Would anyone attend a dinner where Theresa May was guest speaker?
I'd pay not to go to one where Corbyn was.
An example of the enthusiasm gap, tories don't really like may they just want to stop corbyn. She's another John Major, will win the election, but her negatives will drop like a stone and the tory party will be kicked out in 2022 because she has no policies to deal with the debt and the parliamentary party will full of loads of washed up mps that refuse to stand down for the benefit of their communities.
Actually, I think Tories do like May (at least for the moment). Currently 39% have favourable views of the Conservatives, but she pulls their vote share upwards.
snip
There is no policy to tackling the debt and that is quite frankly a disgrace. Anyone who saves money or lives within a budget must be shocked at this tory party strategy of paying the debt by 2025. If I couldn't clear my credit card every month I would spend less to pay more, this has totally disappeared since theresa may has become leader. At least, Cameron and Osborne tackled the deficit which once cleared would bring down the debt. May has no strategy. She was a terrible home secretary - Immigration went up every year under her watch and she has been on the wrong side of every major public policy decision. She has bad judgement because she's a career politician and this is not coming from me, but the very people that worked for members of camerons cabinet.
You are making this up as you go along. The deficit is coming down. The figures are provided by the OBR. Debt:The OBR expects Britain's debt share to peak at 88.8pc of GDP this year. You say 'paying the debt by 2025'... You are clearly confused since there is no way debt - debt built up over decades if not centuries - can be paid off by 2025. That was never proposed. In case you had missed it, the Nation voted to leave the EU last June and this rather puts previous 'deficit' reduction plans into a fresh focus. She is hardly more of a career politician than say Cameron who was a spad at the treasury.
On other topics - the Guardian carefully puts the cart before the horse by criticising May for bringing the bombing into the election because she is attacking Corbyn... for bringing the bombing into the election.
Hmm, we will see. There has been some comment that momentum have encouraged people to sign up for online pollsters, however looking on my facebook there are lots of people supporting Corbyn. Most people do not know how government finances work and think that the rich and companies have huge untapped resources to pay for free owls, university education and 5* luxury for their granny.
The problem is that this works for just the first few months until behaviour adjusts to fit. You talk to seemingly intelligent and educated people about Laffer curves, the fact that the top 10% pay 50% of income tax, virtually no-one on under 50K a year is a net contributor to the state and that health and social care will expand to fit any given set of resources and they either give you a blank look or blame nasteeee torieees in a Gollum like way.
Edited extra bit: on that note, the time may be perfect for a soft, centrish party to newly emerge. May is not liked, Corbyn is not trusted. There's a huge gaping void for a fiscally dry and socially liberal new party.
Unfortunately, if there was such a party, voting for them would be a wasted vote, because they can't win. The could only win if voting for them was not a wasted vote, but as it would be a wasted vote (as they can't win), they can't win.
And voting for them would risk letting in Labour (if you're anti-Labour) or the Tories (if you're anti-Tory).
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
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.
Government debt has risen by over a trillion quid in the last decade.
How can that be described as 'austerity' ?
And what does 'let normality return' mean fiscally ?
We for all.
And crash.
I rather suspect a minority Corbyn government would be brought down within months, possibly weeks.
Why won't these things happen if we leave the EU without a Brexit deal?
Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't and maybe they'll be a Brexit deal and maybe there wont.
Of course all those things were meant to happen on a Leave vote alone but didn't. And then when A50 was triggered but didn't.
For that matter all those things were meant to happen if the UK left the ERM in 1992 or failed to join the Euro in 1999.
So currently we're running at 0/4 (at least) on the 'doom and disaster will happen if we don't do what Brussels wants' predictions.
Prime Minister Corbyn is, I suspect, is a scenario from an entirely different book.
I don't support Corbyn; I don't support a Brexit with no deal. I want a strong and stable UK.
I have come to the view that even the useless Corbyn would be better than the risible May.
They really do seem as bad as each other to me, which means May has shown herself to be even worse than I thought. And the team that she leads is just awful. I cannot get over Fallon on C4 last night. Bottom line is that I have a serious Corbyn problem, not a Labour one.
It is difficult to decide who most deserves to lose. My leaning is towards May who not only turned out to be an incompetent opportunist but a secret Brexiteer with a soft spot for the Saudis and Trump.
Corbyn for all his disloyalty to previous leaders is at least consistent and more importantly has a party behind him who have shown they will not blindly follow.
Does May really have a soft spot for the Saudis and Trump? I would have thought their respective attitudes towards women would be enough to put her off. And what's the evidence she wanted Brexit?
Actually, I think Tories do like May (at least for the moment). Currently 39% have favourable views of the Conservatives, but she pulls their vote share upwards.
What do you like about her? She has no charisma compared to Thatcher, Gove, Johnson, Redwood even Rees-Mogg.
I watched HIGNFU Last night and the clip they showed of May was deeply depressing when asked three times about how she would get money into the NHS she refused to answer it and made her look robotic and an idiot. I have sunday roast every week with the family (12 people, grandparents, parents and children all over 21, all vote conservative except one) and we all are less enthusiastic about the direction of the conservative party. The manifesto was a disgrace and all of Mays hacks need to stick to dealing with Maidenhead issues.
y has become leader. At least, Cameron and Osborne tackled the deficit which once cleared would bring down the debt. May has no strategy. She was a terrible home secretary - Immigration went up every year under her watch and she has been on the wrong side of every major public policy decision. She has bad judgement because she's a career politician and this is not coming from me, but the very people that worked for members of camerons cabinet.
I don't have very strong feelings about her either way, but lots of people do like her, especially the over 50's. Her "provincialism" which so offends Bobajob is what they like about her.
Apparently that liking wasn't as much as we thought thoughaking very little progress when they ecoerced lots.
Deciding out of the blue to call for a ge after a walking holiday looks pretty dumb now, even if slight gains are made.
The narrative of Labour surging might disappear later today.
And the betting markets (not to mention many PBers) are still expecting a Conservative majority of over 100.
Though I never did understand where the reasoning behind the predictions of Conservative gains in West Bromwich and Hull came from.
The labour surge has been across all the pollsters I believe, over a sustained period. I don't think Manchester will effect things notably, and there's been no good news for the tories that has caught on , nor did labour scores of 35 spook people, so if there is a move back to con, u doubt it woukd be by much.
We won't be seeing leads of 15% again. Of course they'd be ecstatic to get leads if 10 again. But while a lead below 10 was inevitable, it shouldn't have become normal.
The betting markets are just wrong, I think, or the polls are.
Apologies if already posted or I have this wrong but Sir David Butler said at the end of the interview that if the votes were the same the Conservatives win more seats. I thought it was the opposite?
Me too. What happened to the fabled anti-Tory bias?
The Lib Dem collapse and Labour's collapse in Scotland have given the Tories an electoral boost
Not sure that makes much sense. Surely it's the Tories who tend to pile up wasted votes in their own seats. No-one quite on the level of Major '92 but if you were to take the MPs with the largest majorities surely most of them would be Tories. As for Scotland - aren't the Tories now in 2nd place. If so then surely it is they not Labour who will have lots of wasted votes north of the border. It's a puzzle. All I can think of is that Corbyn is pilling up more votes in safe seats AND May is being deserted by many voters in safe Tory seats with her focus on marginal Kippers. We shall see.
Far more Labour than Conservative seats have absolutely humungous majorities. The Conservative vote is now more efficiently distributed than Labour's and the switch from UKIP aids this.
Would anyone attend a dinner where Theresa May was guest speaker?
It happened here and she went down very well indeed.
William Hague is a brilliant guest speaker but led the Tories to their second worst defeat in a century, being a good guest speaker does not mean you will be a great party leader or PM, May will get a result Hague could only have dreamed of even if it is more comfortable majority than landslide
Deciding out of the blue to call for a ge after a walking holiday looks pretty dumb now, even if slight gains are made.
I dont think that is true. Even if the Tories only make a handful of gains, leaving aside that from where she is now an extra say 20 seats would be like gold dust. She has the items she needs in the manifesto on which they will win now, which makes the whole act of getting what follows through the House of Lords vastly easier than it was before. For the same reason Party management will be easier because she can point at the manifesto under which they all stood.
Hmm, we will see. There has been some comment that momentum have encouraged people to sign up for online pollsters, however looking on my facebook there are lots of people supporting Corbyn. Most people do not know how government finances work and think that the rich and companies have huge untapped resources to pay for free owls, university education and 5* luxury for their granny.
The problem is that this works for just the first few months until behaviour adjusts to fit. You talk to seemingly intelligent and educated people about Laffer curves, the fact that the top 10% pay 50% of income tax, virtually no-one on under 50K a year is a net contributor to the state and that health and social care will expand to fit any given set of resources and they either give you a blank look or blame nasteeee torieees in a Gollum like way.
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
Yes it occurred to me yesterday that the problem w the polls could be that only people invested in politics answer them, and that those people are more likely to react to the minutiae of news reports, and also have a pride in the letting people know their vote may be changing having understood the latest goings on.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
It occurs to me that I haven't seen anything at all from the Conservative Party this campaign. No billboards, no flage, no facebook adverts, no leaflets, certainly no actual humans. Nothing at all. Very little from any of the other parties either, but absolutely nothing from the Conservatives. Now I live in a safe Labour seat so maybe the campaign is being fought elsewhere. But two years ago I saw a lot more than this.
Probaby lots of Facebook adverts, but if you are not in the target group, either because you are a known supporter, or because you are known to be a lost cause, you wont see them.
FWIW there is data on this - a poll showed that a bit over 40% had heard fromeach major party on social media this time. Not entirely clear what "heard from" means - people might include "my mate urged me to vote X", but whatever it is seems to have evened up between the parties, whereas the Tories certainly had the edge there last time.
In my safish Labour seat (where I'm a new resident, so no canvass data about me) I've only heard from Labour so far, though UKIP had a street stand.
Eh? Even those aggregated sub samples give a 7% SNP to Tory swing and without Kantar rhat eould be much bigger.Yougov's full Scottish survey has a big SNP to Tory swing in Scotland as does its subsample, yougov got Scotland's result far better than it did the UK in 2015 with the SNP on 49% almost exactly what it got
That looks a lot less likely now. I will not vote Labour while Corbyn leads the party, but I do think that he has shown it is possible to run a campaign and get a hearing without kow-towing to the right press. We will see what the result will be - I still cannot see beyond a big Tory win - but things don't look so bleak for Labour as they did at the start of the campaign. There is a way back.
That's the problem. Labour MPs still can't support Corbyn as leader. They are not standing on his manifesto, they are standing against it in many cases. That's not a formula for government
They are spineless makeweights who will support Corbyn if he wins
Absolute rubbish! Those who resigned did so on principle. The ones who gave up their shadow cabinet seats did so because of the arbitrary nature of Hilary Benn's sacking and the fact they had witnessed at first hand how useless he was as an administrator and leader.
The only ones I have contempt for (and it's slight ) are those who rejoined the shadow cabinet immediately after the coup failed.
They did it because they made a political calculation he was going to lose and wanted to be on the winning side. They were wrong.
Would you hold the Tory Remainers to the same standards. Mrs May for example putting herself forward as PM when she was a senior member of a government on the wrong side of a the referendum defeat? Shouldn't she have joined Cameron and fallen on her sword?
It's fascinating if the Tory vote is stuttering in the wake of the social care/winter fuel allowance situation.
Maybe that will be shown to be the case in tonight's polls, maybe it won't. But it hasn't happened much yet: polls before the election was called were generally consistent with a Tory share of 42-43%; after the bounce caused by calling an election settled down but pre-manifesto it was generally consistent with 46-47%, and in the limited polling since has been consistent with 44-45%.
Remember Bob Worcester's mantra of looking at the share, not the lead - and remember that a Tory share of 43% essentially guarantees a comfortable majority.
Would anyone attend a dinner where Theresa May was guest speaker?
I'd pay not to go to one where Corbyn was.
An example of the enthusiasm gap, tories don't really like may they just want to stop corbyn. She's another John Major, will win the election, but her negatives will drop like a stone and the tory party will be kicked out in 2022 because she has no policies to deal with the debt and the parliamentary party will full of loads of washed up mps that refuse to stand down for the benefit of their communities.
Actually, I think Tories do like May (at least for the moment).
Certainly what the polling says - Tory voters like May significantly better than Labour voters like Corbyn......but what do they know?
People who post here are far more politicised than the the general population, and hold party leaders to far higher standards than the population at large do.
Some are also convinced that its 'the voters' who are 'out of touch'!
My Facebook is full of excitable Lefties ('betrayed by Brexit') with their hopes up....they don't respond well to commentary that does not reinforce the group think.....
Difficult Issue number 4 - Healthcare. The elephant in the room is people visiting GPs that aren't ill and just want to have a chat. Everyone should pay £20 to see a GP for appointment like we do to have a checkup with a dentist. This would reduce the burden on the taxpayer and also subsidise pensioners and people on benefits that aren't in work. GPs make a ridiculous amount of money for basically being an agony aunt because they don't have the time to tackle health as the surgery is overburdened with patients.
So low paid workers should have to pay to see their doctor - even though taking the time to do so is likely to reduce their earnings - while rich pensioners and layabouts can do so for free ???
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
Yes it occurred to me yesterday that the problem w the polls could be that only people invested in politics answer them, and that those people are more likely to react to the minutiae of news reports, and also have a pride in the letting people know their vote may be changing having understood the latest goings on.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
If they were not voting Labour as Corbyn was going to lead them to a terrible defeat, they might reconsider now it looks like a 2015 defeat or better is possible. .
A 20,000 Labour majority. I can't stand Jezza, I think the Greens are bonkers and totally unsuited to grown-up politics, Farron is anti-democratic, Ukip would be pointless, and I'm too tribal to vote Tory - and even if I wasn't, their campaign has been shite. Finally, there's no raving loony party candidate
Yes, I see your problem. My comment to SO reflected his having advanced a platform on this site that overlaps with the views of more than one party.
A LibDem vote would at least be a vote for a fairer system that wouldn't render your voting pointless.
Otherwise you should have put yourself up as an Independent and then voted for yourself!
The point JJ and his ilk miss is that the argument is not that western intervention created Islamic terrorism; we know it has existed for a long time and that there would be such people sitting in desert caves with or without our military involvement. What we didn't have before, and do now, is the active involvement of a small minority of our own Muslim youth, who either travel out there to sign up or launch terrorist attacks at home. It is the fringe attraction of Islamism at home that has been the consequence of Iraq, not the terrorists in their desert caves.
And my ilk?
LOL.
Your post seems to be an argument against mass immigration from majority-Muslim countries rather than anything to do with the perils of intervention. Is that what you meant?
Afghanistan, Iraq et al have undoubtedly been part of the attraction of Islamic fundamentalism here in the UK. But it's only part of the story: the centuries-old chasm between Sunni and Shia (yet alone the smaller sects), foreign funding and immigration has worsened the problem, as have a lack of perceived opportunities and ostracism in those communities here in the UK.
I didn't mean anything unduly critical by 'ilk', sorry
I agree with you on the last point. The UK has done better on security than France and Belgium precisely because our Muslim communities are less excluded and so we have better intelligence and co-operation (two separate Muslims phoned in reports about Abedi). Which is why the "now we must take on Islam" posts from SeanT and Cyclefree represent a counter-productive and indeed very dangerous dead end.
Don't misrepresent me. I have said that we need to take on the Islamist ideology which underpins the terrorists not Islam. This is exactly what former extremists such as those in the Quilliam Foundation - who know what they are talking about - have said. I think that we need to work with Muslims to create a strong firewall between Islam and the Islamists precisely because the latter seek to claim that their ideology does derive from and represent true Islam.
It is the failure to do so adequately which has allowed a dangerous meme to develop among some that IS (and Al Qaeda and other violent ideologies) represent true Islam and which has persuaded some young Muslims to take up violent jihad. That - surely - needs to be countered by showing them how wrong they are about their understanding of Islam and what it means to be a good Muslim.
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.
Government debt has risen by over a trillion quid in the last decade.
How can that be described as 'austerity' ?
And what does 'let normality return' mean fiscally ?
We for all.
And crash.
I rather suspect a minority Corbyn government would be brought down within months, possibly weeks.
Why won't these things happen if we leave the EU without a Brexit deal?
Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't and maybe they'll be a Brexit deal and maybe there wont.
Of course all those things were meant to happen on a Leave vote alone but didn't. And then when A50 was triggered but didn't.
For that matter all those things were meant to happen if the UK left the ERM in 1992 or failed to join the Euro in 1999.
So currently we're running at 0/4 (at least) on the 'doom and disaster will happen if we don't do what Brussels wants' predictions.
Prime Minister Corbyn is, I suspect, is a scenario from an entirely different book.
If Corbynistas.
I don't support Corbyn; I don't support a Brexit with no deal. I want a strong and stable UK.
I have come to the view that even the useless Corbyn would be better than the risible May.
They really do seem as bad as each other to me, which means May has shown herself to be even worse than I thought. And the team that she leads is just awful. I cannot get over Fallon on C4 last night. Bottom line is that I have a serious Corbyn problem, not a Labour one.
It is difficult to decide who most deserves to lose. My leaning is towards May who not only turned out to be an incompetent opportunist but a secret Brexiteer with a soft spot for the Saudis and Trump.
Corbyn for all his disloyalty to previous leaders is at least consistent and more importantly has a party behind him who have shown they will not blindly follow.
Corbyn's history over a 40 year period, plus his decision to bring people like Seamas Milne and Andrew Murray into his leadership team put him beyond the pale for me.
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
Yes it occurred to me yesterday that the problem w the polls could be that only people invested in politics answer them, and that those people are more likely to react to the minutiae of news reports, and also have a pride in the letting people know their vote may be changing having understood the latest goings on.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
Well quite. Plus the politically engaged understand about using opinion polls to send political messages. Tories who are a bit miffed with May's recent performance will be indicating they are Labour voters at the moment to put a bit of stick about, make 'em jump.
Not had any literature this time. What was solid ld territory in a very safe tory seat went tory on the locals - despite the candidate telling me they never even leafleted or canvassed most of the area - so no activity. Hopefully the usually active lds are helping in a target seat instead.
Apologies if already posted or I have this wrong but Sir David Butler said at the end of the interview that if the votes were the same the Conservatives win more seats. I thought it was the opposite?
Me too. What happened to the fabled anti-Tory bias?
The Lib Dem collapse and Labour's collapse in Scotland have given the Tories an electoral boost
Not sure that makes much sense. Surely it's the Tories who tend to pile up wasted votes in their own seats. No-one quite on the level of Major '92 but if you were to take the MPs with the largest majorities surely most of them would be Tories. As for Scotland - aren't the Tories now in 2nd place. If so then surely it is they not Labour who will have lots of wasted votes north of the border. It's a puzzle. All I can think of is that Corbyn is pilling up more votes in safe seats AND May is being deserted by many voters in safe Tory seats with her focus on marginal Kippers. We shall see.
Plenty of seats similar to this in London and other cities:
As to Scotland the Conservative voting efficiency is likely to be much greater this year than in previous elections while Labour's might be infinitely less.
Apologies if already posted or I have this wrong but Sir David Butler said at the end of the interview that if the votes were the same the Conservatives win more seats. I thought it was the opposite?
Me too. What happened to the fabled anti-Tory bias?
The Lib Dem collapse and Labour's collapse in Scotland have given the Tories an electoral boost
Not sure that makes much sense. Surely it's the Tories who tend to pile up wasted votes in their own seats. No-one quite on the level of Major '92 but if you were to take the MPs with the largest majorities surely most of them would be Tories. As for Scotland - aren't the Tories now in 2nd place. If so then surely it is they not Labour who will have lots of wasted votes north of the border. It's a puzzle. All I can think of is that Corbyn is pilling up more votes in safe seats AND May is being deserted by many voters in safe Tory seats with her focus on marginal Kippers. We shall see.
Surely it does make sense (Possibly a daft thing to say without looking at numbers). Even with an increase in Tory vote in Scotland without a significant return of seats, their status has moved from x wasted votes to slightly more than x waste votes (in fact with the gain of 1 seat it may not have been negative at all). However the impact on Labour is much much greater because in their case they have moved from most of the seats to just one, so almost their entire vote in Scotland has gone from efficient to entirely wasted. So a much much bigger impact on the efficiency than the impact on the Tories.
Also the LD position improves the Tory efficiency of votes. All those wasted votes in seats where they came a close 2nd to LDs are now efficient votes.
The point JJ and his ilk miss is that the argument is not that western intervention created Islamic terrorism; we know it has existed for a long time and that there would be such people sitting in desert caves with or without our military involvement. What we didn't have before, and do now, is the active involvement of a small minority of our own Muslim youth, who either travel out there to sign up or launch terrorist attacks at home. It is the fringe attraction of Islamism at home that has been the consequence of Iraq, not the terrorists in their desert caves.
And my ilk?
LOL.
Your post seems to be an argument against mass immigration from majority-Muslim countries rather than anything to do with the perils of intervention. Is that what you meant?
Afghanistan, Iraq et al have undoubtedly been part of the attraction of Islamic fundamentalism here in the UK. But it's only part of the story: the centuries-old chasm between Sunni and Shia (yet alone the smaller sects), foreign funding and immigration has worsened the problem, as have a lack of perceived opportunities and ostracism in those communities here in the UK.
I didn't mean anything unduly critical by 'ilk', sorry
I agree with you on the last point. The UK has done better on security than France and Belgium precisely because our Muslim communities are less excluded and so we have better intelligence and co-operation (two separate Muslims phoned in reports about Abedi). Which is why the "now we must take on Islam" posts from SeanT and Cyclefree represent a counter-productive and indeed very dangerous dead end.
Don't misrepresent me. I have said that we need to take on the Islamist ideology which underpins the terrorists not Islam. This is exactly what former extremists such as those in the Quilliam Foundation - who know what they are talking about - have said. I think that we need to work with Muslims to create a strong firewall between Islam and the Islamists precisely because the latter seek to claim that their ideology does derive from and represent true Islam.
It is the failure to do so adequately which has allowed a dangerous meme to develop among some that IS (and Al Qaeda and other violent ideologies) represent true Islam and which has persuaded some young Muslims to take up violent jihad. That - surely - needs to be countered by showing them how wrong they are about their understanding of Islam and what it means to be a good Muslim.
Yes, in which case we aren't so far apart. This more level-headed perspective hasn't come through in all of your previous posts.
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.
Government debt has risen by over a trillion quid in the last decade.
How can that be described as 'austerity' ?
And what does 'let normality return' mean fiscally ?
We for all.
And crash.
I rather suspect a minority Corbyn government would be brought down within months, possibly weeks.
Why won't these things happen if we leave the EU without a Brexit deal?
Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't and maybe they'll be a Brexit deal and maybe there wont.
Of course all those things were meant to happen on a Leave vote alone but didn't. And then when A50 was triggered but didn't.
For that matter all those things were meant to happen if the UK left the ERM in 1992 or failed to join the Euro in 1999.
So currently we're running at 0/4 (at least) on the 'doom and disaster will happen if we don't do what Brussels wants' predictions.
Prime Minister Corbyn is, I suspect, is a scenario from an entirely different book.
If Corbynistas.
I don't support Corbyn; I don't support a Brexit with no deal. I want a strong and stable UK.
I have come to the view that even the useless Corbyn would be better than the risible May.
They really do seem as bad as each other to me, which means May has shown herself to be even worse than I thought. And the team that she leads is just awful. I cannot get over Fallon on C4 last night. Bottom line is that I have a serious Corbyn problem, not a Labour one.
It is difficult to decide who most deserves to lose. My leaning is towards May who not only turned out to .
Corbyn's history over a 40 year period, plus his decision to bring people like Seamas Milne and Andrew Murray into his leadership team put him beyond the pale for me.
Agreed. He is the best of those around him. But that makes it worse for me now he looks like doing OK.
That looks a lot less likely now. I will not vote Labour while Corbyn leads the party, but I do think that he has shown it is possible to run a campaign and get a hearing without kow-towing to the right press. We will see what the result will be - I still cannot see beyond a big Tory win - but things don't look so bleak for Labour as they did at the start of the campaign. There is a way back.
That's the problem. Labour MPs still can't support Corbyn as leader. They are not standing on his manifesto, they are standing against it in many cases. That's not a formula for government
They are spineless makeweights who will support Corbyn if he wins
Absolute rubbish! Those who resigned did so on principle. The ones who gave up their shadow cabinet seats did so because of the arbitrary nature of Hilary Benn's sacking and the fact they had witnessed at first hand how useless he was as an administrator and leader.
The only ones I have contempt for (and it's slight ) are those who rejoined the shadow cabinet immediately after the coup failed.
They did it because they made a political calculation he was going to lose and wanted to be on the winning side. They were wrong.
Would you hold the Tory Remainers to the same standards. Mrs May for example putting herself forward as PM when she was a senior member of a government on the wrong side of a the referendum defeat? Shouldn't she have joined Cameron and fallen on her sword?
May was as close to neutral as you could be in the referendum, so she kept Brexiteers on board without being someone the EU would loathe like Boris, Gove or Leadsom
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
Yes it occurred to me yesterday that the problem w the polls could be that only people invested in politics answer them, and that those people are more likely to react to the minutiae of news reports, and also have a pride in the letting people know their vote may be changing having understood the latest goings on.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
If they were not voting Labour as Corbyn was going to lead them to a terrible defeat, they might reconsider now it looks like a 2015 defeat or better is possible. .
I would think the vast majority of voters wouldn't have any idea what the polls are saying, let alone let them influence their vote. My theory is that the polls are a bubble, and the people who do them are over representative of political obsessives. This site is the only place I've ever heard anyone talk of being part of a poll.
Not had any literature this time. What was solid ld territory in a very safe tory seat went tory on the locals - despite the candidate telling me they never even leafleted or canvassed most of the area - so no activity. Hopefully the usually active lds are helping in a target seat instead.
I got a UKIP leaflet yesterday; it spelt the name of the town wrong in its headline. Maybe it was designed to reinforce their argument in favour of grammar schools.
Apologies if already posted or I have this wrong but Sir David Butler said at the end of the interview that if the votes were the same the Conservatives win more seats. I thought it was the opposite?
Me too. What happened to the fabled anti-Tory bias?
The Lib Dem collapse and Labour's collapse in Scotland have given the Tories an electoral boost
Not sure that makes much sense. Surely it's the Tories who tend to pile up wasted votes in their own seats. No-one quite on the level of Major '92 but if you were to take the MPs with the largest majorities surely most of them would be Tories. As for Scotland - aren't the Tories now in 2nd place. If so then surely it is they not Labour who will have lots of wasted votes north of the border. It's a puzzle. All I can think of is that Corbyn is pilling up more votes in safe seats AND May is being deserted by many voters in safe Tory seats with her focus on marginal Kippers. We shall see.
Far more Labour than Conservative seats have absolutely humungous majorities. The Conservative vote is now more efficiently distributed than Labour's and the switch from UKIP aids this.
Granted Labour has 7 of the top 11 but then the Tories have something 74 out of the top 100. If we're talking vote share them % majorities don't tell us so much.
Apologies if already posted or I have this wrong but Sir David Butler said at the end of the interview that if the votes were the same the Conservatives win more seats. I thought it was the opposite?
Me too. What happened to the fabled anti-Tory bias?
There are several elements of electoral bias. What changed in 2015 was that third-party and vote efficiency effects were no longer working with the pro-Labour constituency size and abstention biases.
The point JJ and his ilk miss is that the argument is not that western intervention created Islamic terrorism; we know it has existed for a long time and that there would be such people sitting in desert caves with or without our military involvement. What we didn't have before, and do now, is the active involvement of a small minority of our own Muslim youth, who either travel out there to sign up or launch terrorist attacks at home. It is the fringe attraction of Islamism at home that has been the consequence of Iraq, not the terrorists in their desert caves.
And my ilk?
LOL.
Your post seems to be an argument against mass immigration from majority-Muslim countries rather than anything to do with the perils of intervention. Is that what you meant?
Afghanistan, Iraq et al have undoubtedly been part of the attraction of Islamic fundamentalism here in the UK. But it's only part of the story: the centuries-old chasm between Sunni and Shia (yet alone the smaller sects), foreign funding and immigration has worsened the problem, as have a lack of perceived opportunities and ostracism in those communities here in the UK.
I didn't mean anything unduly critical by 'ilk', sorry
I agree with you on the last point. The UK has done better on security than France and Belgium precisely because our Muslim communities are less excluded and so we have
Don't misrepresent me. I have said that we need to take on the Islamist ideology which underpins the terrorists not Islam. This is exactly what former extremists such as those in the Quilliam Foundation - who know what they are talking about - have said. I think that we need to work with Muslims to create a strong firewall between Islam and the Islamists precisely because the latter seek to claim that their ideology does derive from and represent true Islam.
It is the failure to do so adequately which has allowed a dangerous meme to develop among some that IS (and Al Qaeda and other violent ideologies) represent true Islam and which has persuaded some young Muslims to take up violent jihad. That - surely - needs to be countered by showing them how wrong they are about their understanding of Islam and what it means to be a good Muslim.
And it is the presenting the need to tackle Islamism with taking on Islam - and in fairness people do say that though many might mean the former - which leads to it never happening. For fear of offence. Fear of some mob overreaction.
Apologies if already posted or I have this wrong but Sir David Butler said at the end of the interview that if the votes were the same the Conservatives win more seats. I thought it was the opposite?
Me too. What happened to the fabled anti-Tory bias?
The Lib Dem collapse and Labour's collapse in Scotland have given the Tories an electoral boost
Not sure that makes much sense. Surely it's the Tories who tend to pile up wasted votes in their own seats. No-one quite on the level of Major '92 but if you were to take the MPs with the largest majorities surely most of them would be Tories. As for Scotland - aren't the Tories now in 2nd place. If so then surely it is they not Labour who will have lots of wasted votes north of the border. It's a puzzle. All I can think of is that Corbyn is pilling up more votes in safe seats AND May is being deserted by many voters in safe Tory seats with her focus on marginal Kippers. We shall see.
Plenty of seats similar to this in London and other cities:
As to Scotland the Conservative voting efficiency is likely to be much greater this year than in previous elections while Labour's might be infinitely less.
Corbyn will pile up votes in inner London, Manchester and Liverpool but May will narrowly win a number of Midlands and Northern marginals through UKIP to Tory votes even if she wins barely any votes from Labour there
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
Yes it occurred to me yesterday that the problem w the polls could be that only people invested in politics answer them, and that those people are more likely to react to the minutiae of news reports, and also have a pride in the letting people know their vote may be changing having understood the latest goings on.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
If they were not voting Labour as Corbyn was going to lead them to a terrible defeat, they might reconsider now it looks like a 2015 defeat or better is possible. .
I would think the vast majority of voters wouldn't have any idea what the polls are saying, let alone let them influence their vote. My theory is that the polls are a bubble, and the people who do them are over representative of political obsessives. This site is the only place I've ever heard anyone talk of being part of a poll.
I am not on Facebook, but doesn't a lot of news get posted there? If everyone has at least one noisy Corbyn backer on their feed - and everyone does seem to judging by posts on here - they are surely going to have at least registered that the polls are changing.
Difficult Issue number 4 - Healthcare. The elephant in the room is people visiting GPs that aren't ill and just want to have a chat. Everyone should pay £20 to see a GP for appointment like we do to have a checkup with a dentist. This would reduce the burden on the taxpayer and also subsidise pensioners and people on benefits that aren't in work. GPs make a ridiculous amount of money for basically being an agony aunt because they don't have the time to tackle health as the surgery is overburdened with patients.
So low paid workers should have to pay to see their doctor - even though taking the time to do so is likely to reduce their earnings - while rich pensioners and layabouts can do so for free ???
The same low paid workers pay to use the dentist. The mindset of going to the dentist and the GP should be exactly the same. I pay to much tax, national insurance already and I want the burden to comedown and the only that can be done is cut spending on things like the NHS. I've seen my GP once in 11 years.
GPs get paid a stupid amount of money for not doing much in reality compared to other jobs.
I don't have very strong feelings about her either way, but lots of people do like her, especially the over 50's. Her "provincialism" which so offends Bobajob is what they like about her.
Apparently that liking wasn't as much as we thought thoughaking very little progress when they ecoerced lots.
Deciding out of the blue to call for a ge after a walking holiday looks pretty dumb now, even if slight gains are made.
The narrative of Labour surging might disappear later today.
And the betting markets (not to mention many PBers) are still expecting a Conservative majority of over 100.
Though I never did understand where the reasoning behind the predictions of Conservative gains in West Bromwich and Hull came from.
The labour surge has been across all the pollsters I believe, over a sustained period. I don't think Manchester will effect things notably, and there's been no good news for the tories that has caught on , nor did labour scores of 35 spook people, so if there is a move back to con, u doubt it woukd be by much.
We won't be seeing leads of 15% again. Of course they'd be ecstatic to get leads if 10 again. But while a lead below 10 was inevitable, it shouldn't have become normal.
The betting markets are just wrong, I think, or the polls are.
But it hasn't.
There was YouGov a week ago which showed an 8% lead which was followed by an ICM with a 14% lead then a few days without polls and then the recent ones.
And unlike us few people pay much attention to opinion polls or indeed politics in general.
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
Yes it occurred to me yesterday that the problem w the polls could be that only people invested in politics answer them, and that those people are more likely to react to the minutiae of news reports, and also have a pride in the letting people know their vote may be changing having understood the latest goings on.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
If they were not voting Labour as Corbyn was going to lead them to a terrible defeat, they might reconsider now it looks like a 2015 defeat or better is possible. .
I would think the vast majority of voters wouldn't have any idea what the polls are saying, let alone let them influence their vote. My theory is that the polls are a bubble, and the people who do them are over representative of political obsessives. This site is the only place I've ever heard anyone talk of being part of a poll.
People do pay attention to polls though. Non voters have expressed surprise to me about Corbyn closing the gap. If some notice it, some will be influenced by it.
It's fascinating if the Tory vote is stuttering in the wake of the social care/winter fuel allowance situation.
Maybe that will be shown to be the case in tonight's polls, maybe it won't. But it hasn't happened much yet: polls before the election was called were generally consistent with a Tory share of 42-43%; after the bounce caused by calling an election settled down but pre-manifesto it was generally consistent with 46-47%, and in the limited polling since has been consistent with 44-45%.
Remember Bob Worcester's mantra of looking at the share, not the lead - and remember that a Tory share of 43% essentially guarantees a comfortable majority.
Comfortable majority for the ones who are comfortable .
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
Yes it occurred to me yesterday that the problem w the polls could be that only people invested in politics answer them, and that those people are more likely to react to the minutiae of news reports, and also have a pride in the letting people know their vote may be changing having understood the latest goings on.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
If they were not voting Labour as Corbyn was going to lead them to a terrible defeat, they might reconsider now it looks like a 2015 defeat or better is possible. .
I would think the vast majority of voters wouldn't have any idea what the polls are saying, let alone let them influence their vote. My theory is that the polls are a bubble, and the people who do them are over representative of political obsessives. This site is the only place I've ever heard anyone talk of being part of a poll.
I am not on Facebook, but doesn't a lot of news get posted there? If everyone has at least one noisy Corbyn backer on their feed - and everyone does seem to judging by posts on here - they are surely going to have at least registered that the polls are changing.
I am not even sure how widespread that is outside the student community and the political obsessives. I have a fairly generous facebook friends list, and have heard a certain amount of pro/anti BrExit whining, but not a breath of Corbyn ramping.
Mr. kle4, that could lead to perverse results, such as little tactical pro-Lib Dem voting, or people voting Conservative for fear of Corbyn becoming PM, who otherwise might not have.
In case you missed it, Theresa may voted remain and said that voting to leave EU would jeopardise our relationship with EU counter-terrorism operations.
Theresa May as home secretary promised every year she would bring down immigration to the tens of thousands. Every year under her watch, net migration both in the EU and outside the EU went up. She was only kept in the job because Cameron was obsessed with PR and whenever someone stats a fact he just rolled out the line "I don't agree with that, I would say..."
I agree with you. I also think sensible Labour moderates will be learning lessons about not being afraid of the power of the right wing press - that is the really valuable lesson that Corbyn has taught. The Tories have accepted the notion of the state as a powerful force for good. For a Labour leader without Corbyn's past and an ability to see beyond the comfort zone, that is a powerful positive; as is the fact that the Tories really aren't very good.
It sounds peverse, but I genuinely fear a Labour win, as unlikely as it is. In the long run it is better to have the Tories governing from the centre being opposed from the left, than having a hopeless PM elected on an undeliverable left wing manifesto. This would lead to economic chaos, and would embolden the hard right forces in the Tory party, who would win at the first opportunity as they always do. Its a really difficult one.
Again, I agree. I genuinely don't know whether I can vote on 8th June. I just do not see a choice and my Tory MP is going to win whatever I do.
She wants to clear the way though for whatever that is. Her problem was that as was, with a majority of 13, between the bastards and the opposition she had no room to manoeuvre.
Also, the end of the A50 negotiation period was dangerously close to the next election campaign. Now it isn't.
..or so you hope!
Well, it doesn't need to be. But, yeah, we could all do with an electoral break for a few years, we've had four significant votes since September 2014.
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
Yes it occurred to me yesterday that the problem w the polls could be that only people invested in politics answer them, and that those people are more likely to react to the minutiae of news reports, and also have a pride in the letting people know their vote may be changing having understood the latest goings on.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
If they were not voting Labour as Corbyn was going to lead them to a terrible defeat, they might reconsider now it looks like a 2015 defeat or better is possible. .
I would think the vast majority of voters wouldn't have any idea what the polls are saying, let alone let them influence their vote. My theory is that the polls are a bubble, and the people who do them are over representative of political obsessives. This site is the only place I've ever heard anyone talk of being part of a poll.
I am not on Facebook, but doesn't a lot of news get posted there? If everyone has at least one noisy Corbyn backer on their feed - and everyone does seem to judging by posts on here - they are surely going to have at least registered that the polls are changing.
Again is here not over influenced by political obsessives?
I don't have any noisy Corbyn backers on my Facebook. My Facebook is basically dominated by people sharing pics of their children.
We have to laugh that ex-UKIP voters that wanted to leave the EU and control immigration are voting for the person 1. who wanted to remain 2. was head of the department that controlled who comes and who goes for 7 years.
As I posted yesterday, all three of my kids are Corbynistas - much to their Dad's distress. My daughter even tried to put a Labour poster up in our front window. They feel - quite rightly - that things are not working right now, that well-paid jobs and leaving home, let alone owning their own places, are a pipedream. They see Brexit as the old messing things up for the young. The political establishment has let them down big time. And Corbyn is definitely not the political establishment. They will vote for him.
Hmm, we will see. There has been some comment that momentum have encouraged people to sign up for online pollsters, however looking on my facebook there are lots of people supporting Corbyn. Most people do not know how government finances work and think that the rich and companies have huge untapped resources to pay for free owls, university education and 5* luxury for their granny.
The problem is that this works for just the first few months until behaviour adjusts to fit. You talk to seemingly intelligent and educated people about Laffer curves, the fact that the top 10% pay 50% of income tax, virtually no-one on under 50K a year is a net contributor to the state and that health and social care will expand to fit any given set of resources and they either give you a blank look or blame nasteeee torieees in a Gollum like way.
Apologies if already posted or I have this wrong but Sir David Butler said at the end of the interview that if the votes were the same the Conservatives win more seats. I thought it was the opposite?
Me too. What happened to the fabled anti-Tory bias?
The Lib Dem collapse and Labour's collapse in Scotland have given the Tories an electoral boost
Not sure that makes much sense. Surely it's the Tories who tend to pile up wasted votes in their own seats. No-one quite on the level of Major '92 but if you were to take the MPs with the largest majorities surely most of them would be Tories. As for Scotland - aren't the Tories now in 2nd place. If so then surely it is they not Labour who will have lots of wasted votes north of the border. It's a puzzle. All I can think of is that Corbyn is pilling up more votes in safe seats AND May is being deserted by many voters in safe Tory seats with her focus on marginal Kippers. We shall see.
Far more Labour than Conservative seats have absolutely humungous majorities. The Conservative vote is now more efficiently distributed than Labour's and the switch from UKIP aids this.
Granted Labour has 7 of the top 11 but then the Tories have something 74 out of the top 100. If we're talking vote share them % majorities don't tell us so much.
I was thinking in percentage terms, as turnout tends to be much lower in safe Labour seats than safe Conservative seats.
Corbyn says he will force Premier League teams to give 5% of profit to grass roots football... the Premier League say they already give more than that!
Maybe they could give another 5% to help teams like York.
I agree with you. I also think sensible Labour moderates will be learning lessons about not being afraid of the power of the right wing press - that is the really valuable lesson that Corbyn has taught. The Tories have accepted the notion of the state as a powerful force for good. For a Labour leader without Corbyn's past and an ability to see beyond the comfort zone, that is a powerful positive; as is the fact that the Tories really aren't very good.
It sounds peverse, but I genuinely fear a Labour win, as unlikely as it is. In the long run it is better to have the Tories governing from the centre being opposed from the left, than having a hopeless PM elected on an undeliverable left wing manifesto. This would lead to economic chaos, and would embolden the hard right forces in the Tory party, who would win at the first opportunity as they always do. Its a really difficult one.
Again, I agree. I genuinely don't know whether I can vote on 8th June. I just do not see a choice and my Tory MP is going to win whatever I do.
She wants to clear the way though for whatever that is. Her problem was that as was, with a majority of 13, between the bastards and the opposition she had no room to manoeuvre.
Also, the end of the A50 negotiation period was dangerously close to the next election campaign. Now it isn't.
..or so you hope!
Well, it doesn't need to be. But, yeah, we could all do with an electoral break for a few years, we've had four significant votes since September 2014.
And there is equally the possibility that the initial deal is a transitional one only, and that the negotiations then continue for a lot more than two years.....
some GPs get paid a stupid amount of money for not doing much in reality compared to other jobs.
Two of my close relatives are GPs, neither of them make more than 50K despite working their nuts off for 12 hrs a day because the practise only has half the doctors it should, they cater to a sink estate in rural England where they are able to sell nothing more than a very basic service. GPs in better off areas that are able to offer extra services do nicely.
Difficult Issue number 4 - Healthcare. The elephant in the room is people visiting GPs that aren't ill and just want to have a chat. Everyone should pay £20 to see a GP for appointment like we do to have a checkup with a dentist. This would reduce the burden on the taxpayer and also subsidise pensioners and people on benefits that aren't in work. GPs make a ridiculous amount of money for basically being an agony aunt because they don't have the time to tackle health as the surgery is overburdened with patients.
So low paid workers should have to pay to see their doctor - even though taking the time to do so is likely to reduce their earnings - while rich pensioners and layabouts can do so for free ???
The same low paid workers pay to use the dentist. The mindset of going to the dentist and the GP should be exactly the same. I pay to much tax, national insurance already and I want the burden to comedown and the only that can be done is cut spending on things like the NHS. I've seen my GP once in 11 years.
GPs get paid a stupid amount of money for not doing much in reality compared to other jobs.
You seem happy to subsidise pensioners and people on benefits who aren't in work.
Why is it actual workers you have a down on - the people who actually create wealth, keep the country running and pay taxes ?
BTW, what's this dodgy Sun poll referred to downthread? Missed it altogether, for whatever it's worth.
In minor news, the LibDem leaflet in Broxtowe is interesting for being aggressive and nervous at the same time - it attacks every other candidate personally, but sometimes with a get-out word, e.g. saying "the Labour candidate is apparently so left-wing that he makes Corbyn look like Thatcher". No explanation of "apparently" for this bizarre claim, which goes beyond what the Tories are saying.
Theresa May as home secretary promised every year she would bring down immigration to the tens of thousands. Every year under her watch, net migration both in the EU and outside the EU went up. She was only kept in the job because Cameron was obsessed with PR and whenever someone stats a fact he just rolled out the line "I don't agree with that, I would say..."
It has been claimed that Tessie was unable to bring down net immigration largely because George would not let her, because he was concerned about the effect it would have on the economy. He may well have been right, but it seems a little dishonest when he stood on a manifesto of lowering immigration to 10s of thousand (no ifs, no buts).
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
Yes it occurred to me yesterday that the problem w the polls could be that only people invested in politics answer them, and that those people are more likely to react to the minutiae of news reports, and also have a pride in the letting people know their vote may be changing having understood the latest goings on.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
If they were not voting Labour as Corbyn was going to lead them to a terrible defeat, they might reconsider now it looks like a 2015 defeat or better is possible. .
I would think the vast majority of voters wouldn't have any idea what the polls are saying, let alone let them influence their vote. My theory is that the polls are a bubble, and the people who do them are over representative of political obsessives. This site is the only place I've ever heard anyone talk of being part of a poll.
I am not on Facebook, but doesn't a lot of news get posted there? If everyone has at least one noisy Corbyn backer on their feed - and everyone does seem to judging by posts on here - they are surely going to have at least registered that the polls are changing.
People who are political obsessives are more likely to know other political obsessives.
"There's a noisy Corbyn backer on my Facebook feed" is more likely to be reported than "There are no noisy Corbyn backers on my Facebook feed."
As a proud Manc, bizarrely my Mancunian identity and accent has become stronger the longer I have lived away, I can only say that I have been immensely proud how the city has coped with this profound tragedy. Scousers and Mancs share many characteristics....it's a combination of shit weather and the fact that we were once at the epicentre of the industrialised west that has created our humour, and sense of collectiveness. There is a reason why we have the best football teams and music scene in the world.
Re: the Corbyn surge, aside from my growing respect for his zen like personality and determination not to play by the politicking rules, it is also a reflection of Theresa May not actually being that electorally appealing under scrutiny. All the focus on Brexit, Article 50 and the rest has clouded the fact that Theresa May is Gordon Brown with trousers. She overthinks, over strategises, she's too serious, she looks uncomfortable in her own shoes, and she's dour. Corbyn may be death dullyingly boring, but he comes across as an upbeat personality.
Dr Fox was right all along about May. Her popularity is shot, much like Brown's...so she's on a downhill slide to the men in grey suits coming in a year or so. The Tories will still win handsomely, but to copy Kevin Keegan, I would love it, fucking love it if the Tories had to go back into some kind of coalition with the LD's. That would be my ideal election outcome.
I hate Corbyn with vengeance, however I watched his speech and I found myself agreeing with almost everything he said. It seemed apolitical, yes he was critical of police cuts, but he also implied Blair's policy in Iraq was a disaster. It was measured and appropriately timed - 22 young lives haven been violated, should we all sit on our hands until next time? I know I do not have the intellect of Mrs May, Mr Fallon or Mr Johnson, so it is perhaps understandable that their interpretation was more insightful than mine.
I did expect the Manchester atrocity to play well for Mrs May, and maybe it will yet! I thought the events of Monday night would rally the country behind her in a demonstration of unity, a referendum against terrorists, and an unprecedented majority would be nailed on, and perhaps it will.
If what Corbyn said was distasteful and I didn't see it that way, how Mrs May is reacting seems more inappropriate.
Anyway Yougov poll was an outlier and I still expect three figure Conservative majority!
Theresa May as home secretary promised every year she would bring down immigration to the tens of thousands. Every year under her watch, net migration both in the EU and outside the EU went up. She was only kept in the job because Cameron was obsessed with PR and whenever someone stats a fact he just rolled out the line "I don't agree with that, I would say..."
It has been claimed that Tessie was unable to bring down net immigration largely because George would not let her, because he was concerned about the effect it would have on the economy. He may well have been right, but it seems a little dishonest when he stood on a manifesto of lowering immigration to 10s of thousand (no ifs, no buts).
Mr. Palmer, it's a poor use of language, sounds a bit like pub talk.
Incidentally, the Con literature here is more positive than the Lab one, which is a mix of the candidate stating (correctly) he's been a local councillor for years and attacking his opponent for not being 'properly' local.
It is a shame the young will have to live with the luddite and selfish decisions made by their less educated parents and grandparents.
Your remark demonstrates a very narrow-minded view of education. Prior to the mass-participation in university directly from school many people continued their education over a long period of time alongside full-time work. Many made use of night-schools, the OU, the WEA and other organisations or studied independently or with the help of an employer.
I have worked in both academia and industry and over time I became increasingly despairing at the calibre of graduates applying for jobs. We had recruitment campaigns which failed repeatedly to find a suitable recent graduate (and this was at one of the leading companies in my sector).
I don't know what age group you primarily mix with but you should get out more and actually talk to elderly people. They may surprise you.
My recently-deceased father-in-law had a childhood disrupted by war and limited formal education opportunities but he was a voracious reader and I would wager that his knowledge of military history would be superior to yours. He was a staunch trade-unionist and Labour man but if he had lived he would not have been voting for Corbyn.
Frankly, your posts paint you as an ageist, narrow-minded, shallow smart-aleck.
We have to laugh that ex-UKIP voters that wanted to leave the EU and control immigration are voting for the person 1. who wanted to remain 2. was head of the department that controlled who comes and who goes for 7 years.
The mind boggles
You are having a good ramp aren't you... a quick start out of the blocks for a new poster
UKIP voters are voting for someone that said they would honor the wishes of the people and implement BrExit, including leaving the single market, the customs union and the CJEU, who as invoked Article 50, and whose action todate support her words. What is there for them not to like. They might be suckers, she might be lying. In which case they will vote for someone else next time.
As a proud Manc, bizarrely my Mancunian identity and accent has become stronger the longer I have lived away, I can only say that I have been immensely proud how the city has coped with this profound tragedy. Scousers and Mancs share many characteristics....it's a combination of shit weather and the fact that we were once at the epicentre of the industrialised west that has created our humour, and sense of collectiveness. There is a reason why we have the best football teams and music scene in the world.
Re: the Corbyn surge, aside from my growing respect for his zen like personality and determination not to play by the politicking rules, it is also a reflection of Theresa May not actually being that electorally appealing under scrutiny. All the focus on Brexit, Article 50 and the rest has clouded the fact that Theresa May is Gordon Brown with trousers. She overthinks, over strategises, she's too serious, she looks uncomfortable in her own shoes, and she's dour. Corbyn may be death dullyingly boring, but he comes across as an upbeat personality.
Dr Fox was right all along about May. Her popularity is shot, much like Brown's...so she's on a downhill slide to the men in grey suits coming in a year or so. The Tories will still win handsomely, but to copy Kevin Keegan, I would love it, fucking love it if the Tories had to go back into some kind of coalition with the LD's. That would be my ideal election outcome.
Agree on all this, except that London has the best two football teams in the country.
They see Brexit as the old messing things up for the young. The political establishment has let them down big time. And Corbyn is definitely not the political establishment. They will vote for him.
It's a curious logic, given the 68 year old Corbyn has been anti-EU his whole career, including voting to leave in the 70s, and basically sat out the referendum this time round. Not exactly a champion of remainery.
Armed police might well shoot down some terrorists before they did any harm, but police casualties also tend to be higher in countries where armed police are routine.
Difficult Issue number 4 - Healthcare. The elephant in the room is people visiting GPs that aren't ill and just want to have a chat. Everyone should pay £20 to see a GP for appointment like we do to have a checkup with a dentist. This would reduce the burden on the taxpayer and also subsidise pensioners and people on benefits that aren't in work. GPs make a ridiculous amount of money for basically being an agony aunt because they don't have the time to tackle health as the surgery is overburdened with patients.
So low paid workers should have to pay to see their doctor - even though taking the time to do so is likely to reduce their earnings - while rich pensioners and layabouts can do so for free ???
The same low paid workers pay to use the dentist. The mindset of going to the dentist and the GP should be exactly the same. I pay to much tax, national insurance already and I want the burden to comedown and the only that can be done is cut spending on things like the NHS. I've seen my GP once in 11 years.
GPs get paid a stupid amount of money for not doing much in reality compared to other jobs.
You seem happy to subsidise pensioners and people on benefits who aren't in work.
Why is it actual workers you have a down on - the people who actually create wealth, keep the country running and pay taxes ?
I lose 44% of my salary every month. I pay £2800 in deductions every month (two of those deductions are pension -5% and student loan) but over 12 months when your deducted 34,000 every year I think that is to much.
I worked 18 hour days at the start of my career making 18k and I left the company to make more money. I aspire to have a quality of life. I don't accept what I'm given. Why I should I pay or subsidise for people that went home at 5.30pm when I dug in and got the job done?
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
Yes it occurred to me yesterday that the problem w the polls could be that only people invested in politics answer them, and that those people are more likely to react to the minutiae of news reports, and also have a pride in the letting people know their vote may be changing having understood the latest goings on.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
Curious quote on Guido from Gogglebox on May and the Tories
'They made all the promises not realising people aren’t as stupid as they think and won’t believe everything they say.'
While the non u-turning u-turn might fall under that, the reference to 'made all the promises' makes it seem like it is about the manifesto generally, when the problem was surely that people have believed the Tory promises on means testing winter fuel and the social care stuff? (both of which I admire the intent of - deciding to tell people they will pay more rather than be entirely vague, but which were bound to cause some anger)
If the ultimate catastrophe does transpire and Corbyn becomes PM, I wonder how many Tories will front up here and take the deluge of abuse and gloating?
I know I wouldn't. I could not. Sounds a bit snowflakeish, but the shame of it would be too much for me to bear.
On the other hand, if the Tories do hold out, I will express an enormous sigh of relief - and that's about it. Beating Jeremy Corbyn should not give anyone satisfaction.
There'll be no gloating from me if that is the case.
BTW, what's this dodgy Sun poll referred to downthread? Missed it altogether, for whatever it's worth.
In minor news, the LibDem leaflet in Broxtowe is interesting for being aggressive and nervous at the same time - it attacks every other candidate personally, but sometimes with a get-out word, e.g. saying "the Labour candidate is apparently so left-wing that he makes Corbyn look like Thatcher". No explanation of "apparently" for this bizarre claim, which goes beyond what the Tories are saying.
Difficult Issue number 4 - Healthcare. The elephant in the room is people visiting GPs that aren't ill and just want to have a chat. Everyone should pay £20 to see a GP for appointment like we do to have a checkup with a dentist. This would reduce the burden on the taxpayer and also subsidise pensioners and people on benefits that aren't in work. GPs make a ridiculous amount of money for basically being an agony aunt because they don't have the time to tackle health as the surgery is overburdened with patients.
So low paid workers should have to pay to see their doctor - even though taking the time to do so is likely to reduce their earnings - while rich pensioners and layabouts can do so for free ???
The same low paid workers pay to use the dentist. The mindset of going to the dentist and the GP should be exactly the same. I pay to much tax, national insurance already and I want the burden to comedown and the only that can be done is cut spending on things like the NHS. I've seen my GP once in 11 years.
GPs get paid a stupid amount of money for not doing much in reality compared to other jobs.
You seem happy to subsidise pensioners and people on benefits who aren't in work.
Why is it actual workers you have a down on - the people who actually create wealth, keep the country running and pay taxes ?
I lose 44% of my salary every month. I pay £2800 in deductions every month (two of those deductions are pension -5% and student loan) but over 12 months when your deducted 34,000 every year I think that is to much.
I worked 18 hour days at the start of my career making 18k and I left the company to make more money. I aspire to have a quality of life. I don't accept what I'm given. Why I should I pay or subsidise for people that went home at 5.30pm when I dug in and got the job done?
Why do you think there should be any correlation between effort and reward? This isn't school where you get prizes for trying hard.
Armed police might well shoot down some terrorists before they did any harm, but police casualties also tend to be higher in countries where armed police are routine.
How would the police identify the suicide bomber before they exploded the bomb?
I agree with you. I also think sensible Labour moderates will be learning lessons about not being afraid of the power of the right wing press - that is the really valuable lesson that Corbyn has taught. The Tories have accepted the notion of the state as a powerful force for good. For a Labour leader without Corbyn's past and an ability to see beyond the comfort zone, that is a powerful positive; as is the fact that the Tories really aren't very good.
It sounds peverse, but I genuinely fear a Labour win, as unlikely as it is. In the long run it is better to have the Tories governing from the centre being opposed from the left, than having a hopeless PM elected on an undeliverable left wing manifesto. This would lead to economic chaos, and would embolden the hard right forces in the Tory party, who would win at the first opportunity as they always do. Its a really difficult one.
Again, I agree. I genuinely don't know whether I can vote on 8th June. I just do not see a choice and my Tory MP is going to win whatever I do.
She wants to clear the way though for whatever that is. Her problem was that as was, with a majority of 13, between the bastards and the opposition she had no room to manoeuvre.
Also, the end of the A50 negotiation period was dangerously close to the next election campaign. Now it isn't.
..or so you hope!
Well, it doesn't need to be. But, yeah, we could all do with an electoral break for a few years, we've had four significant votes since September 2014.
OMG the unspeakable horror of being asked to participate in deciding who governs you and how. Good grief. The horror of it.
That is a direct quote from someone called Pankhurst, I believe. Or maybe Tressel. I forget.
Mr. Palmer, it's a poor use of language, sounds a bit like pub talk.
Incidentally, the Con literature here is more positive than the Lab one, which is a mix of the candidate stating (correctly) he's been a local councillor for years and attacking his opponent for not being 'properly' local.
I'm voting to keep the only Labour MP in Scotland in place. He's a reasonable chap, who never mentions Corbyn. Not a difficult choice.
Never mentions Corbyn?!
'Ian Murray takes devastating swipe at Jeremy Corbyn as he resigns ...'
'Ian Murray: Jeremy Corbyn has “set alight” his promised olive branch'
'Ian Murray tweets Jeremy Corbyn is ‘destroying’ Labour'
'Scotland's Labour MP Ian Murray insists Labour won't split if Corbyn is re-elected leader'
'LABOUR’S MPs and MSPs are “right behind” Jeremy Corbyn, the party’s only Scottish MP Ian Murray has said.'
'Labour MP Ian Murray vows to work with Jeremy Corbyn as he slams Theresa May for holding 'general election while Rome burns''
etc.
An interesting journey.
Ugh, that series of lines is for one seemingly reflected by most anti-Corbyn labour supporters if the polls are right, but also typify why intense party loyalty looks so silly, as they completely backtrack from the internal rows as soon as the tribe is threatened.
Unfortunately, for the Tories, you're probably correct. I noticed yesterday a strange mouth gyration from her worthy of the great gurner himself. It shouldn't matter, but seeing as Jezza, the old scruff himself, is making an effort at presentation, she shows she's not a natural performer.
One of the reasons why the polls will be wrong (again) is laid out here in the header;
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
Yes it occurred to me yesterday that the problem w the polls could be that only people invested in politics answer them, and that those people are more likely to react to the minutiae of news reports, and also have a pride in the letting people know their vote may be changing having understood the latest goings on.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
If they were not voting Labour as Corbyn was going to lead them to a terrible defeat, they might reconsider now it looks like a 2015 defeat or better is possible. .
I would think the vast majority of voters wouldn't have any idea what the polls are saying, let alone let them influence their vote. My theory is that the polls are a bubble, and the people who do them are over representative of political obsessives. This site is the only place I've ever heard anyone talk of being part of a poll.
I am not on Facebook, but doesn't a lot of news get posted there? If everyone has at least one noisy Corbyn backer on their feed - and everyone does seem to judging by posts on here - they are surely going to have at least registered that the polls are changing.
Not really. 99% is people talking about their kids or where they went last night/are going tonight. People just scroll past "boring politics". No one on my timeline ever talks about it, not even me!
People on here have noisy Corbyn backers probably because people on here are very interested in politics, so know such people. On here we talk a lot about how we will vote and feel it is important to have thought about it. Some of us (not me) feature on polling companies lists. I would have thought less than 50% of people have an idea of the current polling
We have to laugh that ex-UKIP voters that wanted to leave the EU and control immigration are voting for the person 1. who wanted to remain 2. was head of the department that controlled who comes and who goes for 7 years.
The mind boggles
To understand it, just look at the alternative. Everythign you have criticised May for in your ten posts today, Corbyn is no better and in many cases worse.
Comments
The deficit is coming down. The figures are provided by the OBR.
Debt:The OBR expects Britain's debt share to peak at 88.8pc of GDP this year.
You say 'paying the debt by 2025'... You are clearly confused since there is no way debt - debt built up over decades if not centuries - can be paid off by 2025. That was never proposed.
In case you had missed it, the Nation voted to leave the EU last June and this rather puts previous 'deficit' reduction plans into a fresh focus.
She is hardly more of a career politician than say Cameron who was a spad at the treasury.
On other topics - the Guardian carefully puts the cart before the horse by criticising May for bringing the bombing into the election because she is attacking Corbyn... for bringing the bombing into the election.
The problem is that this works for just the first few months until behaviour adjusts to fit. You talk to seemingly intelligent and educated people about Laffer curves, the fact that the top 10% pay 50% of income tax, virtually no-one on under 50K a year is a net contributor to the state and that health and social care will expand to fit any given set of resources and they either give you a blank look or blame nasteeee torieees in a Gollum like way.
The could only win if voting for them was not a wasted vote, but as it would be a wasted vote (as they can't win), they can't win.
And voting for them would risk letting in Labour (if you're anti-Labour) or the Tories (if you're anti-Tory).
'The pollsters are operating very differently to last time with online now predominant and a focus on reaching and getting the views of those who can often be overlooked – those with little interest in politics.'
If you genuinely have little interest in politics why would you complete a poll; never mind one that's online?
I fear the pollsters samples will be found wanting again and the only real way to resolve it is to conduct multi-style polls (some phone, some online, some in-person) and give appropriate incentives for completing them (not just £10 if you answer 300 polls over a five year period).
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/snp-lead-tories-by-more-than-20-in.html
We won't be seeing leads of 15% again. Of course they'd be ecstatic to get leads if 10 again. But while a lead below 10 was inevitable, it shouldn't have become normal.
The betting markets are just wrong, I think, or the polls are.
So, expect very long initial stints as everyone hopes not to be caught out by pitting then immediately having a safety car emerge.
I think most normal people know who they're voting for and don't give it any thought.
In my safish Labour seat (where I'm a new resident, so no canvass data about me) I've only heard from Labour so far, though UKIP had a street stand.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/series/voices-and-votes
Remember Bob Worcester's mantra of looking at the share, not the lead - and remember that a Tory share of 43% essentially guarantees a comfortable majority.
My Facebook is full of excitable Lefties ('betrayed by Brexit') with their hopes up....they don't respond well to commentary that does not reinforce the group think.....
A LibDem vote would at least be a vote for a fairer system that wouldn't render your voting pointless.
Otherwise you should have put yourself up as an Independent and then voted for yourself!
It is the failure to do so adequately which has allowed a dangerous meme to develop among some that IS (and Al Qaeda and other violent ideologies) represent true Islam and which has persuaded some young Muslims to take up violent jihad. That - surely - needs to be countered by showing them how wrong they are about their understanding of Islam and what it means to be a good Muslim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Ham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
As to Scotland the Conservative voting efficiency is likely to be much greater this year than in previous elections while Labour's might be infinitely less.
Also the LD position improves the Tory efficiency of votes. All those wasted votes in seats where they came a close 2nd to LDs are now efficient votes.
I had just forgot this happened.
Presuming this is accurate it suggests otherwise.
Granted Labour has 7 of the top 11 but then the Tories have something 74 out of the top 100. If we're talking vote share them % majorities don't tell us so much.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/electoral-bias-in-the-uk-after-the-2015-general-election/
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/jeremy-corbyn-changing-tune-dont-believe-word/
GPs get paid a stupid amount of money for not doing much in reality compared to other jobs.
There was YouGov a week ago which showed an 8% lead which was followed by an ICM with a 14% lead then a few days without polls and then the recent ones.
And unlike us few people pay much attention to opinion polls or indeed politics in general.
Labour are favourites in "only" 171 seats despite the moves in the O/U and spread markets.
these markets are still, rightly or wrongly, pointing to a Con majority around 120.
Theresa May as home secretary promised every year she would bring down immigration to the tens of thousands. Every year under her watch, net migration both in the EU and outside the EU went up. She was only kept in the job because Cameron was obsessed with PR and whenever someone stats a fact he just rolled out the line "I don't agree with that, I would say..."
I don't have any noisy Corbyn backers on my Facebook. My Facebook is basically dominated by people sharing pics of their children.
1. who wanted to remain
2. was head of the department that controlled who comes and who goes for 7 years.
The mind boggles
Anyway, Raikkonen's odds (to win) on Betfair down to about 8, layable at 14.5. Not enough for me, but relatively content with backing it at 27.
Raining now.
Why is it actual workers you have a down on - the people who actually create wealth, keep the country running and pay taxes ?
In minor news, the LibDem leaflet in Broxtowe is interesting for being aggressive and nervous at the same time - it attacks every other candidate personally, but sometimes with a get-out word, e.g. saying "the Labour candidate is apparently so left-wing that he makes Corbyn look like Thatcher". No explanation of "apparently" for this bizarre claim, which goes beyond what the Tories are saying.
"There's a noisy Corbyn backer on my Facebook feed" is more likely to be reported than "There are no noisy Corbyn backers on my Facebook feed."
As a proud Manc, bizarrely my Mancunian identity and accent has become stronger the longer I have lived away, I can only say that I have been immensely proud how the city has coped with this profound tragedy. Scousers and Mancs share many characteristics....it's a combination of shit weather and the fact that we were once at the epicentre of the industrialised west that has created our humour, and sense of collectiveness. There is a reason why we have the best football teams and music scene in the world.
Re: the Corbyn surge, aside from my growing respect for his zen like personality and determination not to play by the politicking rules, it is also a reflection of Theresa May not actually being that electorally appealing under scrutiny. All the focus on Brexit, Article 50 and the rest has clouded the fact that Theresa May is Gordon Brown with trousers. She overthinks, over strategises, she's too serious, she looks uncomfortable in her own shoes, and she's dour. Corbyn may be death dullyingly boring, but he comes across as an upbeat personality.
Dr Fox was right all along about May. Her popularity is shot, much like Brown's...so she's on a downhill slide to the men in grey suits coming in a year or so. The Tories will still win handsomely, but to copy Kevin Keegan, I would love it, fucking love it if the Tories had to go back into some kind of coalition with the LD's. That would be my ideal election outcome.
I did expect the Manchester atrocity to play well for Mrs May, and maybe it will yet! I thought the events of Monday night would rally the country behind her in a demonstration of unity, a referendum against terrorists, and an unprecedented majority would be nailed on, and perhaps it will.
If what Corbyn said was distasteful and I didn't see it that way, how Mrs May is reacting seems more inappropriate.
Anyway Yougov poll was an outlier and I still expect three figure Conservative majority!
Incidentally, the Con literature here is more positive than the Lab one, which is a mix of the candidate stating (correctly) he's been a local councillor for years and attacking his opponent for not being 'properly' local.
I have worked in both academia and industry and over time I became increasingly despairing at the calibre of graduates applying for jobs. We had recruitment campaigns which failed repeatedly to find a suitable recent graduate (and this was at one of the leading companies in my sector).
I don't know what age group you primarily mix with but you should get out more and actually talk to elderly people. They may surprise you.
My recently-deceased father-in-law had a childhood disrupted by war and limited formal education opportunities but he was a voracious reader and I would wager that his knowledge of military history would be superior to yours. He was a staunch trade-unionist and Labour man but if he had lived he would not have been voting for Corbyn.
Frankly, your posts paint you as an ageist, narrow-minded, shallow smart-aleck.
"Otherwise you should have put yourself up as an Independent and then voted for yourself!"
I wouldn't vote for me either. What did Groucho Marx say about that? But that's the Catch 22 - anyone who goes into politics should probably avoid it.
UKIP voters are voting for someone that said they would honor the wishes of the people and implement BrExit, including leaving the single market, the customs union and the CJEU, who as invoked Article 50, and whose action todate support her words. What is there for them not to like. They might be suckers, she might be lying. In which case they will vote for someone else next time.
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Pete.
'Ian Murray takes devastating swipe at Jeremy Corbyn as he resigns ...'
'Ian Murray: Jeremy Corbyn has “set alight” his promised olive branch'
'Ian Murray tweets Jeremy Corbyn is ‘destroying’ Labour'
'Scotland's Labour MP Ian Murray insists Labour won't split if Corbyn is re-elected leader'
'LABOUR’S MPs and MSPs are “right behind” Jeremy Corbyn, the party’s only Scottish MP Ian Murray has said.'
'Labour MP Ian Murray vows to work with Jeremy Corbyn as he slams Theresa May for holding 'general election while Rome burns''
etc.
An interesting journey.
I worked 18 hour days at the start of my career making 18k and I left the company to make more money. I aspire to have a quality of life. I don't accept what I'm given. Why I should I pay or subsidise for people that went home at 5.30pm when I dug in and got the job done?
But why the recent big swing towards Labour?
Is it ex Labour don't knows returning to Labour?
'They made all the promises not realising people aren’t as stupid as they think and won’t believe everything they say.'
While the non u-turning u-turn might fall under that, the reference to 'made all the promises' makes it seem like it is about the manifesto generally, when the problem was surely that people have believed the Tory promises on means testing winter fuel and the social care stuff? (both of which I admire the intent of - deciding to tell people they will pay more rather than be entirely vague, but which were bound to cause some anger)
I know I wouldn't. I could not. Sounds a bit snowflakeish, but the shame of it would be too much for me to bear.
On the other hand, if the Tories do hold out, I will express an enormous sigh of relief - and that's about it. Beating Jeremy Corbyn should not give anyone satisfaction.
There'll be no gloating from me if that is the case.
How would the police identify the suicide bomber before they exploded the bomb?
That is a direct quote from someone called Pankhurst, I believe. Or maybe Tressel. I forget.
"Theresa May is Gordon Brown with trousers."
Unfortunately, for the Tories, you're probably correct. I noticed yesterday a strange mouth gyration from her worthy of the great gurner himself. It shouldn't matter, but seeing as Jezza, the old scruff himself, is making an effort at presentation, she shows she's not a natural performer.
People on here have noisy Corbyn backers probably because people on here are very interested in politics, so know such people. On here we talk a lot about how we will vote and feel it is important to have thought about it. Some of us (not me) feature on polling companies lists. I would have thought less than 50% of people have an idea of the current polling