I think Matthew Goodwin is right. The polls are overestimating Labour, as usual.
The Labour polling strength is made up of a large number of DNVs.
In my view there is only two options:
1) DNVs don't vote - like always. Labour massively underperforms the polls. PB Tories claim it was never in doubt. 2) DNVs vote, at which point the polls weighting criteria go out the window and Labour outperform the polls. PB Tories claim global Stalinist conspiracy.
I am still assuming 1.
I won't claim global Stalinst conspiracy, it'll be all down to Mrs May being crap.
I don't know if you count as a PB Tory anymore.
Perhaps I'll formally become a Gladstonian Liberal in the next few weeks.
I may, may may be doing a thread tomorrow that you will enjoy.
It's comparing a North London pensioner whose team are the Reds who might still be in charge for another few years to somebody in the world of football.
Sounds fabulous.... I only hope I'll have internet access to fully admire and savour it when we land in Greece. Whilst there I may also take the opportunity as a fact-finding mission to see first hand how an economy can collapse just in case McDonnell should somehow get in to the Treasury.
Corbyn is a fucking revelation for the left. Cooked inside Cooperation atm will do a thread on this in due course. Expect turnout amongst youngsters to be well up
That's great, although I truly don't get it. Why him? His schtick is not new, he's got a kindly demeanour but he's not hugely charismatic, why are they so fired up by him rather than merely like him?
Right place, right time. People aree projecting their hopes onto him. Some of the posts I see on my facebook and twitter feeds are quasi religious in the way they see him as the messiah, promising great change and ending all evil.
I'm starting to think that we may be on the wrong side of the zeitgeist. What if young people do actually vote this time round, sore and smarting from a year of having the fact that it was oldies wot won it for Brexit shared repeatedly on social media finally teaching them a lesson...
As Alistair says below if DNVs do vote this time round, all bets are off.
Right up until the registration deadline most of my lefty friends were sharing more 'you must register to vote, we lost Brexit, we can't afford to lose this time' stuff than they were stuff about their messiah JC...
I think the scenario where the Tories do really badly (reduced majority or hung parliament) goes like:
- Corbyn pulls off a Trump and actually gets traditional non-voters to increase turnout - At the other end of the spectrum, voters who traditionally have high turnout are turned off by the social care stuff. They keep telling pollsters they're voting Tory, their preference, but on the day not quite so many actually turn out as usual - Somehow UKIP actually manage to capitalise on the Manchester attacks to the tune of three or four percent of the Tory vote (maybe May says something badly-worded about immigration during an interview) - The Tories either fail to seize initiative and turn the spotlight on Corbyn, or it turns out that that truly is priced in, or the news cycle gets filled up with other events, or they mostly manage but get undermined by a leak or slip-up that puts attention back on their mistakes. Labour keeps up their surprisingly competent campaign.
If, say, 3 of those 4 thing happen, you could still have a huge upset. I doubt it's likely, but if it happens, I think that's how.
Scarily believable but you ruined it with the suggestion that May does an unscripted interview. Beyond the bounds of credibility I feel.
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
Corbyn is a fucking revelation for the left. Cooked inside Cooperation atm will do a thread on this in due course. Expect turnout amongst youngsters to be well up
I honestly don't see it. I think Labour are leeching younger voters away from the greens and Lib Dems, but not engaging new young voters in large enough numbers.
Perhaps not, but will they actually turn out this time is the critical question? Dozens of seats could be saved, and some gained, if they do for once.
Yougov are consistently finding that 18-24 year olds have much higher certainty to vote figures than 25-44 year olds . I guess in many cases this is the novelty of having a vote for the first time , whereas the next age group have voted a couple of times and know that outside of marginal seats their vote does not really matter .
What are the figures regarding previous general elections for 18-24 year olds?
In amongst the fantasing about who everyone would like to see fail on June the 8th I'd just like to say the the funniest result of election night would be for John Lamont to fail to take Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.
He's resigned his Holyrood seat (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire which is the Holyrood equivalent of BRS) to contest BRS so I can't work out if it would be funnier if Rachael Hamilton lost ERB or if she held it for the Conservatives.
Whilst I would be personally poorer of wallet I would be richer in mirth.
Bold of him to do that, but certainly would be worth a bitter laugh if it happened.
Bad night for SCON if they cannot take it though, I'd have thought.
I can see literally 0 eventualities where he fails to take BRS. Rock solid guaranteed Con gain, the odds on it were crazy, crazy, insanely good.
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
To an extent.
But you also have to consider that in a mature multi-party democracy it's virtually impossible to break 50%. 44%, if that's borne out as the result, is solid but not spectacular. But it would be only a few percent away from a spectacular result, which I'd define (somewhat arbitrarily) as 48%+.
It's only because the minor parties have slumped that like the lead looks disappointing. But it's a bit harsh to blame May for people who would never vote Tory coalescing around one alternative.
It would be personally amusing if the Tories got 48% as I could then change my twitter/facebook etc profile picture to one of those "I'm with the 48%" graphics that so many of my friends have been sporting since June last year.
Corbyn is a fucking revelation for the left. Cooked inside Cooperation atm will do a thread on this in due course. Expect turnout amongst youngsters to be well up
I honestly don't see it. I think Labour are leeching younger voters away from the greens and Lib Dems, but not engaging new young voters in large enough numbers.
Perhaps not, but will they actually turn out this time is the critical question? Dozens of seats could be saved, and some gained, if they do for once.
Yougov are consistently finding that 18-24 year olds have much higher certainty to vote figures than 25-44 year olds . I guess in many cases this is the novelty of having a vote for the first time , whereas the next age group have voted a couple of times and know that outside of marginal seats their vote does not really matter .
I can never remember - will we get any figures on the the demographics of who is now registered to vote before the election? It must be a known set of facts by now and it's hard to see any harm in releasing it. That would tell us a lot.
Do people have any thoughts on the Lib Dem leadership after the election, if they do as badly as these polls are suggesting?
It looks as though the most credible alternative leaders (including Clegg) are the likeliest to lose their seats.
It will be Hobson's choice, but Farron won't have any other MPs to lead!
Oh, he'll have a few. It's always worth having an revisit on the assessment of LD chances.
Carshalton - seen as tough for them to retain. Orkney - despite being pretty close last time and the Carmichael factor, he should win pretty comfortably. Hallam - Clegg's in real trouble, reliant on that there was a Labour surge in his seat last time, that was unusual for the constituency, not being repeated, and thus lack of Tory tacticals is not fatal to him. I see some saying he should be safe, others thinking he'll struggle, so it cannot be a certainty. Westmoreland - some chatter about Farron under pressure, and he's had a bad campaign even with the poor hand he as LD leader has been dealt (I am genuinely frustrated Labour have surged at their expense), but should be safe. North Norfolk - another tough one to retain. Some say local factors mean he is ok, strict models say its a goner. Leeds - a toss up, apparently. More likely to retain than not perhaps. Richmond - Another tough one to retain. Southport - fight on their hands, could hold, might lose. Ceredigion - Tough fight maybe, but should retain.
Target
Cambridge - I think it is safe to write this one off - Labour are surging somewhere and if it is anywhere surely it is a place like Cambridge? Edinburgh West - They're probably still confident SW London seats - relying on a campaigning surge that hasn't occurred? Unless they are going backwards elsewhere and rising here, not great chances A couple other scottish seats - could get lucky, depends how well any tactical voting goes.
Most other places that were former LD seats? Don't make me laugh.
All the polling has the Lib Dems at close to double their 2015 vote share in London. To me, this feels right given the Lib Dem posters around the place. I suspect the SW London seats are still doable and so is Southwark and Bermondsey. I also think the party will get at least four seats in Scotland.
The rest of the country is a mystery to me. I hope Nick Clegg gets back in - there's been no finer leader of a UK political party in the last thirty years
I may, may may be doing a thread tomorrow that you will enjoy.
It's comparing a North London pensioner whose team are the Reds who might still be in charge for another few years to somebody in the world of football.
Sounds fabulous.... I only hope I'll have internet access to fully admire and savour it when we land in Greece. Whilst there I may also take the opportunity as a fact-finding mission to see first hand how an economy can collapse just in case McDonnell should somehow get in to the Treasury.
Or I might do a thread asking if Mrs May is a bit Spursy?
In amongst the fantasing about who everyone would like to see fail on June the 8th I'd just like to say the the funniest result of election night would be for John Lamont to fail to take Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.
He's resigned his Holyrood seat (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire which is the Holyrood equivalent of BRS) to contest BRS so I can't work out if it would be funnier if Rachael Hamilton lost ERB or if she held it for the Conservatives.
Whilst I would be personally poorer of wallet I would be richer in mirth.
Bold of him to do that, but certainly would be worth a bitter laugh if it happened.
Bad night for SCON if they cannot take it though, I'd have thought.
I can see literally 0 eventualities where he fails to take BRS. Rock solid guaranteed Con gain, the odds on it were crazy, crazy, insanely good.
Should I be backing the Nats to topple David Mundell?
Do people have any thoughts on the Lib Dem leadership after the election, if they do as badly as these polls are suggesting?
It looks as though the most credible alternative leaders (including Clegg) are the likeliest to lose their seats.
It will be Hobson's choice, but Farron won't have any other MPs to lead!
Oh, he'll have a few. It's always worth having an revisit on the assessment of LD chances.
Carshalton - seen as tough for them to retain. Orkney - despite being pretty close last time and the Carmichael factor, he should win pretty comfortably. Hallam - Clegg's in real trouble, reliant on that there was a Labour surge in his seat last time, that was unusual for the constituency, not being repeated, and thus lack of Tory tacticals is not fatal to him. I see some saying he should be safe, others thinking he'll struggle, so it cannot be a certainty. Westmoreland - some chatter about Farron under pressure, and he's had a bad campaign even with the poor hand he as LD leader has been dealt (I am genuinely frustrated Labour have surged at their expense), but should be safe. North Norfolk - another tough one to retain. Some say local factors mean he is ok, strict models say its a goner. Leeds - a toss up, apparently. More likely to retain than not perhaps. Richmond - Another tough one to retain. Southport - fight on their hands, could hold, might lose. Ceredigion - Tough fight maybe, but should retain.
Target
Cambridge - I think it is safe to write this one off - Labour are surging somewhere and if it is anywhere surely it is a place like Cambridge? Edinburgh West - They're probably still confident SW London seats - relying on a campaigning surge that hasn't occurred? Unless they are going backwards elsewhere and rising here, not great chances A couple other scottish seats - could get lucky, depends how well any tactical voting goes.
Most other places that were former LD seats? Don't make me laugh.
All the polling has the Lib Dems at close to double their 2015 vote share in London. To me, this feels right given the Lib Dem posters around the place. I suspect the SW London seats are still doable and so is Southwark and Bermondsey. I also think the party will get at least four seats in Scotland.
The rest of the country is a mystery to me. I hope Nick Clegg gets back in - there's been no finer leader of a UK political party in the last thirty years
Not in terms of outcomes for his party, though I do feel the public treated him and them more harshly than deserved.
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
Is that right? Just how do you get any tory vote much above 45%. The question you must ask how is Labour at 36% compared to Miliband? I see no Conservative leader not even the Archangel Gabriel getting better than 43 - 45 if Corbyn is really getting 36. What we have is a Labour manifesto promising the moon and sixpence and all with somebody else's money -- found from somewhere. Only the young are so gullible.
It was a peculiar thing to claim. Were those his exact words on the topic? as it is strange given he chooses his words carefully on the subject and can and no doubt would explain that it was no big deal that he met or spoke with various figures.
Corbyn is a fucking revelation for the left. Cooked inside Cooperation atm will do a thread on this in due course. Expect turnout amongst youngsters to be well up
I honestly don't see it. I think Labour are leeching younger voters away from the greens and Lib Dems, but not engaging new young voters in large enough numbers.
Perhaps not, but will they actually turn out this time is the critical question? Dozens of seats could be saved, and some gained, if they do for once.
Yougov are consistently finding that 18-24 year olds have much higher certainty to vote figures than 25-44 year olds . I guess in many cases this is the novelty of having a vote for the first time , whereas the next age group have voted a couple of times and know that outside of marginal seats their vote does not really matter .
18-24 year olds are a relatively small cohort of the electorate though.
All of Corbyn's apologists keep reminding us that his back catalogue is 'priced in', and that the public do not care. So why do they keep mentioning it every time it is brought up?
Surely if it was counter-productive, they would encourage more of these attacks on their Messiah.... wouldn't they?
All of Corbyn's apologists keep reminding us that his back catalogue is 'priced in', and that the public do not care. So why do they keep mentioning it every time it is brought up?
Unless............
Believe me its not being an apologist - I hope the public do care! I think he is disingenuous when he talks on the subject and he beefs up his 'role', and that what he said and did was qualitatively different from the actual peacemaking work that has gone on.
I think the scenario where the Tories do really badly (reduced majority or hung parliament) goes like:
- Corbyn pulls off a Trump and actually gets traditional non-voters to increase turnout - At the other end of the spectrum, voters who traditionally have high turnout are turned off by the social care stuff. They keep telling pollsters they're voting Tory, their preference, but on the day not quite so many actually turn out as usual - Somehow UKIP actually manage to capitalise on the Manchester attacks to the tune of three or four percent of the Tory vote (maybe May says something badly-worded about immigration during an interview) - The Tories either fail to seize initiative and turn the spotlight on Corbyn, or it turns out that that truly is priced in, or the news cycle gets filled up with other events, or they mostly manage but get undermined by a leak or slip-up that puts attention back on their mistakes. Labour keeps up their surprisingly competent campaign.
If, say, 3 of those 4 thing happen, you could still have a huge upset. I doubt it's likely, but if it happens, I think that's how.
Yup, you've just described my fears exactly. I think 1 and 2 are already happening, from the anecdotal evidence I hear online and from friends - I know a few people who've been door-knocking.
The best thing that can be said about turning the spotlight on Corbyn is that it's polarising. I saw the attack ad on Facebook the Tories are running and all I thought was that it will harden opinion in both camps.
If you're already leaning towards Corbyn it just adds fuel to the fire that there is an enormous conspiracay against him to paint him as a terrorist sympathiser when he's really just a pacifist...
I just don't think this style of negative campaigning works. "Vote Corbyn Get Salmond" might, but "Don't Vote Corbyn, He Once Had Tea With The IRA" won't.
Where is the positivity in the Conservative campaign? Where is the vision for the future? Where is the hope?
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
I may, may may be doing a thread tomorrow that you will enjoy.
It's comparing a North London pensioner whose team are the Reds who might still be in charge for another few years to somebody in the world of football.
Arsene Wenger, he's won more than you (okay, since he's been in charge of Arsenal in the case of Liverpool).
He's never won the European Cup and League Cup, the two most important trophies in football.
We've won them 4 times since Wenger became Arsenal manager.
(Honestly I'm a huge fan of Wenger, I just worry at the start of the next season Arsenal have a bad run, and he's forced out, he deserves better than that.)
Corbyn is a fucking revelation for the left. Cooked inside Cooperation atm will do a thread on this in due course. Expect turnout amongst youngsters to be well up
That's great, although I truly don't get it. Why him? His schtick is not new, he's got a kindly demeanour but he's not hugely charismatic, why are they so fired up by him rather than merely like him?
Right place, right time. People aree projecting their hopes onto him. Some of the posts I see on my facebook and twitter feeds are quasi religious in the way they see him as the messiah, promising great change and ending all evil.
I'm starting to think that we may be on the wrong side of the zeitgeist. What if young people do actually vote this time round, sore and smarting from a year of having the fact that it was oldies wot won it for Brexit shared repeatedly on social media finally teaching them a lesson...
As Alistair says below if DNVs do vote this time round, all bets are off.
Right up until the registration deadline most of my lefty friends were sharing more 'you must register to vote, we lost Brexit, we can't afford to lose this time' stuff than they were stuff about their messiah JC...
I think the scenario where the Tories do really badly (reduced majority or hung parliament) goes like:
- Corbyn pulls off a Trump and actually gets traditional non-voters to increase turnout - At the other end of the spectrum, voters who traditionally have high turnout are turned off by the social care stuff. They keep telling pollsters they're voting Tory, their preference, but on the day not quite so many actually turn out as usual - Somehow UKIP actually manage to capitalise on the Manchester attacks to the tune of three or four percent of the Tory vote (maybe May says something badly-worded about immigration during an interview) - The Tories either fail to seize initiative and turn the spotlight on Corbyn, or it turns out that that truly is priced in, or the news cycle gets filled up with other events, or they mostly manage but get undermined by a leak or slip-up that puts attention back on their mistakes. Labour keeps up their surprisingly competent campaign.
If, say, 3 of those 4 thing happen, you could still have a huge upset. I doubt it's likely, but if it happens, I think that's how.
I think the polls may be caught out this time by another change in the voting pattern, namely the most radical shift in the profile and identities of 'don't know' voters in any election for a long, long time. How exactly that plays, I cannot decide - I suspect LDs might get closer to 15% nationally than the polls suggest, although without gaining much benefit in their target seats, but how that tips the Lab / Con battle nationally is not at all clear to me.
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
The Corbyn-supporting women I know don't feel that way about him.
I certainly don't (but then again I'm not a Corbynista)
He's been married three times, he's probably quite charming. I imagine him to have a sort of intensity that is probably quite compelling, one on one. But really it's probably just women find his message more appealing, and young ladies in particular.
It was a peculiar thing to claim. Were those his exact words on the topic? as it is strange given he chooses his words carefully on the subject and can and no doubt would explain that it was no big deal that he met or spoke with various figures.
I'm guessing the people he met were no longer members or had never been proven to be.
I feel like having enormous bets on labour to do badly but don't think I've got the bottle!
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
The Corbyn-supporting women I know don't feel that way about him.
I certainly don't (but then again I'm not a Corbynista)
He's been married three times, he's probably quite charming. I imagine him to have a sort of intensity that is probably quite compelling, one on one. But really it's probably just women find his message more appealing, and young ladies in particular.
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
The Corbyn-supporting women I know don't feel that way about him.
I certainly don't (but then again I'm not a Corbynista)
He's been married three times, he's probably quite charming. I imagine him to have a sort of intensity that is probably quite compelling, one on one. But really it's probably just women find his message more appealing, and young ladies in particular.
In amongst the fantasing about who everyone would like to see fail on June the 8th I'd just like to say the the funniest result of election night would be for John Lamont to fail to take Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.
He's resigned his Holyrood seat (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire which is the Holyrood equivalent of BRS) to contest BRS so I can't work out if it would be funnier if Rachael Hamilton lost ERB or if she held it for the Conservatives.
Whilst I would be personally poorer of wallet I would be richer in mirth.
Bold of him to do that, but certainly would be worth a bitter laugh if it happened.
Bad night for SCON if they cannot take it though, I'd have thought.
I can see literally 0 eventualities where he fails to take BRS. Rock solid guaranteed Con gain, the odds on it were crazy, crazy, insanely good.
Should I be backing the Nats to topple David Mundell?
If you do then between us one of us will be the winner (barring an Lazarus like resurrection of Labour).
It was a peculiar thing to claim. Were those his exact words on the topic? as it is strange given he chooses his words carefully on the subject and can and no doubt would explain that it was no big deal that he met or spoke with various figures.
I'm guessing the people he met were no longer members or had never been proven to be.
I feel like having enormous bets on labour to do badly but don't think I've got the bottle!
I only ever bet peanuts, just in case. I have neverthless now tried to cover myself in the event of a very good night for Labour, as otherwise I'm mostly on positions which are at best moderately ad for them.
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
The Corbyn-supporting women I know don't feel that way about him.
I certainly don't (but then again I'm not a Corbynista)
He's been married three times, he's probably quite charming. I imagine him to have a sort of intensity that is probably quite compelling, one on one. But really it's probably just women find his message more appealing, and young ladies in particular.
I remember popping onto PB.com one Friday evening years ago, only to discover that the political debate had shifted onto the topic of which which Girls Aloud singer the boys on here preferred!
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
The Corbyn-supporting women I know don't feel that way about him.
I certainly don't (but then again I'm not a Corbynista)
He's been married three times, he's probably quite charming. I imagine him to have a sort of intensity that is probably quite compelling, one on one. But really it's probably just women find his message more appealing, and young ladies in particular.
OMG!!
You don't think a man with intense views on seemingly every political issue would not be equally intense on non-political issues in conversation, which would attract people?
I may, may may be doing a thread tomorrow that you will enjoy.
It's comparing a North London pensioner whose team are the Reds who might still be in charge for another few years to somebody in the world of football.
Arsene Wenger, he's won more than you (okay, since he's been in charge of Arsenal in the case of Liverpool).
He's never won the European Cup and League Cup, the two most important trophies in football.
We've won them 4 times since Wenger became Arsenal manager.
(Honestly I'm a huge fan of Wenger, I just worry at the start of the next season Arsenal have a bad run, and he's forced out, he deserves better than that.)
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
The Corbyn-supporting women I know don't feel that way about him.
I certainly don't (but then again I'm not a Corbynista)
He's been married three times, he's probably quite charming. I imagine him to have a sort of intensity that is probably quite compelling, one on one. But really it's probably just women find his message more appealing, and young ladies in particular.
No amount of charm is going to make me see a 68 year old as sexy.
He's more than 40 years older than me....just no.
I agree that's it's his message. Women have also been more likely to vote Labour than men for sometime now, I definitely recall this being case prior to Corbyn becoming leader.
...Along the way I've learned a bit about the difference between writing when giving advice and writing for a wider audience. They're very different processes.
You mean: in one case you tell them it's their decision and you get paid for it, and in the other case you express a view and you don't get paid for it?
In amongst the fantasing about who everyone would like to see fail on June the 8th I'd just like to say the the funniest result of election night would be for John Lamont to fail to take Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.
He's resigned his Holyrood seat (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire which is the Holyrood equivalent of BRS) to contest BRS so I can't work out if it would be funnier if Rachael Hamilton lost ERB or if she held it for the Conservatives.
Whilst I would be personally poorer of wallet I would be richer in mirth.
Bold of him to do that, but certainly would be worth a bitter laugh if it happened.
Bad night for SCON if they cannot take it though, I'd have thought.
I can see literally 0 eventualities where he fails to take BRS. Rock solid guaranteed Con gain, the odds on it were crazy, crazy, insanely good.
Should I be backing the Nats to topple David Mundell?
If you do then between us one of us will be the winner (barring an Lazarus like resurrection of Labour).
I just look at the majority of 798 and think there's no way anyone should be nailed on to win.
No matter what the Scottish polling says.
I can see the Nats really motivated in toppling their Tory Viceroy.
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
The Corbyn-supporting women I know don't feel that way about him.
I certainly don't (but then again I'm not a Corbynista)
He's been married three times, he's probably quite charming. I imagine him to have a sort of intensity that is probably quite compelling, one on one. But really it's probably just women find his message more appealing, and young ladies in particular.
He was comprehensively divorced once.
Well I imagine his intensity and inflexibility in politics is reflected at least in part in his private life, and that same intensity leads to issues later.
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
The Corbyn-supporting women I know don't feel that way about him.
I certainly don't (but then again I'm not a Corbynista)
He's been married three times, he's probably quite charming. I imagine him to have a sort of intensity that is probably quite compelling, one on one. But really it's probably just women find his message more appealing, and young ladies in particular.
No amount of charm is going to make me see a 68 year old as sexy.
He's more than 40 years older than me....just no.
I agree that's it's his message. Women have also been more likely to vote Labour than men for sometime now, I definitely recall this being case prior to Corbyn becoming leader.
If there is an appeal about him personally beyond his message, I would suspect it to be a cool grandad sort of vibe. He's an anti-authority, authority figure, he's right-on, he's old but he says how wonderful young people are and wants to give them free stuff.
Grace Mugabe is 41 years young than her husband - power and wealth, not that's what is sexy!
Not sure if posted yet but per Sunday Times - Amber Rudd is representing Con in the BBC1 Election Debate on Wed (7.30pm to 9pm).
Seven parties - five leaders; Corbyn said won't attend if May doesn't. So presumably another senior Lab person.
Sensible decision to go for Rudd - I guess they could have gone for Boris but maybe too much of wildcard and risk of challenge re "Brexit means £350m per week for NHS".
Rudd also more suitable to deliver reassuring message re social care - but her message must be focus grouped and agreed with Crosby.
Finally (if Con win) must guarantee that Rudd keeps top Cabinet job.
Same methodology as ComRes re turnout - ie based on 2015 actual - so would expect to be good for Con - but even so a massively reassuring poll for Con.
'ICM boss Martin Boon said: “Despite a bad look at the beginning of last week, it’s still hands-down Theresa May.
“The Tories are not shipwrecked after the storm. They have just had a bad week and the storm clouds always move on elsewhere.
“Labour has recovered and the figures imply a better performance than Ed Miliband managed two years ago. But they are still in second place by a country mile and all the fundamentals still point to a strong Tory win.”"
Not sure if posted yet but per Sunday Times - Amber Rudd is representing Con in the BBC1 Election Debate on Wed (7.30pm to 9pm).
Seven parties - five leaders; Corbyn said won't attend if May doesn't. So presumably another senior Lab person.
Sensible decision to go for Rudd - I guess they could have gone for Boris but maybe too much of wildcard and risk of challenge re "Brexit means £350m per week for NHS".
Rudd also more suitable to deliver reassuring message re social care - but her message must be focus grouped and agreed with Crosby.
Maybe they are baiting Labour to send Diane Abbott
Not sure if posted yet but per Sunday Times - Amber Rudd is representing Con in the BBC1 Election Debate on Wed (7.30pm to 9pm).
Seven parties - five leaders; Corbyn said won't attend if May doesn't. So presumably another senior Lab person.
Sensible decision to go for Rudd - I guess they could have gone for Boris but maybe too much of wildcard and risk of challenge re "Brexit means £350m per week for NHS".
Rudd also more suitable to deliver reassuring message re social care - but her message must be focus grouped and agreed with Crosby.
I didn't know the parties were not empty chairing if the leader's didn't come, not sure if that is good or bad for them. Why isn't May/Corbyn here to speak for themselves sort of thing.
Not sure if posted yet but per Sunday Times - Amber Rudd is representing Con in the BBC1 Election Debate on Wed (7.30pm to 9pm).
Seven parties - five leaders; Corbyn said won't attend if May doesn't. So presumably another senior Lab person.
Sensible decision to go for Rudd - I guess they could have gone for Boris but maybe too much of wildcard and risk of challenge re "Brexit means £350m per week for NHS".
Rudd also more suitable to deliver reassuring message re social care - but her message must be focus grouped and agreed with Crosby.
Finally (if Con win) must guarantee that Rudd keeps top Cabinet job.
Wonder if it's all a bluff and Corbyn is going after all?
Not sure if posted yet but per Sunday Times - Amber Rudd is representing Con in the BBC1 Election Debate on Wed (7.30pm to 9pm).
Seven parties - five leaders; Corbyn said won't attend if May doesn't. So presumably another senior Lab person.
Sensible decision to go for Rudd - I guess they could have gone for Boris but maybe too much of wildcard and risk of challenge re "Brexit means £350m per week for NHS".
Rudd also more suitable to deliver reassuring message re social care - but her message must be focus grouped and agreed with Crosby.
Finally (if Con win) must guarantee that Rudd keeps top Cabinet job.
Wonder if it's all a bluff and Corbyn is going after all?
In a few months, in the books that will have been written, this is the week when it will be said that the Tories put Crosby in charge and tightened their message.
The PM will show a touch of humility to a voter on the Monday interview or on QT, and Corbyn will have been seen to have had a gaff either related to terrorism or over the numbers (Paxman will want to see if he can add up, as he'll be briefed to death on PIRA and won't be expecting it).
Else this is the week Corbyn wins the election. But my money is on option A.
I think the scenario where the Tories do really badly (reduced majority or hung parliament) goes like:
- Corbyn pulls off a Trump and actually gets traditional non-voters to increase turnout - At the other end of the spectrum, voters who traditionally have high turnout are turned off by the social care stuff. They keep telling pollsters they're voting Tory, their preference, but on the day not quite so many actually turn out as usual - Somehow UKIP actually manage to capitalise on the Manchester attacks to the tune of three or four percent of the Tory vote (maybe May says something badly-worded about immigration during an interview) - The Tories either fail to seize initiative and turn the spotlight on Corbyn, or it turns out that that truly is priced in, or the news cycle gets filled up with other events, or they mostly manage but get undermined by a leak or slip-up that puts attention back on their mistakes. Labour keeps up their surprisingly competent campaign.
If, say, 3 of those 4 thing happen, you could still have a huge upset. I doubt it's likely, but if it happens, I think that's how.
Yup, you've just described my fears exactly. I think 1 and 2 are already happening, from the anecdotal evidence I hear online and from friends - I know a few people who've been door-knocking.
The best thing that can be said about turning the spotlight on Corbyn is that it's polarising. I saw the attack ad on Facebook the Tories are running and all I thought was that it will harden opinion in both camps.
If you're already leaning towards Corbyn it just adds fuel to the fire that there is an enormous conspiracay against him to paint him as a terrorist sympathiser when he's really just a pacifist...
I just don't think this style of negative campaigning works. "Vote Corbyn Get Salmond" might, but "Don't Vote Corbyn, He Once Had Tea With The IRA" won't.
Where is the positivity in the Conservative campaign? Where is the vision for the future? Where is the hope?
Steady as she goes versus a bat-shit crazy crashing of the economy - that is a decent vision of the future....
Not sure if posted yet but per Sunday Times - Amber Rudd is representing Con in the BBC1 Election Debate on Wed (7.30pm to 9pm).
Seven parties - five leaders; Corbyn said won't attend if May doesn't. So presumably another senior Lab person.
Sensible decision to go for Rudd - I guess they could have gone for Boris but maybe too much of wildcard and risk of challenge re "Brexit means £350m per week for NHS".
Rudd also more suitable to deliver reassuring message re social care - but her message must be focus grouped and agreed with Crosby.
I didn't know the parties were not empty chairing if the leader's didn't come, not sure if that is good or bad for them. Why isn't May/Corbyn here to speak for themselves sort of thing.
I haven't seen much of Rudd, is she capable?
Didn't Rudd so some EU Ref debates? That line about not getting a taxi home with Boris or something...
Not sure if posted yet but per Sunday Times - Amber Rudd is representing Con in the BBC1 Election Debate on Wed (7.30pm to 9pm).
Seven parties - five leaders; Corbyn said won't attend if May doesn't. So presumably another senior Lab person.
Sensible decision to go for Rudd - I guess they could have gone for Boris but maybe too much of wildcard and risk of challenge re "Brexit means £350m per week for NHS".
Rudd also more suitable to deliver reassuring message re social care - but her message must be focus grouped and agreed with Crosby.
I didn't know the parties were not empty chairing if the leader's didn't come, not sure if that is good or bad for them. Why isn't May/Corbyn here to speak for themselves sort of thing.
I haven't seen much of Rudd, is she capable?
Didn't Rudd so some EU Ref debates? That line about not getting a taxi home with Boris or something...
It was a peculiar thing to claim. Were those his exact words on the topic? as it is strange given he chooses his words carefully on the subject and can and no doubt would explain that it was no big deal that he met or spoke with various figures.
Was it not well known that McGuinness was provo IRA Chief of Staff? From the Saville Report, ''Before the soldiers of Support Company went into the Bogside he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire''
Perhaps Corbyn is coming over all (Bill) Clintonesque in his hair splitting. When he said 'IRA' he really did mean 'IRA' and not 'Provo IRA'
These relatively small differences in the polls imply very large variations in the likely scale of the Conservative victory - and we can make a good estimate of what those will be by looking at historical precedent.
What essentially appears to be happening in this election is that, with the squeeze being applied to the Lib Dems and the near-total collapse of Ukip, England and Wales are reverting to the post-War two-party system, i.e. that which prevailed in the General Elections from 1945 to 1970 inclusive. So, if we plot each election result on a graph with two axes - the percentage lead in vote share for the winning party, and the percentage lead in terms of the proportion of total Commons seats won by the winning party - then we can simply plot a line of best fit through the available data points, find any given vote share lead on the line, read across to the seat share lead and finally calculate the number of seats to which this equates. Easy! I ran a polynomial regression through the data points, and obtained a curve with R-squared = 0.957, indicating that the regression line fits the data quite well.
There are 573 seats in England and Wales, and I have made the (not unreasonable) assumption for the purposes of this exercise that the minor parties (LD, Green, Ukip, and Plaid, plus the Speaker) will win 14 seats in total, which is the same as at present. This leaves 559 to be allocated to the two main parties.
Based on historical precedent, here is what we ought to expect, approximately speaking, in terms of how the Tory lead over Labour might translate in terms of a Parliamentary majority. Please note that these figures assume the Conservatives win nothing at all in Scotland, so you can add an adjustment for Scotland onto the values given, according to taste:
Con-Lab lead: 4% Con seats: 307 Majority: n/a (Con short by 18)
Con-Lab lead: 6% Con seats: 327 Majority: 4
Con-Lab lead: 8% Con seats: 355 Majority: 60
Con-Lab lead: 10% Con seats: 394 Majority: 138
I'm reticent about projecting beyond a Tory lead of 10%, because the biggest lead in the 1945-1970 data set is Labour's 8.6% advantage in 1945, and so it's possible that the maths will begin to break down as any possible Conservative surge breaks against a firewall of extremely safe Labour seats in urban areas. However, the main point is clear: historical precedent suggests that, in a two-party scenario, relatively modest changes in the difference in vote share between the two largest parties can have wholly disproportionate effects on the majority of the Government.
(Footnote: Conservative totals in the historical data sets for 1945-1970 include the Unionist Party in Scotland, the National Liberals and the Ulster Unionist Party, where relevant.)
Not sure if posted yet but per Sunday Times - Amber Rudd is representing Con in the BBC1 Election Debate on Wed (7.30pm to 9pm).
Seven parties - five leaders; Corbyn said won't attend if May doesn't. So presumably another senior Lab person.
Sensible decision to go for Rudd - I guess they could have gone for Boris but maybe too much of wildcard and risk of challenge re "Brexit means £350m per week for NHS".
Rudd also more suitable to deliver reassuring message re social care - but her message must be focus grouped and agreed with Crosby.
Maybe they are baiting Labour to send Diane Abbott
Not sure if posted yet but per Sunday Times - Amber Rudd is representing Con in the BBC1 Election Debate on Wed (7.30pm to 9pm).
Seven parties - five leaders; Corbyn said won't attend if May doesn't. So presumably another senior Lab person.
Sensible decision to go for Rudd - I guess they could have gone for Boris but maybe too much of wildcard and risk of challenge re "Brexit means £350m per week for NHS".
Rudd also more suitable to deliver reassuring message re social care - but her message must be focus grouped and agreed with Crosby.
Finally (if Con win) must guarantee that Rudd keeps top Cabinet job.
Wonder if it's all a bluff and Corbyn is going after all?
I didn't know the parties were not empty chairing if the leader's didn't come, not sure if that is good or bad for them. Why isn't May/Corbyn here to speak for themselves sort of thing.
I haven't seen much of Rudd, is she capable?
BBC said they wanted all parties present.
They invited leaders but said party can send alternative if they choose.
Sensible decision by BBC - ITV debate just had the five minor party leaders and got terrible rating (1.7m).
BBC debate will do better but won't rate very high as up against Britain's Got Talent on ITV.
Rudd is solid performer and I think the right choice for Con. ICM says NHS is number 1 issue - warm, reassuring, moderate woman is best placed to give Con reassurance on NHS and social care.
1 The economy. Whatever happened to "long term economic plan?". Many people are really struggling. Their views are disproportionately unrepresented on this forum. You may not like it, but it is true. Real wages are falling again. Productivity is back below 2008 levels. Housing costs rising. More of the same is not working.
2 When you re-brand as the Brexit Party that is tactically astute. You hoover up the vast majority of Leave voters and establish a solid 45%. BUT, don't be surprised if the majority of the 48% then also coalesce. We saw a group promise "cake and eat it" and win. So now we have someone promising similar, and opposing the Brexiters, with a different view of a post-EU future. Sauce for the goose and all that.
It is a binary choice. IRA or no IRA. Many are genuinely fearful of a big Tory majority. If I were a Conservative I would be cheering every close poll, and downplaying every big lead. But I am not.
Not sure if posted yet but per Sunday Times - Amber Rudd is representing Con in the BBC1 Election Debate on Wed (7.30pm to 9pm).
Seven parties - five leaders; Corbyn said won't attend if May doesn't. So presumably another senior Lab person.
Sensible decision to go for Rudd - I guess they could have gone for Boris but maybe too much of wildcard and risk of challenge re "Brexit means £350m per week for NHS".
Rudd also more suitable to deliver reassuring message re social care - but her message must be focus grouped and agreed with Crosby.
I didn't know the parties were not empty chairing if the leader's didn't come, not sure if that is good or bad for them. Why isn't May/Corbyn here to speak for themselves sort of thing.
I haven't seen much of Rudd, is she capable?
Didn't Rudd so some EU Ref debates? That line about not getting a taxi home with Boris or something...
Yes she did - she was one of the Remain team at the big BBC debate.
.... but I have never (never mind continuously) insisted that Britain couldn't leave the EU without destroying the nation, either literally or metaphorically.
And I maintain that the EU cannot reach it's final goal without destroying ALL its member nations, replacing them with a new structure which it believes is better.
I don't believe that it would be better. I respect the idealism of the pan-europeans but think them dangerously naive. However, "your mileage may vary" (as the saying goes).
While I simply regard views such as yours as straightforwardly deranged. You start from a premise and work backwards.
We're never going to agree on Brexit, so shall we agree to disagree? For me it is precious independence, for you it is socio-economic self-harm.
It's like asking a drunken Richard Dawkins to debate with Plymouth Brethren. It's not that they disagree, there is no shared ground on which they could profitably argue. So it's pointless.
That said, can I compliment you on your threaders. You write elegant, clever, well-informed and rather witty articles. If PB is getting your essays for nothing, that is an outrage. You should think about writing politics professionally. I hate to see good writers go unpaid. It's wrong.
Remember: Shakespeare wrote for money.
That's very kind of you.
I mainly write to get my betting decisions right. My returns have improved since I started writing above the line. There's nothing like knowing that there are about 50 critical posters ready to pounce on any sloppy thinking for making you get your thoughts in order. So I get my rewards indirectly.
The.non-betting threads are for my own amusement. Given the abundance of online political writers, I expect a lot of others do too. I wouldn't worry too much about this particular writer starving in a garret. Along the way I've learned a bit about the difference between writing when giving advice and writing for a wider audience. They're very different processes.
Alastair,
Please can I also reinforce Sean T's endorsement.
We are on the opposite side of the Brexit argument and i have not always found your comments particularly fair or balanced on that subject but your threads over the last few weeks regarding the GE have been excellent and i have found them both thought provoking and challenging.
These relatively small differences in the polls imply very large variations in the likely scale of the Conservative victory - and we can make a good estimate of what those will be by looking at historical precedent.
What essentially appears to be happening in this election is that, with the squeeze being applied to the Lib Dems and the near-total collapse of Ukip, England and Wales are reverting to the post-War two-party system, i.e. that which prevailed in the General Elections from 1945 to 1970 inclusive. So, if we plot each election result on a graph with two axes - the percentage lead in vote share for the winning party, and the percentage lead in terms of the proportion of total Commons seats won by the winning party - then we can simply plot a line of best fit through the available data points, find any given vote share lead on the line, read across to the seat share lead and finally calculate the number of seats to which this equates. Easy! I ran a polynomial regression through the data points, and obtained a curve with R-squared = 0.957, indicating that the regression line fits the data quite well.
There are 573 seats in England and Wales, and I have made the (not unreasonable) assumption for the purposes of this exercise that the minor parties (LD, Green, Ukip, and Plaid, plus the Speaker) will win 14 seats in total, which is the same as at present. This leaves 559 to be allocated to the two main parties.
Based on historical precedent, here is what we ought to expect, approximately speaking, in terms of how the Tory lead over Labour might translate in terms of a Parliamentary majority. Please note that these figures assume the Conservatives win nothing at all in Scotland, so you can add an adjustment for Scotland onto the values given, according to taste:
Con-Lab lead: 4% Con seats: 307 Majority: n/a (Con short by 18)
Con-Lab lead: 6% Con seats: 327 Majority: 4
Con-Lab lead: 8% Con seats: 355 Majority: 60
Con-Lab lead: 10% Con seats: 394 Majority: 138
I'm reticent about projecting beyond a Tory lead of 10%, because the biggest lead in the 1945-1970 data set is Labour's 8.6% advantage in 1945, and so it's possible that the maths will begin to break down as any possible Conservative surge breaks against a firewall of extremely safe Labour seats in urban areas. However, the main point is clear: historical precedent suggests that, in a two-party scenario, relatively modest changes in the difference in vote share between the two largest parties can have wholly disproportionate effects on the majority of the Government.
(Footnote: Conservative totals in the historical data sets for 1945-1970 include the Unionist Party in Scotland, the National Liberals and the Ulster Unionist Party, where relevant.)
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
The Corbyn-supporting women I know don't feel that way about him.
I certainly don't (but then again I'm not a Corbynista)
He's been married three times, he's probably quite charming. I imagine him to have a sort of intensity that is probably quite compelling, one on one. But really it's probably just women find his message more appealing, and young ladies in particular.
OMG!!
You don't think a man with intense views on seemingly every political issue would not be equally intense on non-political issues in conversation, which would attract people?
Kle, you are clearly a thoughtful and interesting contributor here, but irony is not on your radar. You are drier than a Pharaoh's sock.
In that case, I can now reveal that the Queen has met the IRA.
You don't think the situation was a tad different?
I don't know. What was the situation? What was the occasion shown in that photo? When was it taken? Was it before Tony Blair met Martin McGuinness in 1997? Was it before Margaret Thatcher authorised talks with the IRA through Martin McGuinness in 1990? I would guess not.
It was a peculiar thing to claim. Were those his exact words on the topic? as it is strange given he chooses his words carefully on the subject and can and no doubt would explain that it was no big deal that he met or spoke with various figures.
Was it not well known that McGuinness was provo IRA Chief of Staff? From the Saville Report, ''Before the soldiers of Support Company went into the Bogside he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire''
Perhaps Corbyn is coming over all (Bill) Clintonesque in his hair splitting. When he said 'IRA' he really did mean 'IRA' and not 'Provo IRA'
Martin McGuiness supposedly left the IrA, abandoned the armed struggle in favour of the ballot box in the late Seventies. Maybe not the whole truth but that is the story.
Just a thought on the Con attacks on Corbyn re IRA.
Many people say it's already priced in - but could Crosby think that it'll nag away at people - some people may say Lab now but when it comes to the crunch in the ballot booth the IRA attacks may lead to cold feet at the last minute and the vote then switches to Con.
Theresa May is heading for the highest vote share for any party for more than 20 years, and yet people are calling her a failure. Amazing.
Against Corbyn is the thing, you have to account for that.
So is he a voter repellent, or isn't he? There seems to be some dispute on this thread. He is when people are having a go at May. He isn't when people try to explain the polls.
I was just about to make the same point. Can't have it both ways.
The truth is that he is voter repellent mostly to people who would never vote anything but Conservative .
There is definitely something in that. For my Mother (who is 75), he is the leader she has been waiting for her whole adult life.
Jezza is quite a hit with the ladies, an example of the sexiness of the bad boy that your parents hate. The rebel with a cause, the British Che Guevara.
The Corbyn-supporting women I know don't feel that way about him.
I certainly don't (but then again I'm not a Corbynista)
He's been married three times, he's probably quite charming. I imagine him to have a sort of intensity that is probably quite compelling, one on one. But really it's probably just women find his message more appealing, and young ladies in particular.
OMG!!
You don't think a man with intense views on seemingly every political issue would not be equally intense on non-political issues in conversation, which would attract people?
Kle, you are clearly a thoughtful and interesting contributor here, but irony is not on your radar. You are drier than a Pharaoh's sock.
There is one very good reason for the Conservatives to try and refocus their campaign on Brexit. It is because it is the one issue which works against the "don't give the Tories a landslide" line of opposition. It works for leavers (need a healthy majority to guarantee Brexit) and also for many traditional Tory remainers (need a healthy majority to improve the chances of a "good" Brexit).
Comments
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/why-jeremy-corbyn-is-sexy
By election on 24th March 1983 won by Labour's Oswald O'Brien.
On June 9th 1983 he lost his seat in the general election to the Tories.
The Tory candidate, one Michael Fallon
WillS.
The rest of the country is a mystery to me. I hope Nick Clegg gets back in - there's been no finer leader of a UK political party in the last thirty years
What we have is a Labour manifesto promising the moon and sixpence and all with somebody else's money -- found from somewhere. Only the young are so gullible.
Surely if it was counter-productive, they would encourage more of these attacks on their Messiah.... wouldn't they?
Unless.......
The best thing that can be said about turning the spotlight on Corbyn is that it's polarising. I saw the attack ad on Facebook the Tories are running and all I thought was that it will harden opinion in both camps.
If you're already leaning towards Corbyn it just adds fuel to the fire that there is an enormous conspiracay against him to paint him as a terrorist sympathiser when he's really just a pacifist...
I just don't think this style of negative campaigning works. "Vote Corbyn Get Salmond" might, but "Don't Vote Corbyn, He Once Had Tea With The IRA" won't.
Where is the positivity in the Conservative campaign? Where is the vision for the future? Where is the hope?
The Corbyn-supporting women I know don't feel that way about him.
I certainly don't (but then again I'm not a Corbynista)
I feel like having enormous bets on labour to do badly but don't think I've got the bottle!
Con 46, Lab 32
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3666236/theresa-may-terror-crisis-general-election-poll-lead/
He's more than 40 years older than me....just no.
I agree that's it's his message. Women have also been more likely to vote Labour than men for sometime now, I definitely recall this being case prior to Corbyn becoming leader.
Majority 80-100.
No matter what the Scottish polling says.
I can see the Nats really motivated in toppling their Tory Viceroy.
Grace Mugabe is 41 years young than her husband - power and wealth, not that's what is sexy!
Con 46 (-1) Lab 32 (-1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 5 (+1)
Seven parties - five leaders; Corbyn said won't attend if May doesn't. So presumably another senior Lab person.
Sensible decision to go for Rudd - I guess they could have gone for Boris but maybe too much of wildcard and risk of challenge re "Brexit means £350m per week for NHS".
Rudd also more suitable to deliver reassuring message re social care - but her message must be focus grouped and agreed with Crosby.
Finally (if Con win) must guarantee that Rudd keeps top Cabinet job.
Phew.....bit more like reality.
'ICM boss Martin Boon said: “Despite a bad look at the beginning of last week, it’s still hands-down Theresa May.
“The Tories are not shipwrecked after the storm. They have just had a bad week and the storm clouds always move on elsewhere.
“Labour has recovered and the figures imply a better performance than Ed Miliband managed two years ago. But they are still in second place by a country mile and all the fundamentals still point to a strong Tory win.”"
I haven't seen much of Rudd, is she capable?
The PM will show a touch of humility to a voter on the Monday interview or on QT, and Corbyn will have been seen to have had a gaff either related to terrorism or over the numbers (Paxman will want to see if he can add up, as he'll be briefed to death on PIRA and won't be expecting it).
Else this is the week Corbyn wins the election. But my money is on option A.
From the Saville Report, ''Before the soldiers of Support Company went into the Bogside he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire''
Perhaps Corbyn is coming over all (Bill) Clintonesque in his hair splitting. When he said 'IRA' he really did mean 'IRA' and not 'Provo IRA'
Will all the polls herd together at the end again?
Just thought I'd ask.
What essentially appears to be happening in this election is that, with the squeeze being applied to the Lib Dems and the near-total collapse of Ukip, England and Wales are reverting to the post-War two-party system, i.e. that which prevailed in the General Elections from 1945 to 1970 inclusive. So, if we plot each election result on a graph with two axes - the percentage lead in vote share for the winning party, and the percentage lead in terms of the proportion of total Commons seats won by the winning party - then we can simply plot a line of best fit through the available data points, find any given vote share lead on the line, read across to the seat share lead and finally calculate the number of seats to which this equates. Easy! I ran a polynomial regression through the data points, and obtained a curve with R-squared = 0.957, indicating that the regression line fits the data quite well.
There are 573 seats in England and Wales, and I have made the (not unreasonable) assumption for the purposes of this exercise that the minor parties (LD, Green, Ukip, and Plaid, plus the Speaker) will win 14 seats in total, which is the same as at present. This leaves 559 to be allocated to the two main parties.
Based on historical precedent, here is what we ought to expect, approximately speaking, in terms of how the Tory lead over Labour might translate in terms of a Parliamentary majority. Please note that these figures assume the Conservatives win nothing at all in Scotland, so you can add an adjustment for Scotland onto the values given, according to taste:
Con-Lab lead: 4%
Con seats: 307
Majority: n/a (Con short by 18)
Con-Lab lead: 6%
Con seats: 327
Majority: 4
Con-Lab lead: 8%
Con seats: 355
Majority: 60
Con-Lab lead: 10%
Con seats: 394
Majority: 138
I'm reticent about projecting beyond a Tory lead of 10%, because the biggest lead in the 1945-1970 data set is Labour's 8.6% advantage in 1945, and so it's possible that the maths will begin to break down as any possible Conservative surge breaks against a firewall of extremely safe Labour seats in urban areas. However, the main point is clear: historical precedent suggests that, in a two-party scenario, relatively modest changes in the difference in vote share between the two largest parties can have wholly disproportionate effects on the majority of the Government.
(Footnote: Conservative totals in the historical data sets for 1945-1970 include the Unionist Party in Scotland, the National Liberals and the Ulster Unionist Party, where relevant.)
If we are getting a Survation, then I'll have to wait until the morning.
I'm not that much of a poll addict.
They invited leaders but said party can send alternative if they choose.
Sensible decision by BBC - ITV debate just had the five minor party leaders and got terrible rating (1.7m).
BBC debate will do better but won't rate very high as up against Britain's Got Talent on ITV.
Rudd is solid performer and I think the right choice for Con. ICM says NHS is number 1 issue - warm, reassuring, moderate woman is best placed to give Con reassurance on NHS and social care.
Boris too risky, Hammond too dry.
Con 45%
Lab 35%
LD 8%
UKIP 5%
Re Labour surge. 2 factors are at play
1 The economy. Whatever happened to "long term economic plan?". Many people are really struggling. Their views are disproportionately unrepresented on this forum. You may not like it, but it is true. Real wages are falling again. Productivity is back below 2008 levels. Housing costs rising. More of the same is not working.
2 When you re-brand as the Brexit Party that is tactically astute. You hoover up the vast majority of Leave voters and establish a solid 45%. BUT, don't be surprised if the majority of the 48% then also coalesce. We saw a group promise "cake and eat it" and win. So now we have someone promising similar, and opposing the Brexiters, with a different view of a post-EU future. Sauce for the goose and all that.
It is a binary choice. IRA or no IRA. Many are genuinely fearful of a big Tory majority. If I were a Conservative I would be cheering every close poll, and downplaying every big lead. But I am not.
Please can I also reinforce Sean T's endorsement.
We are on the opposite side of the Brexit argument and i have not always found your comments particularly fair or balanced on that subject but your threads over the last few weeks regarding the GE have been excellent and i have found them both thought provoking and challenging.
Thank you
Edit - Not calling a PBer an obsessive dickhead of course, you're all wonderful people, even you thicko leavers :lol
Many people say it's already priced in - but could Crosby think that it'll nag away at people - some people may say Lab now but when it comes to the crunch in the ballot booth the IRA attacks may lead to cold feet at the last minute and the vote then switches to Con.