This Alex Cruz has turned flying with BA from mildly pleasurable to absolutely horrendous. He came from Vueling which has to be the worst airline I have ever flown with. He must go he"a a disaster!
Yep - Vueling is a shocker. I flew Ryanair to Barcelona last week. You know what you are paying for and you get it. That is a lot better than being sold a what is supposed to be a premium product and being given something third rate. Even in business class - which I fly now and again with BA - you can see the decline. But it's still not as bad as the US carriers. They are utterly awful in every way imaginable.
Agreed. I've been flying BA club class for about 6 years, when I started they were really ahead of the game, the business bed was a revolutionary idea and they had begun to put AC sockets in business seats which was extremely handy, no other airline had these options, not even the heavily subsidised Arab ones. BA were pioneering and full of ideas. Nothing has changed since then, if anything it's gone backwards. No food/drink on economy short haul (which is a real irritation given how often I fly to and from London), the business bed has been adopted by all but the American carriers, AC sockets are standard on economy on the Arab carriers, the food in club class is appreciably worse this year than last year, the wine choices are more limited.
BA are in serial decline, they need to invest massively in updating their fleet and the cabins. The staff are the only thing that keeps this airline running and keeps me coming back. Always 100% first rate service, but everything else is falling to pieces.
Yep - BA staff are a cut above. But they are treated like crap by management, too. The club class service has definitely declined. People notice these things. What BA does have going for it - for now, at least - is a relatively generous Points package. I reckon it's that which keeps a lot of the premium customers coming back.
I had an awful Easyjet flight back from Portugal. Didn't get home until nearly 3am after being delayed by well over 2 hours and treated like cattle the whole time.
To be honest, such is the woeful customer service, and awful facilities and amenities, that it's just put me off flying altogether. And it isn't even that cheap anymore to compensate.
My wife and I will be taking the ferry to Jersey for our late Summer break.
We're getting the ferry to Spain in the summer and then driving up to our rental in France. Cheaper and more pleasant than flying and then hiring a car.
Over the campaign May has shown she is not a team player. Prsumably on the advice of Lynton Crosby she has cut out the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor from the campaign.
Now her own position is being exposed as weak and wobbly she needs to show she is head of a stong and stable team.
But is it too late to change course and bring the rest of the team onto the pitch?
Hammond is such a dull person I don't think anybody would notice if he entered the fray anyway.
Boris probably should be deployed though...
Have the tories not lost enough ground already?
People criticize Boris but the fact is he can reach parts of the electorate other politicians can't reach.
After his behaviour in the immediate post-Brexit period, I am not convinced that he has a spine, nor am I convinced that he is politically astute in any way at all. As far as I can see he does have the bumbling-affable-buffoon shtick completely sorted out. As a clown, he is excellent.
Occasionally Boris can be cranked up into something still formidable. His high profile performance in the final days of the Brexit campaign was possibly enough to ensure a 52:48 rather than 48:52 result.
Yep - BA staff are a cut above. But they are treated like crap by management, too. The club class service has definitely declined. People notice these things. What BA does have going for it - for now, at least - is a relatively generous Points package. I reckon it's that which keeps a lot of the premium customers coming back.
I had an awful Easyjet flight back from Portugal. Didn't get home until nearly 3am after being delayed by well over 2 hours and treated like cattle the whole time.
To be honest, such is the woeful customer service, and awful facilities and amenities, that it's just put me off flying altogether. And it isn't even that cheap anymore to compensate.
My wife and I will be taking the ferry to Jersey for our late Summer break.
We're getting the ferry to Spain in the summer and then driving up to our rental in France. Cheaper and more pleasant than flying and then hiring a car.
Coming down to the Oval twice this summer. Taking the train each time. The stupid nonsense at airports, the way you are treated and the time to get into the centre make flying down deeply unattractive.
Used to be able to get a flight from Dundee to City but they now go to Stanstead which, so far as I am concerned, is not even a London airport.
We're getting the ferry to Spain in the summer and then driving up to our rental in France. Cheaper and more pleasant than flying and then hiring a car.
For France the train is always a great option. Nice and easy way to travel, no stress.
Don Brind says that Labour should now concentrate on the economy and business. Business!! What has Labour ever done for business except tax and regulate it more? Every Labour government in history has left office with unemployment higher than when it came in. The last thing Labour should talk about is business under socialism. Ask their comrades in Venezuela about how business fares in a socialist state. The best thing Labour can do is to offer free lollipops for all and hope that no one asks where the money is coming from.
The irony is that the truly wealthy can afford to pay for care and would not involve the NHS/govt care system anyway so this will not hit the truly wealthy.
Your comments on this matter are truly idiotic
At the moment, everyone who has assets over 23k will pay for their residential care.
It is not the “truly wealthy” who are paying for care. It is everyone with assets over 23k.
Yes I understand that, but the current remit is much narrower.
If the "new " regime was going to take less money from people or leave them "better off" then the govt.s take would be smaller and the funding situation would worsen.
The govt is proposing to rake more money in to cover the cost. They need more cash - they keep telling us this and they can only get more by taking more from people.
People WILL pay more. They will have to. This was made quite clear.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
Which has probably been said about every Conservative campaign from 1987 onwards.
The lead is down from 20% plus to single figures, despite pitiful opposition. I can't think offhand of a similar performance, from 1987 onwards.
Didn't John Major do rather well, against vastly superior opposition to that faced by today's Conservatives?
One might be partially a function of the other: in other words, it's precisely those mammoth Tory leads that has led to a rallying around Labour to mitigate it.
But, that said, the Tory campaign has still been poor. The Labour campaign hasn't been brilliant either, but they did get 3-4 days full media coverage (largely unchallenged by the Tories) to trail their very left-wing manifesto.
The Tory hope probably was that people would be terrified by it whereas, actually, many seemed to quite like it.
the attempt to depict Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser hasn't resonated.
The video has been seen by approaching 2.75 million - roughly ten times what a successful one of these typically gets...
I had an awful Easyjet flight back from Portugal. Didn't get home until nearly 3am after being delayed by well over 2 hours and treated like cattle the whole time.
To be honest, such is the woeful customer service, and awful facilities and amenities, that it's just put me off flying altogether. And it isn't even that cheap anymore to compensate.
My wife and I will be taking the ferry to Jersey for our late Summer break.
Easyjet have always had that problem, plus they get the worst slots. Arriving into Gatwick at 11pm is a nightmare, especially if there is even a slight delay. I don't get why anyone bothers with it when BA is similarly priced, goes from Heathrow or City and you get the best take off and landing slot times.
RIP John Noakes. A hugely influential part of my childhood. :-(
Yes indeed. At least Valerie Singleton and Peter Purves are still with us, but John was my favourite.
Yes, no 'airs & graces' and happily got things wrong when doing demos - I still recall him saying 'take your old biro - oops! ball point pen, that's me getting my cards...'
Which has probably been said about every Conservative campaign from 1987 onwards.
The lead is down from 20% plus to single figures, despite pitiful opposition. I can't think offhand of a similar performance, from 1987 onwards.
Didn't John Major do rather well, against vastly superior opposition to that faced by today's Conservatives?
One might be partially a function of the other: in other words, it's precisely those mammoth Tory leads that has led to a rallying around Labour to mitigate it.
But, that said, the Tory campaign has still been poor. The Labour campaign hasn't been brilliant either, but they did get 3-4 days full media coverage (largely unchallenged by the Tories) to trail their very left-wing manifesto.
The Tory hope probably was that people would be terrified by it whereas, actually, many seemed to quite like it.
Well when you've got some bloke at the end of the road flogging £10 notes at £5 a time it's not surprising he's attracting some interest.
Well it worked at the referendum, and for Trump, so where not at the GE?
Yep - it puzzles me some of right wing Brexit posters on here cannot see the link. The left-behind, sneered at, white working class they were saying the Brexit vote was all about (and it was) were heroes back then. Now they are derided. All for being completely consistent.
I get the link. The difference is that those voters split both ways, because Theresa May is offering them Brexit and Corbyn is offering them moons on sticks.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
this time will be different.
The most expensive phrase in the English language......
If paid for by the individual as a donation, it is not a declarable expense
Is that true? Bloody weird way for a rule to ensure that one candidate doesn't outspend all the others to work if so.
Any parliamentary campaign has tons of help, internal and external, and individual people pay for petrol or train fares, food, and sometimes even hotels out of their own pocket. It would be impossible to keep track of all this, were it to be declarable, and is more sensible to allow individuals to help campaign for their preferred candidate at their own expense.
It becomes declarable if someone (whether individual or party) starts paying for other people's expenses on a significant scale - as the Tories did last time transporting, feeding and accommodating a whole load of mobile activists from party funds.
There is a right and a wrong to pretty much every political issue. Brexit is right. We can't be in a superstate. Socialism is wrong. Look what happens to any country that tries it. See? Not hard.
Interesting that your argument for Brexit is political, but your argument against socialism is economic.
Brexit will do more economic damage to the UK than any Labour Government, but you still claim it's "right"
RIP John Noakes. A hugely influential part of my childhood. :-(
Yes indeed. At least Valerie Singleton and Peter Purves are still with us, but John was my favourite.
Yes, no 'airs & graces' and happily got things wrong when doing demos - I still recall him saying 'take your old biro - oops! ball point pen, that's me getting my cards...'
I came across this - I suspect we're supposed to be sympathetic:
' For Tracy Strassburg, a mother of two boys from Nunhead in south-east London, the sums just don't add up.
Her freelance job as a yoga teacher provides her with £640 a month.
Yet the rent on her small two-bedroom flat is £1,400. Even with housing benefit of £946 a month, she is still left borrowing £300 a month from her mother, as well as using credit cards. '
This self-employment brings in £7,680 pa - so she'll be paying very little income tax and NI. She gets housing benefit of £11,352 pa.
Can anyone explain why:
1) Taxpayers from outside London are paying for her to live in London 2) She isn't told to get a proper job and/or relocate somewhere she can afford
She will also be getting child benefit of £1794 pa, child tax credit of £6127 pa and possibly (if she claims to spend at least 16 hours on her work) working tax credit of £3464 pa. So she is spending either roughly £30500 or £34000 a year (depending on the wtc) with £16800 going on rent. It's easy enough for a family of three without a car to maintain a basic existence on rent + £10k in my experience. So she shouldn't be borrowing from her mother.
OTOH these subsidies are the price society is paying to maintain/extend housing equity gains. Those really getting screwed are the young well paid workers paying plenty of tax and not experiencing said gains.
Which has probably been said about every Conservative campaign from 1987 onwards.
The lead is down from 20% plus to single figures, despite pitiful opposition. I can't think offhand of a similar performance, from 1987 onwards.
Didn't John Major do rather well, against vastly superior opposition to that faced by today's Conservatives?
One might be partially a function of the other: in other words, it's precisely those mammoth Tory leads that has led to a rallying around Labour to mitigate it.
But, that said, the Tory campaign has still been poor. The Labour campaign hasn't been brilliant either, but they did get 3-4 days full media coverage (largely unchallenged by the Tories) to trail their very left-wing manifesto.
The Tory hope probably was that people would be terrified by it whereas, actually, many seemed to quite like it.
the attempt to depict Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser hasn't resonated.
The video has been seen by approaching 2.75 million - roughly ten times what a successful one of these typically gets...
The irony is that the truly wealthy can afford to pay for care and would not involve the NHS/govt care system anyway so this will not hit the truly wealthy.
Your comments on this matter are truly idiotic
At the moment, everyone who has assets over 23k will pay for their residential care.
It is not the “truly wealthy” who are paying for care. It is everyone with assets over 23k.
Yes I understand that, but the current remit is much narrower.
If the "new " regime was going to take less money from people or leave them "better off" then the govt.s take would be smaller and the funding situation would worsen.
The govt is proposing to rake more money in to cover the cost. They need more cash - they keep telling us this and they can only get more by taking more from people.
People WILL pay more. They will have to. This was made quite clear.
Whatever happens, the funding situation will worsen. There are more people needing residential care each year.
That money has to come from somewhere.
It has to come from people who have got money, namely the middle-classes and the wealthy.
Wealth is strongly correlated with age. So, it has to come from the elderly middle-class or the elderly wealthy.
The bill will have to be paid one way or another, dementia tax, IHT or income tax.
I don't understand why Theresa May is planning to talk about domestic violence now.
She should be talking relentlessly about the economy, security and Brexit - and only those - over the next 10 days.
Nothing else.
I disagree. She's already miles ahead on those issues so those that care most about them are already locked in. She needs to convince waverers who like her security stance but are more persuaded by social issues. Nobody concerned about Brexit and security is hovering over the Corbyn box.
But everyone agrees that domestic violence is bad. It won't win any votes. This is madness from May!
If she wants to campaign on something it should to be Brexit and what the priorities are or talk about how Corbyn's insane plan will ruin the economy and why they are not affordable, or why Corbyn wanted to review shoot to kill after the Bataclan attack. She needs to sew doubt into Labour supperter minds. "Don't risk it"! That sort of thing.
God she is crap. She'll be campaigning on Alcohol Addiction next, o.k , yes we get it no one likes these things but tell us why we should vote for you and not the other lot.
Shes polling mid 40s and night on 50 as best PM. If that's crap, the Tories will take it. It's labour surging not the Tories collapsing. Like the fantasy of Cleggasm will Labour's surge materialise?
She should have set the narrative against Corbyn ages ago. Like Cameron did to Ed, months before the actual election the narrative was set that the two Ed's would ruin the economy, that made sure they would not get a surge. It is still not to late to supress Labour's vote but she has to be quick. No more time wasting on motherhood and Apple Pie.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
There is also the £30k incentive for students. Is there any comparable precedent one might extrapolate from ? I don't think so.
(edit) It did come too late to influence registration, though.
Last night a Tory source told the Daily Mail: ‘We fully expect to fall behind Labour in a poll in the coming days. It will happen.’
Impact management. So a 6% lead looks good. If mums are returning to Labour, this could turn the election.
However, the Tories will still win. Under 50 majority is possible.
What a waste of an election where 30-50 is possible. Yes it's better fircmay, but is an increase that small worth losing months of negotiation time and other work, particularly when you're not safe from rebellions with areas like that?
Theresa May has shown absolutely no interest in negotiation so far, or indeed engagement in Brexit generally.It worries me. As she will be leading this, what would get her to step up to the plate?
Thanks to legal challenges and the House of Lords all we have had pre election is Remainers blocking the process. The govt announced triggering A50 for end of March and they did. Its now May 29. So talk of 'absolutely' no interest in negotiation is clearly cobblers. It suggests you are not remotely taking notice of what is going on. The 2yr negotiating period has only just started.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
Aside from the most politically engaged students, I doubt most young people are supremely exorcised by Brexit.
On topic: Labour are doing a surprisingly good job of selling full-on socialism to a significant chunk of the electorate. The promised jam tsunami paid for by someone else is clearly appealing to many. According to the Telegraph the surge is mostly female. Dumb heifers. It's sad to see how little some people seem able to learn from the examples of history. And...that nice Mrs May has made a bit of a clusterfuck of her campaign. She listened to Grimer Wormtongue instead of her colleagues. All the manifesto needed to be was a 'steady as she goes' Brexity affair. Instead she let some know-nothing REMF masturbate all over it. Not clever.
Yet another hypocrite who demands that the voters will be respected when they agree with you (Brexit) but labels them as stupid as soon as they don't
There is a right and a wrong to pretty much every political issue. Brexit is right. We can't be in a superstate. Socialism is wrong. Look what happens to any country that tries it. See? Not hard.
The UK is much more of a superstate than the EU so it's always been an odd criticism for anyone to make who doesn't favour breaking it up.
We are a single demos (albeit somewhat under strain in Scotland) and a real democracy. You can kick the buggers out here. Therefore a unitary state. A united kingdom. It's been stable for centuries. None of these are true in the EU. Which will not last beyond our lifetimes.
With a name like Patrick I'm surprised you don't know that the present United Kingdom has existed for only 95 years.
The current British Empire has existed for even less time.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
I do not think Brexit will make any difference. It is too early in the process. Maybe in two or three years time in the post-Brexit recession, but not now.
Of course if it goes into a transitional period with the EU in which we keep paying until 2022 then it is a different ballgame.
Occasionally Boris can be cranked up into something still formidable. His high profile performance in the final days of the Brexit campaign was possibly enough to ensure a 52:48 rather than 48:52 result.
Which has probably been said about every Conservative campaign from 1987 onwards.
The lead is down from 20% plus to single figures, despite pitiful opposition. I can't think offhand of a similar performance, from 1987 onwards.
Didn't John Major do rather well, against vastly superior opposition to that faced by today's Conservatives?
One might be partially a function of the other: in other words, it's precisely those mammoth Tory leads that has led to a rallying around Labour to mitigate it.
But, that said, the Tory campaign has still been poor. The Labour campaign hasn't been brilliant either, but they did get 3-4 days full media coverage (largely unchallenged by the Tories) to trail their very left-wing manifesto.
The Tory hope probably was that people would be terrified by it whereas, actually, many seemed to quite like it.
the attempt to depict Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser hasn't resonated.
The video has been seen by approaching 2.75 million - roughly ten times what a successful one of these typically gets...
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
I do not think Brexit will make any difference. It is too early in the process. Maybe in two or three years time in the post-Brexit recession, but not now.
Of course if it goes into a transitional period with the EU in which we keep paying until 2022 then it is a different ballgame.
I now agree with Sean Fear that the fundamentals are pointing to GE2022 being Labour's to lose.
I came across this - I suspect we're supposed to be sympathetic:
' For Tracy Strassburg, a mother of two boys from Nunhead in south-east London, the sums just don't add up.
Her freelance job as a yoga teacher provides her with £640 a month.
Yet the rent on her small two-bedroom flat is £1,400. Even with housing benefit of £946 a month, she is still left borrowing £300 a month from her mother, as well as using credit cards. '
This self-employment brings in £7,680 pa - so she'll be paying very little income tax and NI. She gets housing benefit of £11,352 pa.
Can anyone explain why:
1) Taxpayers from outside London are paying for her to live in London 2) She isn't told to get a proper job and/or relocate somewhere she can afford
She will also be getting child benefit of £1794 pa, child tax credit of £6127 pa and possibly (if she claims to spend at least 16 hours on her work) working tax credit of £3464 pa. So she is spending either roughly £30500 or £34000 a year (depending on the wtc) with £16800 going on rent. It's easy enough for a family of three without a car to maintain a basic existence on rent + £10k in my experience. So she shouldn't be borrowing from her mother.
Plus if she's like any of the freelance teachers/instructors I know she's probably only declaring half her income anyway.
Thanks to legal challenges and the House of Lords all we have had pre election is Remainers blocking the process. The govt announced triggering A50 for end of March and they did. Its now May 29.
Nobody has blocked anything.
Every step of the process has happened, and been voted through Parliament without amendment.
Will Brexiteers ever take responsibility for the win?
I can see the usual right-wing / extreme right-wing suspects are trying to smear JC with just about anything.
By 'just about anything' you mean 'his own words'?
I really can't be bothered to read all the right-wing trash on here but someone downthread was mentionining his links with the Palestinians. Is it a crime to be associated with Palestian freedom fighters?
I can see the usual right-wing / extreme right-wing suspects are trying to smear JC with just about anything.
By 'just about anything' you mean 'his own words'?
I really can't be bothered to read all the right-wing trash on here but someone downthread was mentionining his links with the Palestinians. Is it a crime to be associated with Palestian freedom fighters?
I'm exactly the sort of voter you had in mind. I normally vote Labour but my local MP is a Labour Brexiteer, so I voted LD this time. Seems that very few are doing likewise though.
A few months ago the theory was the young would vote for the Lib Dems to reverse Brexit, but it seems the young are more interested in money (like most people) and like Corbyn's abolition of student fees more than they like the EU.
So you are suggesting the Lib Dem strategy should have been to offer to stop tuition fees rather than reverse the EU referendum.
Sounds like rock and hard place or Hobson's choice.
Which has probably been said about every Conservative campaign from 1987 onwards.
The lead is down from 20% plus to single figures, despite pitiful opposition. I can't think offhand of a similar performance, from 1987 onwards.
Didn't John Major do rather well, against vastly superior opposition to that faced by today's Conservatives?
One might be partially a function of the other: in other words, it's precisely those mammoth Tory leads that has led to a rallying around Labour to mitigate it.
But, that said, the Tory campaign has still been poor. The Labour campaign hasn't been brilliant either, but they did get 3-4 days full media coverage (largely unchallenged by the Tories) to trail their very left-wing manifesto.
The Tory hope probably was that people would be terrified by it whereas, actually, many seemed to quite like it.
the attempt to depict Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser hasn't resonated.
The video has been seen by approaching 2.75 million - roughly ten times what a successful one of these typically gets...
It probably makes no difference with people who intend to vote Labour.
It resonates strongly with the 47-51%, who intend voting Conservative or UKIP.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
If there's any significant increase in youth turnout outside a small number of university seats I'll eat my hat.
I can see the usual right-wing / extreme right-wing suspects are trying to smear JC with just about anything.
By 'just about anything' you mean 'his own words'?
I really can't be bothered to read all the right-wing trash on here but someone downthread was mentionining his links with the Palestinians. Is it a crime to be associated with Palestian freedom fighters?
Depends which ones and what they do. It is not smearing to quote his own words. If the words are fine, people will see that. Same with images - someone on twitter had that photo yesterday that said Corbyn was at an IRA funeral and what was the reaction on here? 'Doesn't look like him/he wouldn't have done that'.
I really can't be bothered to read all the right-wing trash on here but someone downthread was mentionining his links with the Palestinians. Is it a crime to be associated with Palestian freedom fighters?
You think commemorating the killers responsible for Munich is okay?
I can see the usual right-wing / extreme right-wing suspects are trying to smear JC with just about anything.
By 'just about anything' you mean 'his own words'?
I really can't be bothered to read all the right-wing trash on here but someone downthread was mentionining his links with the Palestinians. Is it a crime to be associated with Palestian freedom fighters?
One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
I do not think Brexit will make any difference. It is too early in the process. Maybe in two or three years time in the post-Brexit recession, but not now.
Of course if it goes into a transitional period with the EU in which we keep paying until 2022 then it is a different ballgame.
I now agree with Sean Fear that the fundamentals are pointing to GE2022 being Labour's to lose.
If it's a landslide in a few weeks, it will be tough for Labour as it will require a massive gain in seats. If it is 50-70, I think they've got great chances then.
Don Brind says that Labour should now concentrate on the economy and business. Business!! What has Labour ever done for business except tax and regulate it more? Every Labour government in history has left office with unemployment higher than when it came in. The last thing Labour should talk about is business under socialism. Ask their comrades in Venezuela about how business fares in a socialist state. The best thing Labour can do is to offer free lollipops for all and hope that no one asks where the money is coming from.
I think that pretty much corresponds with what it is doing and I'm sure ice creams are also on their way soon.
I'm exactly the sort of voter you had in mind. I normally vote Labour but my local MP is a Labour Brexiteer, so I voted LD this time. Seems that very few are doing likewise though.
A few months ago the theory was the young would vote for the Lib Dems to reverse Brexit, but it seems the young are more interested in money (like most people) and like Corbyn's abolition of student fees more than they like the EU.
So you are suggesting the Lib Dem strategy should have been to offer to stop tuition fees rather than reverse the EU referendum.
Sounds like rock and hard place or Hobson's choice.
I'm not really saying anything about policies, I just find if funny that for all the talk of "the 48%" it doesn't look like Brexit matters all that much to the electorate. It seems personal gain trumps high principles as usual.
Thanks to legal challenges and the House of Lords all we have had pre election is Remainers blocking the process. The govt announced triggering A50 for end of March and they did. Its now May 29.
Nobody has blocked anything.
Every step of the process has happened, and been voted through Parliament without amendment.
Will Brexiteers ever take responsibility for the win?
Will Remainers, for the loss?
In 2011-12 I read Scott's diary of his last expedition, day by day, exactly 100 years after each entry was written. In the same spirit I think the Remoaners here should publish their canvassing diaries from this time last year up to 23 June so that we can marvel at the hours and shoe-leather they spent pounding the streets and knocking on doors in support of the cause they so passionately believe in.
I do hope that almost every entry does not read "Sat on lardy arse trolling twitter for 10 minutes."
Same with images - someone on twitter had that photo yesterday that said Corbyn was at an IRA funeral and what was the reaction on here? 'Doesn't look like him/he wouldn't have done that'.
Sounds like people here know their stuff. Corbyn wouldn't have attended an IRA funeral. Masked men firing volleys over the grave wouldn't be Sinn Fein. They would be IRA. Neither Corbyn nor any other mainland politicians ever officially met with the IRA, not since Sunningdale anyway.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
If there's any significant increase in youth turnout outside a small number of university seats I'll eat my hat.
If exams are over, uni students will all be in Ibiza surely?
I'm exactly the sort of voter you had in mind. I normally vote Labour but my local MP is a Labour Brexiteer, so I voted LD this time. Seems that very few are doing likewise though.
A few months ago the theory was the young would vote for the Lib Dems to reverse Brexit, but it seems the young are more interested in money (like most people) and like Corbyn's abolition of student fees more than they like the EU.
So you are suggesting the Lib Dem strategy should have been to offer to stop tuition fees rather than reverse the EU referendum.
Sounds like rock and hard place or Hobson's choice.
I'm not really saying anything about policies, I just find if funny that for all the talk of "the 48%" it doesn't look like Brexit matters all that much to the electorate. It seems personal gain trumps high principles as usual.
Quite. The GE has had the beneficial effect on this site of reducing brexit talk by about 90%.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
I do not think Brexit will make any difference. It is too early in the process. Maybe in two or three years time in the post-Brexit recession, but not now.
Of course if it goes into a transitional period with the EU in which we keep paying until 2022 then it is a different ballgame.
I now agree with Sean Fear that the fundamentals are pointing to GE2022 being Labour's to lose.
If it's a landslide in a few weeks, it will be tough for Labour as it will require a massive gain in seats. If it is 50-70, I think they've got great chances then.
I agree. But I would not underestimate Labour's ability to shoot itself in the foot once more.
Occasionally Boris can be cranked up into something still formidable. His high profile performance in the final days of the Brexit campaign was possibly enough to ensure a 52:48 rather than 48:52 result.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from younger voters. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they would still be vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
You may be right about the Bolsover demographic, but the dream scenario of gains in places with very comfortable Labour majorities is predicated on their being no surge at all, quite the opposite - there may not be as many young people in the seat as other places, but if those in the seat do go Labour even more than usual, then even if the rest is turning against them they are so far ahead they should win, and if the young vote is surging Labour, they are probably firming up elsewhere.
Which has probably been said about every Conservative campaign from 1987 onwards.
The lead is down from 20% plus to single figures, despite pitiful opposition. I can't think offhand of a similar performance, from 1987 onwards.
Didn't John Major do rather well, against vastly superior opposition to that faced by today's Conservatives?
One might be partially a function of the other: in other words, it's precisely those mammoth Tory leads that has led to a rallying around Labour to mitigate it.
But, that said, the Tory campaign has still been poor. The Labour campaign hasn't been brilliant either, but they did get 3-4 days full media coverage (largely unchallenged by the Tories) to trail their very left-wing manifesto.
The Tory hope probably was that people would be terrified by it whereas, actually, many seemed to quite like it.
the attempt to depict Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser hasn't resonated.
The video has been seen by approaching 2.75 million - roughly ten times what a successful one of these typically gets...
"attempt to depict" Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser hardly does it justice, "shows" is much more accurate
Sturgeon's quandary is that whereas her administration can get its hands on a lot more dosh if they form a coalition with Labour, that would require giving up the idea of a referendum in the near future. Which would make sense, because Corbyn promises to keep Britain in the single market and customs union, therefore the ostensible need for another referendum so that Scotland can support anyone who isn't England, thereby demonstrating internationalism would be obviated.
BUT once she has stirred up rabid xenophobia in her supporters she can't wind it back down again with a snap of the fingers. So she can't say she'd form a coalition with Labour but not with the Tories. At least I will be very surprised if she says before the election that a Labour government and continued British membership of the SM would mean no need for a referendum. Of course she can easily say that after the election, wrapping it in "Look how much money and power we've won for our party Scotland".
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
If there's any significant increase in youth turnout outside a small number of university seats I'll eat my hat.
If exams are over, uni students will all be in Ibiza surely?
Probably. I don't know what percentage actually go to places like that these days.
I really can't be bothered to read all the right-wing trash on here but someone downthread was mentionining his links with the Palestinians. Is it a crime to be associated with Palestian freedom fighters?
You think commemorating the killers responsible for Munich is okay?
How come terrorism committed by the state of Israel is never condemned by the right-wing fruitcakes on here? As ever double standards...
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
The turnout in the four Leeds NW wards in 2015 was:
I think that Labour would need to squeeze the Green vote more as well as increase turnout in the student parts of Headingly and Weetwood.
But what should also worry Mulholland is that he's unlikely to get the 3000 Conservative tactical votes which he did in 2015.
While if Otley returns to its traditional voting patterns, ie not dissimilar to the other commuter towns north of the Leeds and Bradford, they'll be a big boost for the Conservatives.
Its clear though that Clegg's betrayal on tuition fees has really damaged the LibDems.
Yes, the centre has collapsed, hasn't it. It's a polarised and polarising election.
Must be the fashion.
By far the most perplexing thing about this election to me is the failure of the Lib Dems to capitalise on Remain support. I honestly thought they would get a decent boost, and maybe even give Labour a run for vote share if not seats. Instead the Lib Dems appear to have gone backwards. But my hunch is the Lib Dems might do a bit better on the day than the polls suggest, as I can see a few waverers thinking "I'll tick the harmless box".
The closer Labour get to Conservative the fewer people will vote Lib Dem.
People will be scared of a Labour SNP coalition. So must vote to maximise Conservative MPs and keep out SNP.
There is no chance of an SNP-Lab coalition or the SNP getting anywhere near to governing the UK, even if the SNP won all 59 seats in Scotland. The only question is the size of the Tory majority. IMO, the smaller the better, so I do not wish to see the SNP lose ANY seats to the Tories.
So I think a Lab surge will hit the SNP hard as a huge proportion of their voters ate 2010 Lab voters. Split votes will let Cons come through the middle and take a swathe of seats.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
If there's any significant increase in youth turnout outside a small number of university seats I'll eat my hat.
If exams are over, uni students will all be in Ibiza surely?
Most University terms finish the following Friday, the 16th.
Cambridge may finish earlier, benefitting the LDs, but Aberystwyth finishes earlier too. Swings and roundabouts.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
The turnout in the four Leeds NW wards in 2015 was:
I think that Labour would need to squeeze the Green vote more as well as increase turnout in the student parts of Headingly and Weetwood.
But what should also worry Mulholland is that he's unlikely to get the 3000 Conservative tactical votes which he did in 2015.
While if Otley returns to its traditional voting patterns, ie not dissimilar to the other commuter towns north of the Leeds and Bradford, they'll be a big boost for the Conservatives.
Its clear though that Clegg's betrayal on tuition fees has really damaged the LibDems.
There is a right and a wrong to pretty much every political issue. Brexit is right. We can't be in a superstate. Socialism is wrong. Look what happens to any country that tries it. See? Not hard.
Interesting that your argument for Brexit is political, but your argument against socialism is economic.
Brexit will do more economic damage to the UK than any Labour Government, but you still claim it's "right"
I don't think that any government of Corbyn's would fit comfortably within what people would previously have understood "Labour Government" to mean, so the comparison is meaningless.
It appears that political video adverts of Facebook, and other social media are playing a bigger part in the political battles than before. I don't feel I have a deep grasp of how this works so I'm putting out a few thoughts to the good people on PB and hoping somebody can help fill in the gaps.
I think that views of the videos can be broken in to 3 groups:
1) People who have 'liked' the party's page on FB and therefor have the videos in there feed. who may go on to like and share the video. 2) Friends of the above who because of the FB algorithm will see it if some of there friends have liked/shared or commented on the video 3) Fargeted people who the party has paid FB to put in there feed, based on geography demographics or something else.
there may be crossover between the groups and some others I have not covered but I think most views would be one or the other of the above. but how may fall in to each category?/how can we tell?/and what's the most effective?
Looking at the top conservative and labour video, we have the con attack on JC and the Lab Party political broadcast.
For the Cons, there have been:
Views: 2.7 Million Likes: 16 K Shares:39 K Comments: 8,707
For Lab:
Views 1.4 Million Likes: 3.2 K Shares: 2.2 K Comments: 107
What does any of this mean? I don't know, but its PB so I'm going to speculate and then probably get shot down by somebody who actually know stuff about this sort of thing.
The differences in views 2 to1 is much smaller than the ratios of Likes shares and comment. It looks like, contrary to some commentators that the Conservative effort is being boosted noticeably by a big(ish) activist effort on social media platform, while the lab effort is being pushed by money, this is the not what I was expecting so I am a bit confused, any thoughts?
And what counts as a view? does somebody have to watch the whole video? in which case it helps if it is short, do they have to unclick the mute button? and when the party's 'buy' advert slots how much do they have to pay?
I said means testing the winter fuel allowance was a disaster from the moment it was announced.
Sir Lynton should put me on the payroll...
A good policy but poor politics. An outbreak of honesty that politically they thought they could weather.
The only way you can take away the pensioner perks (and they do need taking away) is to "ween" people off them gradually... And you do that by not offering them (or means testing them) to new claimants and waiting for the pensioners who are currently getting them to die off.
You can't just come along and snatch them off people who have had them for years and not expect a terrible backlash,
GIN, surprised you are supporting starving pensioners till they die to save on pensions they have paid for, did not have you down as one of the Tories.
I do think generally the pensioners get a LOT (bus passes, free TV licences, fuel allowance, etc) compared to the "support" we give our young people.
My point is that nobody who is claiming all these things should have them snatched away from them... Because it's just too mean to do that when people are used to them.
I am open to the possibility of means testing the "perks" for new pensioners but not for existing claimants.
costs more to means test than it does to just payout and get it back in taxes though and it is always poorest that lose out on means testing
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
If there's any significant increase in youth turnout outside a small number of university seats I'll eat my hat.
If exams are over, uni students will all be in Ibiza surely?
Most University terms finish the following Friday, the 16th.
Cambridge may finish earlier, benefitting the LDs, but Aberystwyth finishes earlier too. Swings and roundabouts.
Easter Term* at Cambridge finishes on 16 June too.
* What a stupid name for a term. Obviously the three terms are Michaelmas, Hilary and Trinity.
Yes, the centre has collapsed, hasn't it. It's a polarised and polarising election.
Must be the fashion.
By far the most perplexing thing about this election to me is the failure of the Lib Dems to capitalise on Remain support. I honestly thought they would get a decent boost, and maybe even give Labour a run for vote share if not seats. Instead the Lib Dems appear to have gone backwards. But my hunch is the Lib Dems might do a bit better on the day than the polls suggest, as I can see a few waverers thinking "I'll tick the harmless box".
The closer Labour get to Conservative the fewer people will vote Lib Dem.
People will be scared of a Labour SNP coalition. So must vote to maximise Conservative MPs and keep out SNP.
Correct. The closer Labour get to Conservative the fewer people will be voting Lib Dem. They'll be voting Labour to defeat the Tories. It's already happening.
Old Ma Dura_Ace is a one woman focus group and political bellwether - she has voted for the winning party in every general election since 1955. Her comment on May today was, "She's gone Maggie Arrogant without actually achieving anything.
So who has she said is going to win?
She switched from Con to Lab over the Dementia Tax..
In which case she clearly doesn't understand it and neither do you. I would suggest her bellwether status is about to end in a quite dramatic manner.
If she has or is likely to have dementia, it is in her interests to get the present system changed asap.
Or more accurately in Master Dura Ace’s interests, as it is his inheritance that May will be protecting
typical tory mantra, robbing poor people is "protecting", is it any wonder this country is a sh**hole when the sheeple cannot even see through blatant Tory lies.
Which has probably been said about every Conservative campaign from 1987 onwards.
The lead is down from 20% plus to single figures, despite pitiful opposition. I can't think offhand of a similar performance, from 1987 onwards.
Didn't John Major do rather well, against vastly superior opposition to that faced by today's Conservatives?
One might be partially a function of the other: in other words, it's precisely those mammoth Tory leads that has led to a rallying around Labour to mitigate it.
But, that said, the Tory campaign has still been poor. The Labour campaign hasn't been brilliant either, but they did get 3-4 days full media coverage (largely unchallenged by the Tories) to trail their very left-wing manifesto.
The Tory hope probably was that people would be terrified by it whereas, actually, many seemed to quite like it.
the attempt to depict Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser hasn't resonated.
The video has been seen by approaching 2.75 million - roughly ten times what a successful one of these typically gets...
It probably makes no difference with people who intend to vote Labour.
It resonates strongly with the 47-51%, who intend voting Conservative or UKIP.
The video is STILL getting another 1000-2000 views every minute. It's perfectly timed over the Bank Holiday weekend, when most people have a chance to catch up with Facebook.
It will surely hit 3m today. Making it the most successful piece of social media campaigning in UK election history?
Depends whether it's changing minds or simply preaching to the converted. 15 million people voted either Tory or UKIP in 2015.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It was things like the Arizona trips or the completely fucking lack of Midwestern rust belt stops that lead me totally astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, but we knew the LDs were taking a hammering from the polls, it was just expected in the seats they held they would do better, but they were clearly still worth going for. If the polls are right, and it is a big if, then Labour are surging, not collapsing, so expecting rock solid seats to switch makes less sense to focus on.
But the surge, if real, is largely coming from 18-24. Unless those safe seats have a large proportion of 18-24 then they are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives. Bolsover doesn't have a particularly young demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
I do not think Brexit will make any difference. It is too early in the process. Maybe in two or three years time in the post-Brexit recession, but not now.
Of course if it goes into a transitional period with the EU in which we keep paying until 2022 then it is a different ballgame.
I now agree with Sean Fear that the fundamentals are pointing to GE2022 being Labour's to lose.
I really can't be bothered to read all the right-wing trash on here but someone downthread was mentionining his links with the Palestinians. Is it a crime to be associated with Palestian freedom fighters?
You think commemorating the killers responsible for Munich is okay?
How come terrorism committed by the state of Israel is never condemned by the right-wing fruitcakes on here? As ever double standards...
I said nothing about what Israel has done. So put aside things Israel has done for a moment, do you really believe that commemorating the killers responsible for Munich is okay?
Which has probably been said about every Conservative campaign from 1987 onwards.
The lead is down from 20% plus to single figures, despite pitiful opposition. I can't think offhand of a similar performance, from 1987 onwards.
Didn't John Major do rather well, against vastly superior opposition to that faced by today's Conservatives?
One might be partially a function of the other: in other words, it's precisely those mammoth Tory leads that has led to a rallying around Labour to mitigate it.
But, that said, the Tory campaign has still been poor. The Labour campaign hasn't been brilliant either, but they did get 3-4 days full media coverage (largely unchallenged by the Tories) to trail their very left-wing manifesto.
The Tory hope probably was that people would be terrified by it whereas, actually, many seemed to quite like it.
the attempt to depict Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser hasn't resonated.
The video has been seen by approaching 2.75 million - roughly ten times what a successful one of these typically gets...
It probably makes no difference with people who intend to vote Labour.
It resonates strongly with the 47-51%, who intend voting Conservative or UKIP.
The video is STILL getting another 1000-2000 views every minute. It's perfectly timed over the Bank Holiday weekend, when most people have a chance to catch up with Facebook.
It will surely hit 3m today. Making it the most successful piece of social media campaigning in UK election history?
People do notice and do care. Corbyn's ratings are awful.
Old Ma Dura_Ace is a one woman focus group and political bellwether - she has voted for the winning party in every general election since 1955. Her comment on May today was, "She's gone Maggie Arrogant without actually achieving anything.
So who has she said is going to win?
She switched from Con to Lab over the Dementia Tax..
In which case she clearly doesn't understand it and neither do you. I would suggest her bellwether status is about to end in a quite dramatic manner.
If she has or is likely to have dementia, it is in her interests to get the present system changed asap.
Or more accurately in Master Dura Ace’s interests, as it is his inheritance that May will be protecting
typical tory mantra, robbing poor people is "protecting", is it any wonder this country is a sh**hole when the sheeple cannot even see through blatant Tory lies.
My great mistake for the American election was assuming that Hillary was campaigning in rational locations.
She was in California & New York for a good deal of it wasn't she ?
That was fund raising, Trump also spent a lot of time there and Texas.
It astray.
However, in 2015 the Tories were campaigning in Colchester, a seat I thought rock-solid. It was a Con Gain.
Granted, on.
But the surge,demographic IIRC.
If the surge is comeing from 18 to 24 year olds, then surely Clegg and Mulholland are toast.
Have backed Labour in Leeds NW. If the youth are heading to the polls, he's gone.
Why do you think the youth are heading to the polls in this election?
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Brexit.
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
I do not think Brexit will make any difference. It is too early in the process. Maybe in two or three years time in the post-Brexit recession, but not now.
Of course if it goes into a transitional period with the EU in which we keep paying until 2022 then it is a different ballgame.
I now agree with Sean Fear that the fundamentals are pointing to GE2022 being Labour's to lose.
If chances then.
I agree. But I would not underestimate Labour's ability to shoot itself in the foot once more.
Yes. Somehow Labour has to avoid another bout of civil war. If Corbyn stays, or he is replaced by someone like McDonnell, I don't see that as being possible.
Labour will be off the political radar screen post-election. If the party really does get mid-30s or above, then I suspect Corbyn will stay in place for a while and some kind of accommodation will be found that ends with Labour having a leftish leader with none of Corbyn's baggage. If it ends up at EdM vote levels or below, with far fewer MPs, that's when we'll see the fireworks.
Which has probably been said about every Conservative campaign from 1987 onwards.
The lead is down from 20% plus to single figures, despite pitiful opposition. I can't think offhand of a similar performance, from 1987 onwards.
Didn't John Major do rather well, against vastly superior opposition to that faced by today's Conservatives?
One might be partially a function of the other: in other words, it's precisely those mammoth Tory leads that has led to a rallying around Labour to mitigate it.
But, that said, the Tory campaign has still been poor. The Labour campaign hasn't been brilliant either, but they did get 3-4 days full media coverage (largely unchallenged by the Tories) to trail their very left-wing manifesto.
The Tory hope probably was that people would be terrified by it whereas, actually, many seemed to quite like it.
the attempt to depict Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser hasn't resonated.
The video has been seen by approaching 2.75 million - roughly ten times what a successful one of these typically gets...
It probably makes no difference with people who intend to vote Labour.
It resonates strongly with the 47-51%, who intend voting Conservative or UKIP.
The video is STILL getting another 1000-2000 views every minute. It's perfectly timed over the Bank Holiday weekend, when most people have a chance to catch up with Facebook.
It will surely hit 3m today. Making it the most successful piece of social media campaigning in UK election history?
Depends whether it's changing minds or simply preaching to the converted. 15 million people voted either Tory or UKIP in 2015.
And what counts as a view? does somebody have to watch the whole video? in which case it helps if it is short, do they have to unclick the mute button? and when the party's 'buy' advert slots how much do they have to pay?
I don't know what Facebook uses for measures, but for this sort of thing usually a video has to remain in the foreground and a certain percentage of the video has to be played. So it's not just a measure of the video being clicked and closed.
How come terrorism committed by the state of Israel is never condemned by the right-wing fruitcakes on here? As ever double standards...
Indeed, there are massive double standards.
Every time a British politician joins a "Friends of Israel" group, they are standing on the side of the terrorism that created the state of Israel, that chased 750,000 Arabs out of their homes in 1948, that caused the current number of 4 million Palestinians to be refugees, and that keeps nearly 2 million people in the concentration camp called "Gaza", in which about a quarter of homes have been destroyed in the past few years by the Israeli military including using aircraft and tanks. Palestinian resistance is legitimate. The apartheid regime in South Africa was banned from many cultural events, and the neo-Nazi Zionist regime called "Israel" should be shunned, boycotted, divested from, and sanctioned.
Comments
Used to be able to get a flight from Dundee to City but they now go to Stanstead which, so far as I am concerned, is not even a London airport.
If the "new " regime was going to take less money from people or leave them "better off" then the govt.s take would be smaller and the funding situation would worsen.
The govt is proposing to rake more money in to cover the cost. They need more cash - they keep telling us this and they can only get more by taking more from people.
People WILL pay more. They will have to. This was made quite clear.
Last one was 15th-17th: satisfieds/dissatisfieds were May 55/35, Corbyn 31/58.
People *always* think they will, and this time will be different.
They never do.
Yes, no 'airs & graces' and happily got things wrong when doing demos - I still recall him saying 'take your old biro - oops! ball point pen, that's me getting my cards...'
That changed things.
The question is where they will turn out.
Relax - you have nothing to be worried of. JC will never be PM.
Jeez, the amount of bed-wetting from the right wingers on here has been hilarious.
It becomes declarable if someone (whether individual or party) starts paying for other people's expenses on a significant scale - as the Tories did last time transporting, feeding and accommodating a whole load of mobile activists from party funds.
Brexit will do more economic damage to the UK than any Labour Government, but you still claim it's "right"
OTOH these subsidies are the price society is paying to maintain/extend housing equity gains. Those really getting screwed are the young well paid workers paying plenty of tax and not experiencing said gains.
That money has to come from somewhere.
It has to come from people who have got money, namely the middle-classes and the wealthy.
Wealth is strongly correlated with age. So, it has to come from the elderly middle-class or the elderly wealthy.
The bill will have to be paid one way or another, dementia tax, IHT or income tax.
Is there any comparable precedent one might extrapolate from ? I don't think so.
(edit) It did come too late to influence registration, though.
Its now May 29.
So talk of 'absolutely' no interest in negotiation is clearly cobblers. It suggests you are not remotely taking notice of what is going on. The 2yr negotiating period has only just started.
The current British Empire has existed for even less time.
Of course if it goes into a transitional period with the EU in which we keep paying until 2022 then it is a different ballgame.
Maybe he should get a bus and write something untrue on the side of it?
Every step of the process has happened, and been voted through Parliament without amendment.
Will Brexiteers ever take responsibility for the win?
Sounds like rock and hard place or Hobson's choice.
It resonates strongly with the 47-51%, who intend voting Conservative or UKIP.
One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.
In 2011-12 I read Scott's diary of his last expedition, day by day, exactly 100 years after each entry was written. In the same spirit I think the Remoaners here should publish their canvassing diaries from this time last year up to 23 June so that we can marvel at the hours and shoe-leather they spent pounding the streets and knocking on doors in support of the cause they so passionately believe in.
I do hope that almost every entry does not read "Sat on lardy arse trolling twitter for 10 minutes."
If exams are over, uni students will all be in Ibiza surely?
NOM: 8.2 / 9
1-24 seats: 15 / 16
25-49 seats: 10 / 11
50-74 seats: 7.4 / 7.8
75-99 seats: 8.6 / 8.8
100-124 seats: 7.2 / 7.8
125-149 seats: 10 / 10.5
150-174 seats: 9.2 / 9.4
175-199 seats: 16 / 16.5
200-224 seats: 23 / 24
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.131146542
The original Cafe Noir biscuit seems to have been replaced by a poor immitation a year or so back. Sad.
BUT once she has stirred up rabid xenophobia in her supporters she can't wind it back down again with a snap of the fingers. So she can't say she'd form a coalition with Labour but not with the Tories. At least I will be very surprised if she says before the election that a Labour government and continued British membership of the SM would mean no need for a referendum. Of course she can easily say that after the election, wrapping it in "Look how much money and power we've won for our party Scotland".
Otley 12174
Adel 12003
Weetwood 10705
Headingley 8241
I think that Labour would need to squeeze the Green vote more as well as increase turnout in the student parts of Headingly and Weetwood.
But what should also worry Mulholland is that he's unlikely to get the 3000 Conservative tactical votes which he did in 2015.
While if Otley returns to its traditional voting patterns, ie not dissimilar to the other commuter towns north of the Leeds and Bradford, they'll be a big boost for the Conservatives.
Its clear though that Clegg's betrayal on tuition fees has really damaged the LibDems.
Cambridge may finish earlier, benefitting the LDs, but Aberystwyth finishes earlier too. Swings and roundabouts.
I think that views of the videos can be broken in to 3 groups:
1) People who have 'liked' the party's page on FB and therefor have the videos in there feed. who may go on to like and share the video.
2) Friends of the above who because of the FB algorithm will see it if some of there friends have liked/shared or commented on the video
3) Fargeted people who the party has paid FB to put in there feed, based on geography demographics or something else.
there may be crossover between the groups and some others I have not covered but I think most views would be one or the other of the above. but how may fall in to each category?/how can we tell?/and what's the most effective?
Looking at the top conservative and labour video, we have the con attack on JC and the Lab Party political broadcast.
For the Cons, there have been:
Views: 2.7 Million
Likes: 16 K
Shares:39 K
Comments: 8,707
For Lab:
Views 1.4 Million
Likes: 3.2 K
Shares: 2.2 K
Comments: 107
What does any of this mean? I don't know, but its PB so I'm going to speculate and then probably get shot down by somebody who actually know stuff about this sort of thing.
The differences in views 2 to1 is much smaller than the ratios of Likes shares and comment. It looks like, contrary to some commentators that the Conservative effort is being boosted noticeably by a big(ish) activist effort on social media platform, while the lab effort is being pushed by money, this is the not what I was expecting so I am a bit confused, any thoughts?
And what counts as a view? does somebody have to watch the whole video? in which case it helps if it is short, do they have to unclick the mute button? and when the party's 'buy' advert slots how much do they have to pay?
* What a stupid name for a term. Obviously the three terms are Michaelmas, Hilary and Trinity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhEPyjolGQQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZsYvkTw4Rg
Highlighting Jezzas opposition to Mid East wars just vindicates his position in many eyes.
No wonder I don't get much work done.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/05/london-s-election
Every time a British politician joins a "Friends of Israel" group, they are standing on the side of the terrorism that created the state of Israel, that chased 750,000 Arabs out of their homes in 1948, that caused the current number of 4 million Palestinians to be refugees, and that keeps nearly 2 million people in the concentration camp called "Gaza", in which about a quarter of homes have been destroyed in the past few years by the Israeli military including using aircraft and tanks. Palestinian resistance is legitimate. The apartheid regime in South Africa was banned from many cultural events, and the neo-Nazi Zionist regime called "Israel" should be shunned, boycotted, divested from, and sanctioned.
The Gold Standard ICM, or the others? Labour under Corbyn on 38%? Only 2% off Blair's 2001 landslide?
Really?