on strike to achieve it?
But there has been movement, but there is also froth.
FWIW I still think Farron will struggle to hold W&L even though the agenda has moved on from Brexit. He gets verbal abuse shouted at him when he walks down Kendal Finkle Street - not by us I hasten to add. His agent seems to be a very worried man.
The chance of a Labour majority is tiny, so no risk. A Labour minority government is more realistic, but slight. I think that a hung parliament is the best that we can hope for.
I think that's totally in character. He's had essentially the same politics and policies since the 1980s; if he gets a chance to test those policies and they don't work, he won't see the policies as being at fault.
"We've squeezed the rich until the squeak and we still don't have enough money? Well, squeeze them some more!"
Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea for non-Afghani’s to get involved with Afghan affairs!
Arguably however the real mistake was the Iraq war, which distracted Western governments, divided their forces and sucked out their resolve.
It's depressing that every leader this time appears inferior to those of two years ago.
It'd be interesting if it were May versus Miliband.
And until 2 weeks ago that would have been that. Only question was a Tory majority of 50 or 150. But then it all changed. A Tory manifesto that repelled so many of their own supporters and repulsed everyone else. Offering a deepening of the grinding austerity which amongst other things removed so many police officers from our streets and leaves millions working but penniless and millions of others stuck in inadequate but expensive rented housing with no options for better.
Realising the misstep over the key headline Dementia Tax May then tries to u-turn. But in doing so leaves the door open on whether the policy will come in or not. In a manifesto woefully uncosted. And in doing so demolishes the Strong and Stable mantra which, alongside "I'm not Jeremy Corbyn", was the central pillar of her campaign. Knock away the central pillar and the ceiling falls in. And "ah but Corbyn loves terrorists" doesn't resonate any more - the clip of the police 2 years ago telling May that her police cuts would leave us wide open to terror attacks resonating far more powerfully.
Without the "Jeremy can't win" mantra you'd all be talking about how the Tories were in danger of being routed, how their massive paper lead was collapsing in the face of voters making real choices. Of people looking at their lives and once again realising that the deep blue sea may be better than the devil. Because what cards do the Tories have left to play to arrest their decline, never mind to seize the agenda again? Politics is story telling, spin a narrative people can believe in and you can get them to do anything - even vote for Trump. Or Brexit. Or a clown. Or a man in a monkey suit.
Though perhaps the longer view requires looking at the funding and arming of the Mujahadin against the Soviets by Maggie and Ronnie in the Eighties. That is how Bin Laden started, back when Islamist terrorists were considered the good guys by our press barons.
Looking at the state of Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen now it is hard to defend the case that our foreign policy has been flawless. We should at least consider what we would do differently the next time a MENA country tears itself apart. Lobbing bombs at civil wars has not worked out well.
Jezza was not arguing that Western Foreign policy was soley responsible for the rise of Islamism, but it is nessecary to at least consider how much it contributed. The War on Terror is a unique war where each side specialises in self harm.
His right hand man, Tariq Aziz, was a Christian.
Love him or hate him Corbyn absolutely believes in what he says, has done for decades, a refreshing change from the vacuous chameleons such as Blair and Cameron. Perhaps his sincerity is appealing to people.
Still predict a very large majority for May but it'll be interesting watching the tories earn it.
You are absolutely right about the effect of the U turn on the Tory narrative - they should never have made the election just about May.
To turn this into a Brexit election, Theresa has to outline her vision of Brexit. She has singularly failed to do so. She is an incompetent control freak which does not bode well, though I do expect Tories to gain seats.
And where there is no realism, there is no hope.
https://twitter.com/fidelmacook/status/868359423235936256
bin Laden's an interesting example. Afghanistan is an odd place for a Saudi national to have got 'started', isn't it? Or perhaps he was radicalised elsewhere and went looking for a fight. And if that's the case, *any* intervention in *any* Muslim land, however valid, would lead to problems.
The final endpoint of your position is that we end up leaving all lands Muslim extremists call their own to them (even including places like much of Spain), and not to react when they preform heinous acts inside 'their' lands, or outside to us.
We can't go around not pandering to extremists, because they will always want more.