Who've just been given a massive bung from Labour in the form of tuition fees being scrapped.
A policy I dare say appeals to overstretched parents, too.
Big jump in 2010 for 18-24 for some reason. If they can get it back to there, plenty of saved seats for Lab. They are loving the promise of freebies.
Could it have been the I agree with Nick voters - agreeing on phasing out tuition fees?
If the 18 - 24 year olds really do turn out in force for Labour this time round it will be a very interesting election.
I believe that was ICMs take - either their approach post 2015 will be correct, or there has been a change in behaviour they are not adjusting for and things will be much closer than thought.
Yes. For me this election is quite abstract - the difference between a Conservative and a Labour government for me will probably be 5% or so on income tax and a few perks being taken away, but I'm already (comparatively) well off and will continue to be. But at the age of 19, the sum of 30k sounded like all the world to me and if all I had to do to get rid of a 30k debt was show up once on one day, for five minutes, and put a tick in a box, hell yes I would have done it.
And I really do think this policy appeals to parents, many of whom didn't pay fees or paid far, far less than the current rate and don't want to see junior saddled with mountains of debt.
The more I look at it the more this election feels very much like game on for Labour.
Calm down. There is almost no way the Labour party can get a majority. Even a plurality is extremely hard. The maths are so hostile.
But they can certainly deprive TMay of HER majority. Which will feel like a massive victory for Corbyn.
What happens then??! Three days before Brexit negotiations begin, the country is in political chaos.
It's almost comical.
The only way that we end up with a Hung Parliament is if Labour makes an overall net gain of Parliamentary seats from the Conservatives. Please explain how on Earth this is meant to happen.
The Tories have to lose only 15 seats. Even the DUP can't help them. You are slavishly following UNS. All the UKIP transfers to the Tories will not necessarily end in extra seats.
Slavishly following UNS is also bad news for Labour. Stacking up massive majorities in London, Manchester and Liverpool won't help them gain seats in marginals.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
If the 18 - 24 year olds really do turn out in force for Labour this time round it will be a very interesting election.
I believe that was ICMs take - either their approach post 2015 will be correct, or there has been a change in behaviour they are not adjusting for and things will be much closer than thought.
And I really do think this policy appeals to parents, many of whom didn't pay fees or paid far, far less than the current rate and don't want to see junior saddled with mountains of debt.
The more I look at it the more this election feels very much like game on for Labour.
Calm down. There is almost no way the Labour party can get a majority. Even a plurality is extremely hard. The maths are so hostile.
But they can certainly deprive TMay of HER majority. Which will feel like a massive victory for Corbyn.
What happens then??! Three days before Brexit negotiations begin, the country is in political chaos.
It's almost comical.
The only way that we end up with a Hung Parliament is if Labour makes an overall net gain of Parliamentary seats from the Conservatives. Please explain how on Earth this is meant to happen.
The young, angered by Brexit and excited by Corbyn turnout- really really turnout like 1992 levels, then Tory Remainers who were are upset about the new social conservatism but hanging on in the polls decide you know what May is a bit crap decide to stay home because "Corbyn can't win", Labour to tory switchers in the north/midlands/wales bottle it and decide to vote Labour anyway because their local Labour MP's have been running a campaign for weeks saying "vote for me Corbyn can't win, don't give May to big a majority", a few pensioners angry at Dementia tax and Winter fuel payements vote labour in anger by post but immediately regret it....but it's too late, in Scotland SNP voters know this is their best chance to LEAVE turnout and ScotTories flop. It all ends in a hung parliament.
Tories like using words like "execute" and "shot".
Is this the first election in a long time where the manifestos actually mattered? I guess Lab's 1945 manifesto could definitely be said to have made a big difference - any others?
1983 had a lot of talk about Labour's manifesto. It included a promise to leave the EU. Nobody took it seriously.
Only problem is that any taxpayer over 22 might pause and think I am the one paying for this largesse and vote Tory. For every promise on both sides there's always a countervailing view. For example ending free school dinners is unpopular among the relatively affluent young parents that will be affected but older taxpayers wonder why their taxes pay for something that wasn't free in their day.
I am in full on pants-wetting mode this weekend because I spent much if it in the pub with my Corbynista mates and the anticipation they feel is palpable.
They don't think they will win, but they sense that change is in the air. They feel as if they are in the ascendancy and it is only a matter of time.
They sense weakness. They sense blood. The right are no longer in control of the anti-establishment narrative.
To your point, I really don't think a 23 year old (27 year old? I imagine it is different the older you get) will be thinking "Well I got saddled with 30k debt so bugger the people two or three years younger than me, they can bloody well pay it too" - they are more likely to think how unfair it is and to vote in anger against the establishment that saddled them with the debt.
Labour could seal TMay's fate with some clever maneuvering on Brexit in the final week.
Come out and announce some insane plan to stay in EFTA, the Single Market, Customs union, but with immigration controls. It's not deliverable, but then, that's true of several of their crazy policies - like nationalisation.
It could seduce enough Remoaners in the Lib Dems, and some Remoaners from the Tories, to nudge Labour up to 40-41. And then it is Hung Parliament, and TMay will resign.
Labour hanging their policies on a skyhook in order to win an election? Its a thought. Where would that leave the intellectual calibre of the electorate?
If we are offered something implausible, and are told it is and still vote for it (and it is indeed, as we were told, implausible) then we will get the government we deserve. And yes, that does apply to Brexit - it has already been more difficult than many thought, even those who acknowledged in the first place it wold be difficult.
No, I thought Brexit would be far harder than it has been, so far (in terms of impact on the economy). And there is much pain to come.
That's why I want Soft Brexit. But Theresa won't give it to me as she has decided what I think.
She has. And she's pretty crap. And she's still the best UK leader. What a state.
Ben Chu has a perceptive take in the Independent on the "No deal is better than a bad deal" fallacy that has made its way into the Conservative manifesto. As he points out that's nonsense because a "no deal" default is the outcome furthest away from the status quo. The point of the deal is to retain certain arrangements that are important to each party. A no deal is a decision to discard those important arrangements. It's the opposite of a new deal, say with China, where you might decide the benefits don't outweigh the costs and so you stick to the status quo.
His most interesting point, though, is that Mrs May might be correct in saying "No deal is better than a bad deal" for HER even if certainly isn't for the country. That's because the default allows her to disassociate herself from the necessary compromises of Brexit.
To my mind that could explain her lack of engagement in Brexit so far.
Who've just been given a massive bung from Labour in the form of tuition fees being scrapped.
A policy I dare say appeals to overstretched parents, too.
Big jump in 2010 for 18-24 for some reason. If they can get it back to there, plenty of saved seats for Lab. They are loving the promise of freebies.
Could it have been the I agree with Nick voters - agreeing on phasing out tuition fees?
If the 18 - 24 year olds really do turn out in force for Labour this time round it will be a very interesting election.
1. Has it been costed?
2. Unless it is retrospective the current undergraduates pay twice, once for themselves and once for their younger successors. This would be a wizard wheeze if 16 y.o.s had the vote.
1. £11billion I think was the figure in the Guardian.
It was by far the biggest spending commitment in Lab manifesto. Twice the nearest other one.
IFS say it will lead to universities having 30% less cash per year per student than under the current system. Labour are also musing about cancelling all student debt.
We will issue bonds !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After having issued bonds to buy the national industries as well.....there's a trend here.
The Tories have been issuing government bonds and then buying them itself for years, to the point where the biggest single owner of UK government debt is now the Bank of England. Go Figure? No-one, including them, really understands the consequences (although the London housing bubble is probably in there somewhere), but there's a reasonable chance that economic historians of the future will dine out on writing about it.
Only problem is that any taxpayer over 22 might pause and think I am the one paying for this largesse and vote Tory. For every promise on both sides there's always a countervailing view. For example ending free school dinners is unpopular among the relatively affluent young parents that will be affected but older taxpayers wonder why their taxes pay for something that wasn't free in their day.
I am in full on pants-wetting mode this weekend because I spent much if it in the pub with my Corbynista mates and the anticipation they feel is palpable.
They don't think they will win, but they sense that change is in the air. They feel as if they are in the ascendancy and it is only a matter of time.
They sense weakness. They sense blood. The right are no longer in control of the anti-establishment narrative.
To your point, I really don't think a 23 year old (27 year old? I imagine it is different the older you get) will be thinking "Well I got saddled with 30k debt so bugger the people two or three years younger than me, they can bloody well pay it too" - they are more likely to think how unfair it is and to vote in anger against the establishment that saddled them with the debt.
Labour could seal TMay's fate with some clever maneuvering on Brexit in the final week.
Come out and announce some insane plan to stay in EFTA, the Single Market, Customs union, but with immigration controls. It's not deliverable, but then, that's true of several of their crazy policies - like nationalisation.
It could seduce enough Remoaners in the Lib Dems, and some Remoaners from the Tories, to nudge Labour up to 40-41. And then it is Hung Parliament, and TMay will resign.
Labour hanging their policies on a skyhook in order to win an election? Its a thought. Where would that leave the intellectual calibre of the electorate?
If we are offered something implausible, and are told it is and still vote for it (and it is indeed, as we were told, implausible) then we will get the government we deserve. And yes, that does apply to Brexit - it has already been more difficult than many thought, even those who acknowledged in the first place it wold be difficult.
No, I thought Brexit would be far harder than it has been, so far (in terms of impact on the economy). And there is much pain to come.
That's why I want Soft Brexit. But Theresa won't give it to me as she has decided what I think.
We haven't left yet, always assumed the real pain would come then.
If the 18 - 24 year olds really do turn out in force for Labour this time round it will be a very interesting election.
I believe that was ICMs take - either their approach post 2015 will be correct, or there has been a change in behaviour they are not adjusting for and things will be much closer than thought.
And I really do think this policy appeals to parents, many of whom didn't pay fees or paid far, far less than the current rate and don't want to see junior saddled with mountains of debt.
The more I look at it the more this election feels very much like game on for Labour.
Calm down. There is almost no way the Labour party can get a majority. Even a plurality is extremely hard. The maths are so hostile.
But they can certainly deprive TMay of HER majority. Which will feel like a massive victory for Corbyn.
What happens then??! Three days before Brexit negotiations begin, the country is in political chaos.
It's almost comical.
The only way that we end up with a Hung Parliament is if Labour makes an overall net gain of Parliamentary seats from the Conservatives. Please explain how on Earth this is meant to happen.
The young, angered by Brexit and excited by Corbyn turnout- really really turnout like 1992 levels, then Tory Remainers who were are upset about the new social conservatism but hanging on in the polls decide you know what May is a bit crap decide to stay home because "Corbyn can't win", Labour to tory switchers in the north/midlands/wales bottle it and decide to vote Labour anyway because their local Labour MP's have been running a campaign for weeks saying "vote for me Corbyn can't win, don't give May to big a majority", a few pensioners angry at Dementia tax and Winter fuel payements vote labour in anger by post but immediately regret it....but it's too late, in Scotland SNP voters know this is their best chance to LEAVE turnout and ScotTories flop. It all ends in a hung parliament.
oh and as TSE says Libdems gain a few seats back from the tories aswell.
The only way that we end up with a Hung Parliament is if Labour makes an overall net gain of Parliamentary seats from the Conservatives. Please explain how on Earth this is meant to happen.
The Tories have to lose only 15 seats. Even the DUP can't help them. You are slavishly following UNS. All the UKIP transfers to the Tories will not necessarily end in extra seats.
Quite the reverse. Ukip to Con switchers are liable to aid the Conservatives disproportionately in those areas where they most need the help, i.e. Brexity bits of the Midlands and North. Leftist consolidation, on the other hand, is likely to be disproportionately concentrated in the major cities, and especially amongst middle-class faux radicals inhabiting Conservative safe seats in Southern England.
The most likely outcome of the election is that Labour might shore up its support, and even make one or two gains, in London, and might also benefit (again, probably not by very much) from Unionist tactical voting in Scotland. Meanwhile, it will go backwards everywhere else.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
As I recall the Labour manifesto accepts the result of the referendum and seeks a 'close new relationship' with the EU, offering a second referendum would be a significant reversal.
They are offering a 'meaningful vote' on the final Brexit deal, but this does not say what would happen if that vote were lost, so there's wiggle room there.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
Only problem is that any taxpayer over 22 might pause and think I am the one paying for this largesse and vote Tory. For every promise on both sides there's always a countervailing view. For example ending free school dinners is unpopular among the relatively affluent young parents that will be affected but older taxpayers wonder why their taxes pay for something that wasn't free in their day.
I am in full on pants-wetting mode this weekend because I spent much if it in the pub with my Corbynista mates and the anticipation they feel is palpable.
They don't think they will win, but they sense that change is in the air. They feel as if they are in the ascendancy and it is only a matter of time.
They sense weakness. They sense blood. The right are no longer in control of the anti-establishment narrative.
To your point, I really don't think a 23 year old (27 year old? I imagine it is different the older you get) will be thinking "Well I got saddled with 30k debt so bugger the people two or three years younger than me, they can bloody well pay it too" - they are more likely to think how unfair it is and to vote in anger against the establishment that saddled them with the debt.
Labour could seal TMay's fate with some clever maneuvering on Brexit in the final week.
Come out and announce some insane plan to stay in EFTA, the Single Market, Customs union, but with immigration controls. It's not deliverable, but then, that's true of several of their crazy policies - like nationalisation.
It could seduce enough Remoaners in the Lib Dems, and some Remoaners from the Tories, to nudge Labour up to 40-41. And then it is Hung Parliament, and TMay will resign.
Labour hanging their policies on a skyhook in order to win an election? Its a thought. Where would that leave the intellectual calibre of the electorate?
If we are offered something implausible, and are told it is and still vote for it (and it is indeed, as we were told, implausible) then we will get the government we deserve. And yes, that does apply to Brexit - it has already been more difficult than many thought, even those who acknowledged in the first place it wold be difficult.
The problem is not that Labour could concievably get elected on a completely undeliverable manifesto (although fortunately there is almost no chance that they will under FPTP). The problem is what would happen next, after that.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
Of course. May called this election on an explicit Brexit platform (hence all the extra support from UKIP). If she lost it, everything is open for debate, including Brexit.
Ben Chu has a perceptive take in the Independent on the "No deal is better than a bad deal" fallacy that has made its way into the Conservative manifesto. As he points out that's nonsense because a "no deal" default is the outcome furthest away from the status quo. ...
That's garbage. It's very easy to give an example of a bad deal which is worse than no deal: one in which we fork out €100bn for nothing much in return. Nor is that an unrealistic hypothetical example; it's the EU27's opening position.
Only problem is that any taxpayer over 22 might pause and think I am the one paying for this largesse and vote Tory. For every promise on both sides there's always a countervailing view. For example ending free school dinners is unpopular among the relatively affluent young parents that will be affected but older taxpayers wonder why their taxes pay for something that wasn't free in their day.
I am in full on pants-wetting mode this weekend because I spent much if it in the pub with my Corbynista mates and the anticipation they feel is palpable.
They don't think they will win, but they sense that change is in the air. They feel as if they are in the ascendancy and it is only a matter of time.
They sense weakness. They sense blood. The right are no longer in control of the anti-establishment narrative.
To your point, I really don't think a 23 year old (27 year old? I imagine it is different the older you get) will be thinking "Well I got saddled with 30k debt so bugger the people two or three years younger than me, they can bloody well pay it too" - they are more likely to think how unfair it is and to vote in anger against the establishment that saddled them with the debt.
Labour could seal TMay's fate with some clever maneuvering on Brexit in the final week.
Come out and announce some insane plan to stay in EFTA, the Single Market, Customs union, but with immigration controls. It's not deliverable, but then, that's true of several of their crazy policies - like nationalisation.
It could seduce enough Remoaners in the Lib Dems, and some Remoaners from the Tories, to nudge Labour up to 40-41. And then it is Hung Parliament, and TMay will resign.
Labour hanging their policies on a skyhook in order to win an election? Its a thought. Where would that leave the intellectual calibre of the electorate?
If we are offered something implausible, and are told it is and still vote for it (and it is indeed, as we were told, implausible) then we will get the government we deserve. And yes, that does apply to Brexit - it has already been more difficult than many thought, even those who acknowledged in the first place it wold be difficult.
The problem is not that Labour could concievably get elected on a completely undeliverable manifesto (although fortunately there is almost no chance that they will under FPTP). The problem is what would happen next, after that.
And if that were disastrous, we the public would deserve it - we have been told it would be disastrous.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
Of course. May called this election on an explicit Brexit platform (hence all the extra support from UKIP). If she lost it, everything is open for debate, including Brexit.
Not sure how that works given both Labour and Tory manifestos say they'll respect the Brexit vote.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
Very silly.
It will not happen.
I reckon Lab under 20 as PB Tories originally predicted is almost certain!!
Who've just been given a massive bung from Labour in the form of tuition fees being scrapped.
A policy I dare say appeals to overstretched parents, too.
Big jump in 2010 for 18-24 for some reason. If they can get it back to there, plenty of saved seats for Lab. They are loving the promise of freebies.
Could it have been the I agree with Nick voters - agreeing on phasing out tuition fees?
If the 18 - 24 year olds really do turn out in force for Labour this time round it will be a very interesting election.
1. Has it been costed?
2. Unless it is retrospective the current undergraduates pay twice, once for themselves and once for their younger successors. This would be a wizard wheeze if 16 y.o.s had the vote.
1. £11billion I think was the figure in the Guardian.
It was by far the biggest spending commitment in Lab manifesto. Twice the nearest other one.
IFS say it will lead to universities having 30% less cash per year per student than under the current system. Labour are also musing about cancelling all student debt.
We will issue bonds !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After having issued bonds to buy the national industries as well.....there's a trend here.
The Tories have been issuing government bonds and then buying them itself for years, to the point where the biggest single owner of government debt is now the Bank of England. Go Figure? No-one, including them, really understands the consequences (although the London housing bubble is probably in there somewhere), but there's a reasonable chance that economic historians of the future will dine out on writing about it.
If the 18 - 24 year olds really do turn out in force for Labour this time round it will be a very interesting election.
I believe that was ICMs take - either their approach post 2015 will be correct, or there has been a change in behaviour they are not adjusting for and things will be much closer than thought.
And I really do think this policy appeals to parents, many of whom didn't pay fees or paid far, far less than the current rate and don't want to see junior saddled with mountains of debt.
The more I look at it the more this election feels very much like game on for Labour.
Calm down. There is almost no way the Labour party can get a majority. Even a plurality is extremely hard. The maths are so hostile.
But they can certainly deprive TMay of HER majority. Which will feel like a massive victory for Corbyn.
What happens then??! Three days before Brexit negotiations begin, the country is in political chaos.
It's almost comical.
The only way that we end up with a Hung Parliament is if Labour makes an overall net gain of Parliamentary seats from the Conservatives. Please explain how on Earth this is meant to happen.
The young, angered by Brexit and excited by Corbyn turnout- really really turnout like 1992 levels, then Tory Remainers who were are upset about the new social conservatism but hanging on in the polls decide you know what May is a bit crap decide to stay home because "Corbyn can't win", Labour to tory switchers in the north/midlands/wales bottle it and decide to vote Labour anyway because their local Labour MP's have been running a campaign for weeks saying "vote for me Corbyn can't win, don't give May to big a majority", a few pensioners angry at Dementia tax and Winter fuel payements vote labour in anger by post but immediately regret it....but it's too late, in Scotland SNP voters know this is their best chance to LEAVE turnout and ScotTories flop. It all ends in a hung parliament.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
If Labour were to pledge to fight for a soft brexit that kept economic ties while slowly disentangling us from the bureaucratic nightmare of Brussels, I'd consider changing my vote.
I'm a Tory brexiteer, but my biggest fear right now is car crash brexit, a combination of unreasonable demands by the EU and an incompetent negotiationg team at the heart of May's government.
Better to pay the danegeld now, begin the process of extrication with a soft brexit, and see where we are in five to ten years' time than to risk falling off a cliff in the next two years.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
Getting to 38 was already pretty silly!
So why not go the whole hog and start talking about a Corbyn landslide? It's the next logical step, I would have thought.
Ben Chu has a perceptive take in the Independent on the "No deal is better than a bad deal" fallacy that has made its way into the Conservative manifesto. As he points out that's nonsense because a "no deal" default is the outcome furthest away from the status quo. ...
That's garbage. It's very easy to give an example of a bad deal which is worse than no deal: one in which we fork our €100bn for nothing much in return. Nor is that an unrealistic hypothetical example; it's the EU27's opening position.
Oh, yes ! Nabavi, the staunch Leaver. How time flies.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
It is , has always been a forgone conclusion a conservative majority.
Who've just been given a massive bung from Labour in the form of tuition fees being scrapped.
A policy I dare say appeals to overstretched parents, too.
Big jump in 2010 for 18-24 for some reason. If they can get it back to there, plenty of saved seats for Lab. They are loving the promise of freebies.
Could it have been the I agree with Nick voters - agreeing on phasing out tuition fees?
If the 18 - 24 year olds really do turn out in force for Labour this time round it will be a very interesting election.
1. Has it been costed?
2. Unless it is retrospective the current undergraduates pay twice, once for themselves and once for their younger successors. This would be a wizard wheeze if 16 y.o.s had the vote.
1. £11billion I think was the figure in the Guardian.
It was by far the biggest spending commitment in Lab manifesto. Twice the nearest other one.
IFS say it will lead to universities having 30% less cash per year per student than under the current system. Labour are also musing about cancelling all student debt.
We will issue bonds !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After having issued bonds to buy the national industries as well.....there's a trend here.
The Tories have been issuing government bonds and then buying them itself for years, to the point where the biggest single owner of government debt is now the Bank of England. Go Figure? No-one, including them, really understands the consequences (although the London housing bubble is probably in there somewhere), but there's a reasonable chance that economic historians of the future will dine out on writing about it.
Are we talking about quantitative easing?
Nobody does, because nobody truly understands how the story will end. Shhh...
Evidently Diane Abbott has had one piece of luck during this campaign - being interviewed by Dermot Murnaghan of Sky News, who made her appear positively well informed by comparison.
Few people with a rudimentary knowledge of World War II can have speculated that the Blitz was a response to RAF bombing of Germany ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1q45EqYn2g
I haven't watched the interview, but it is fairly uncontroversial that the Luftwaffe started bombing British cities (as opposed to airfields) because they mistakenly thought the British were deliberately bombing German cities.
The conventional view is that Luftwaffe accidentally bombed civilan parts of London, UK launched a single retaliatory raid to deliberately bombed Berlin, Germany responds with the Blitz. Which was really bloody lucky as UK air defence infrastructure was on its knees and one last push against British airfields and the UK would have been helpless. Instead Germany diverting all the bomb tonnage to civilian targets gave Air Command time to rest and regroup.
Really? Poor strategic decision by German high command there then.
I think the modern conventional wisdom is that the shift in German policy was deliberate and would force the RAF to come out and fight and be beaten. I think this was based on faulty intelligence. But the 'Eagle Day' attack was soundly defeated. Thereafter Germany bombed by night - virtually every night through the winter of 40/41.
I do not know why Abbott brought up the Battle of Britain, is she trying to make something of us bombing Berlin bringing on retaliation? Its a crass analagy.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
Getting to 38 was already pretty silly!
So why not go the whole hog and start talking about a Corbyn landslide? It's the next logical step, I would have thought.
Tough to see the Tories dropping into the 20s, which that would presumably require.
Evidently Diane Abbott has had one piece of luck during this campaign - being interviewed by Dermot Murnaghan of Sky News, who made her appear positively well informed by comparison.
Few people with a rudimentary knowledge of World War II can have speculated that the Blitz was a response to RAF bombing of Germany ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1q45EqYn2g
I haven't watched the interview, but it is fairly uncontroversial that the Luftwaffe started bombing British cities (as opposed to airfields) because they mistakenly thought the British were deliberately bombing German cities.
The conventional view is that Luftwaffe accidentally bombed civilan parts of London, UK launched a single retaliatory raid to deliberately bombed Berlin, Germany responds with the Blitz. Which was really bloody lucky as UK air defence infrastructure was on its knees and one last push against British airfields and the UK would have been helpless. Instead Germany diverting all the bomb tonnage to civilian targets gave Air Command time to rest and regroup.
Really? Poor strategic decision by German high command there then.
I think the modern conventional wisdom is that the shift in German policy was deliberate and would force the RAF to come out and fight and be beaten. I think this was based on faulty intelligence. But the 'Eagle Day' attack was soundly defeated. Thereafter Germany bombed by night - virtually every night through the winter of 40/41.
I do not know why Abbott brought up the Battle of Britain, is she trying to make something of us bombing Berlin bringing on retaliation? Its a crass analagy.
Moving on from her hairdo is nevertheless progress of sorts
The combination of pant-wetting over a Hung Parliament and wrist-slitting over Brexit is all getting very, very wearisome. I'm surprised that some people haven't already drowned in a cocktail of their own blood and piss, frankly.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
Getting to 38 was already pretty silly!
So why not go the whole hog and start talking about a Corbyn landslide? It's the next logical step, I would have thought.
Tough to see the Tories dropping into the 20s, which that would presumably require.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
Getting to 38 was already pretty silly!
So why not go the whole hog and start talking about a Corbyn landslide? It's the next logical step, I would have thought.
Tough to see the Tories dropping into the 20s, which that would presumably require.
There's that irony klaxon going off again.....
The lack of an emoji does not denote every post made is serious.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
Very silly.
It will not happen.
I reckon Lab under 20 as PB Tories originally predicted is almost certain!!
Labour will get 150 seats. The spread betting said so.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
Of course. May called this election on an explicit Brexit platform (hence all the extra support from UKIP). If she lost it, everything is open for debate, including Brexit.
Not sure how that works given both Labour and Tory manifestos say they'll respect the Brexit vote.
We are having this election in part because the last Tory manifesto was written on the basis that they would be in coalition.
If by some miracle Labour wins, a manifesto written on the assumption that they would be a crushed rump of an opposition won't be worth very much.
Ben Chu has a perceptive take in the Independent on the "No deal is better than a bad deal" fallacy that has made its way into the Conservative manifesto. As he points out that's nonsense because a "no deal" default is the outcome furthest away from the status quo. ...
That's garbage. It's very easy to give an example of a bad deal which is worse than no deal: one in which we fork our €100bn for nothing much in return. Nor is that an unrealistic hypothetical example; it's the EU27's opening position.
Oh, yes ! Nabavi, the staunch Leaver. How time flies.
I haven't changed my views at all. But the decision to leave has been made by the voters. It's probably the wrong decision, or at least it's a very risky one, but now that it has been made, the question now is what deal can we get, and at what cost. If the deal is rubbish and the cost is excessive, my view is that we should tell them to get stuffed. Simple common sense.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
Very silly.
It will not happen.
I reckon Lab under 20 as PB Tories originally predicted is almost certain!!
Labour will get 150 seats. The spread betting said so.
What are they at now? If it is below 180 it is too low.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
I think it could. Spending the last week debating the Norway option versus hard Brexit would be really hard work for the Tories. And it does of course respect the referendum result, as you say. The most brilliant bit would be what we won't find out until years later. It may have been exactly what May was going to do with her massive majority all along.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
Getting to 38 was already pretty silly!
So why not go the whole hog and start talking about a Corbyn landslide? It's the next logical step, I would have thought.
Tough to see the Tories dropping into the 20s, which that would presumably require.
There's that irony klaxon going off again.....
The lack of an emoji does not denote every post made is serious.
Did you manage to have a look at the Expanse yet, kle?
Ben Chu has a perceptive take in the Independent on the "No deal is better than a bad deal" fallacy that has made its way into the Conservative manifesto. As he points out that's nonsense because a "no deal" default is the outcome furthest away from the status quo. ...
That's garbage. It's very easy to give an example of a bad deal which is worse than no deal: one in which we fork out €100bn for nothing much in return. Nor is that an unrealistic hypothetical example; it's the EU27's opening position.
So you try to negotiate it down of course. The "No deal is better than a bad deal" nonsense applies to the EU side too.
Can you explain why Theresa May wastes all this precious negotiation time calling elections AFTER triggering Article 50 with its countdown clock, creating unnecessary bureaucratic structures to deal with Brexit, pursuing futile court cases to avoid putting a two line act before parliament, doesn't develop a Brexit strategy, doesn't go out into the EU to make the case for Britain at the heart of Europe so our partners are more likely to want us on their side ... in fact doesn't do a SINGLE thing that is effectual for Brexit?
Only problem is that any taxpayer over 22 might pause and think I am the one paying for this largesse and vote Tory. For every promise on both sides there's always a countervailing view. For example ending free school dinners is unpopular among the relatively affluent young parents that will be affected but older taxpayers wonder why their taxes pay for something that wasn't free in their day.
I am in full on pants-wetting mode this weekend because I spent much if it in the pub with my Corbynista mates and the anticipation they feel is palpable.
They don't think they will win, but they sense that change is in the air. They feel as if they are in the ascendancy and it is only a matter of time.
They sense weakness. They sense blood. The right are no longer in control of the anti-establishment narrative.
To your point, I really don't think a 23 year old (27 year old? I imagine it is different the older you get) will be thinking "Well I got saddled with 30k debt so bugger the people two or three years younger than me, they can bloody well pay it too" - they are more likely to think how unfair it is and to vote in anger against the establishment that saddled them with the debt.
Labour could seal TMay's fate with some clever maneuvering on Brexit in the final week.
Come out and announce some insane plan to stay in EFTA, the Single Market, Customs union, but with immigration controls. It's not deliverable, but then, that's true of several of their crazy policies - like nationalisation.
It could seduce enough Remoaners in the Lib Dems, and some Remoaners from the Tories, to nudge Labour up to 40-41. And then it is Hung Parliament, and TMay will resign.
Labour hanging their policies on a skyhook in order to win an election? Its a thought. Where would that leave the intellectual calibre of the electorate?
If we are offered something implausible, and are told it is and still vote for it (and it is indeed, as we were told, implausible) then we will get the government we deserve. And yes, that does apply to Brexit - it has already been more difficult than many thought, even those who acknowledged in the first place it wold be difficult.
The problem is not that Labour could concievably get elected on a completely undeliverable manifesto (although fortunately there is almost no chance that they will under FPTP). The problem is what would happen next, after that.
Easy. Deal with the LibDems. Cancel Brexit. PR. LibDems support whatever two or three radical socialist reforms Labour puts at the top of its list. Goodbye to any prospect of Tory government until after we are all dead and buried.
Any chance of Lib Dems taking Manchester Gorton .There was talk on here they were betting on this for the by election.
If the Lab surge is real, there's no worries. Even if there isn't a surge, or not in that seat, they were a long way ahead in that seat and needed a bonafide LD by-election surge to lose it, or Galloway to make a huge dent into Lab and only Lab. Surely safe.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
Of course. May called this election on an explicit Brexit platform (hence all the extra support from UKIP). If she lost it, everything is open for debate, including Brexit.
Not sure how that works given both Labour and Tory manifestos say they'll respect the Brexit vote.
Respecting the Brexit vote and an EEA deal are not mutually exclusive. All that was written on the ballot paper was about leaving the EU, nothing else.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
Getting to 38 was already pretty silly!
So why not go the whole hog and start talking about a Corbyn landslide? It's the next logical step, I would have thought.
Tough to see the Tories dropping into the 20s, which that would presumably require.
There's that irony klaxon going off again.....
The lack of an emoji does not denote every post made is serious.
Did you manage to have a look at the Expanse yet, kle?
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
Of course. May called this election on an explicit Brexit platform (hence all the extra support from UKIP). If she lost it, everything is open for debate, including Brexit.
Not sure how that works given both Labour and Tory manifestos say they'll respect the Brexit vote.
Respecting the Brexit vote and an EEA deal are not mutually exclusive. All that was written on the ballot paper was about leaving the EU, nothing else.
Ben Chu has a perceptive take in the Independent on the "No deal is better than a bad deal" fallacy that has made its way into the Conservative manifesto. As he points out that's nonsense because a "no deal" default is the outcome furthest away from the status quo. ...
That's garbage. It's very easy to give an example of a bad deal which is worse than no deal: one in which we fork out €100bn for nothing much in return. Nor is that an unrealistic hypothetical example; it's the EU27's opening position.
. in fact doesn't do a SINGLE thing that is effectual for Brexit?
Apart from adding two years to parliament's mandate at the end of the Brexit process to avoid a GE in the middle of final negotiations?
Ben Chu has a perceptive take in the Independent on the "No deal is better than a bad deal" fallacy that has made its way into the Conservative manifesto. As he points out that's nonsense because a "no deal" default is the outcome furthest away from the status quo. ...
That's garbage. It's very easy to give an example of a bad deal which is worse than no deal: one in which we fork out €100bn for nothing much in return. Nor is that an unrealistic hypothetical example; it's the EU27's opening position.
. in fact doesn't do a SINGLE thing that is effectual for Brexit?
Apart from adding two years to parliament's mandate at the end of the Brexit process to avoid a GE in the middle of final negotiations?
She was patting non-whites and non-Christians on the back for being in the room, and she couldn't resist pointing out that none of them had yet been executed.
Ben Chu has a perceptive take in the Independent on the "No deal is better than a bad deal" fallacy that has made its way into the Conservative manifesto. As he points out that's nonsense because a "no deal" default is the outcome furthest away from the status quo. ...
That's garbage. It's very easy to give an example of a bad deal which is worse than no deal: one in which we fork our €100bn for nothing much in return. Nor is that an unrealistic hypothetical example; it's the EU27's opening position.
Oh, yes ! Nabavi, the staunch Leaver. How time flies.
I haven't changed my views at all. But the decision to leave has been made by the voters. It's probably the wrong decision, or at least it's a very risky one, but now that it has been made, the question now is what deal can we get, and at what cost. If the deal is rubbish and the cost is excessive, my view is that we should tell them to get stuffed. Simple common sense.
EEA is also strictly speaking Brexit. I bet quite a few Tory MPs will support Labour.
So you try to negotiate it down of course. The "No deal is better than a bad deal" nonsense applies to the EU side too.
Can you explain why Theresa May wastes all this precious negotiation time calling elections AFTER triggering Article 50 with its countdown clock, creating unnecessary bureaucratic structures to deal with Brexit, pursuing futile court cases to avoid putting a two line act before parliament, doesn't develop a Brexit strategy, doesn't go out into the EU to make the case for Britain at the heart of Europe so our partners are more likely to want us on their side ... in fact doesn't do a SINGLE thing that is effectual for Brexit?
Of course you try to negotiate it down, and negotiate up the benefits of any deal. But, at the end of the day, you assess the best deal that the other side are prepared to offer, in its totality. As things stand at the moment, our EU friends don't seem to be offering anything. If they persist with that madness, there will be no deal, which will damage both sides (and they will get precisely zero as an exit payment). It's up to them: are they going to see sense or not? Their completely arbitrary insistence on a sequence of negotiation which they have invented - and which incidentally directly contradicts Article 50 - is clearly utterly unacceptable. The only way in which we are going to agree to pay anything is for something guaranteed in return.
As for the election, it hasn't wasted any significant time, because of the French and German elections. But there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a large majority will strengthen the PM's hand. This is pretty basic stuff.
All Corbyn has to do is say "we will respect the democratic mandate for brexit and seek EEA / EFTA status and if we do not get that status on favourable terms, we will have another referendum in which we will recommend we remain" - doesn't matter if it's possible, all he has to do is promise it and it must surely be another 3-4% on the Labour vote share, largely from the Lib Dems.
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
People are talking themselves into Labour going into the low 40s now, possibly higher - nearing Blair's 1997 landslide and matching the 2001 landlide.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
Very silly.
It will not happen.
I reckon Lab under 20 as PB Tories originally predicted is almost certain!!
Labour will get 150 seats. The spread betting said so.
I must get round to asking them what happened to my Clinton and Remain winnings.
Tory candidate in Jo Cox's former constituency says "we have not yet shot anybody":
hps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jGByeaSKA8
She was patting non-whites and non-Christians on the back for being in the room, and she couldn't resist pointing out that none of them had yet been executed.
I think MI5 have their work cut out for them trying to get her elected.
Ben Chu has a perceptive take in the Independent on the "No deal is better than a bad deal" fallacy that has made its way into the Conservative manifesto. As he points out that's nonsense because a "no deal" default is the outcome furthest away from the status quo. ...
That's garbage. It's very easy to give an example of a bad deal which is worse than no deal: one in which we fork out €100bn for nothing much in return. Nor is that an unrealistic hypothetical example; it's the EU27's opening position.
. in fact doesn't do a SINGLE thing that is effectual for Brexit?
Apart from adding two years to parliament's mandate at the end of the Brexit process to avoid a GE in the middle of final negotiations?
Come on! You think this is going to get us a better outcome?
At least the Germans still have some national pride. Watching Mrs May genuflect to Trump was cringe-making. What a pity Corbyn didn't have the wit to do what Martin Shultz did. Such chivalry has to be worth a point or two.
The Corbyn attack in his own words video has passed 3 million views, as the Abbott Marr interview passes half a million....
Sorry to blather on about this, but if those views are paid views, that is to say views put in people's feed by the Conservatives in exchange for money, then many of them are likely to have been 'viewed' for about 3 seconds before people see it's an ad and scroll away. 3 seconds counts as a 'view' in Facebook's eyes.
Secondly, 3m views really isn't a lot, the Heineken 'worlds apart' experiment video last month got about that in its first few days on Facebook (it's on about 6m now). My ex girlfriend managed to get 60m views on a single video of her she posted over one weekend.
It's not all bad news for the Tories, I doubt the BBC are paying to promote their interview content, meaning the views / shares there are largely organic (i.e. not paid) and therefore have much higher impact and reach. That means for me the Abbott Marr interview is probably the bigger story.
The Tory attack ad is effective but it is not the slam dunk people are saying it is.
The headline view count on digital video is a very poor metric, particularly if the views are being paid for. The best metrics are engagement (comments) and organic shares. The other one is %age of people who viewed the video to completion but none of us will have access to that data. My gut tells me it's low for the Tory attack ad but much higher for the Abbott interview.
The public counter for a Facebook "view" can be as little as 3 seconds.
So all that 3m view count tells me is the Tories are paying a lot of money to push it hard to the maximum number of people. It doesn't mean it's effective.
Ben Chu has a perceptive take in the Independent on the "No deal is better than a bad deal" fallacy that has made its way into the Conservative manifesto. As he points out that's nonsense because a "no deal" default is the outcome furthest away from the status quo. ...
That's garbage. It's very easy to give an example of a bad deal which is worse than no deal: one in which we fork out €100bn for nothing much in return. Nor is that an unrealistic hypothetical example; it's the EU27's opening position.
. in fact doesn't do a SINGLE thing that is effectual for Brexit?
Apart from adding two years to parliament's mandate at the end of the Brexit process to avoid a GE in the middle of final negotiations?
Come on! You think this is going to get us a better outcome?
You think a possible change of government as the negotiations reach their climax would produce a better one?
As for the election, it hasn't wasted any significant time, because of the French and German elections. But there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a large majority will strengthen the PM's hand. This is pretty basic stuff.
Would you rather a 10-seat majority for Theresa May or a 100-seat majority for Jeremy Corbyn?
The Corbyn attack in his own words video has passed 3 million views, as the Abbott Marr interview passes half a million....
Sorry to blather on about this, but if those views are paid views, that is to say views put in people's feed by the Conservatives in exchange for money, then many of them are likely to have been 'viewed' for about 3 seconds before people see it's an ad and scroll away. 3 seconds counts as a 'view' in Facebook's eyes.
Secondly, 3m views really isn't a lot, the Heineken 'worlds apart' experiment video last month got about that in its first few days on Facebook (it's on about 6m now). My ex girlfriend managed to get 60m views on a single video of her she posted over one weekend.
It's not all bad news for the Tories, I doubt the BBC are paying to promote their interview content, meaning the views / shares there are largely organic (i.e. not paid) and therefore have much higher impact and reach. That means for me the Abbott Marr interview is probably the bigger story.
The Tory attack ad is effective but it is not the slam dunk people are saying it is.
The headline view count on digital video is a very poor metric, particularly if the views are being paid for. The best metrics are engagement (comments) and organic shares. The other one is %age of people who viewed the video to completion but none of us will have access to that data. My gut tells me it's low for the Tory attack ad but much higher for the Abbott interview.
The public counter for a Facebook "view" can be as little as 3 seconds.
So all that 3m view count tells me is the Tories are paying a lot of money to push it hard to the maximum number of people. It doesn't mean it's effective.
No it doesn't, although the more people who see something for some amount of time, the more chance of it being effective (or counter productive, theoretically at least) with some number of people. Same thinking behind campaign posters.
Comments
I voted remain btw, I just don't sound like you because my whining circuits are out of commission.
Mays hard BREXIT more likely to end in £350m less PerWeek
Could this happen? Could this actually happen?
She looked gorgeous.
His most interesting point, though, is that Mrs May might be correct in saying "No deal is better than a bad deal" for HER even if certainly isn't for the country. That's because the default allows her to disassociate herself from the necessary compromises of Brexit.
To my mind that could explain her lack of engagement in Brexit so far.
The most likely outcome of the election is that Labour might shore up its support, and even make one or two gains, in London, and might also benefit (again, probably not by very much) from Unionist tactical voting in Scotland. Meanwhile, it will go backwards everywhere else.
I think it's all getting a bit silly now.
They are offering a 'meaningful vote' on the final Brexit deal, but this does not say what would happen if that vote were lost, so there's wiggle room there.
It will not happen.
I reckon Lab under 20 as PB Tories originally predicted is almost certain!!
I'm a Tory brexiteer, but my biggest fear right now is car crash brexit, a combination of unreasonable demands by the EU and an incompetent negotiationg team at the heart of May's government.
Better to pay the danegeld now, begin the process of extrication with a soft brexit, and see where we are in five to ten years' time than to risk falling off a cliff in the next two years.
I do not know why Abbott brought up the Battle of Britain, is she trying to make something of us bombing Berlin bringing on retaliation? Its a crass analagy.
https://twitter.com/bbcjlandale/status/868418708502441986
If by some miracle Labour wins, a manifesto written on the assumption that they would be a crushed rump of an opposition won't be worth very much.
Can you explain why Theresa May wastes all this precious negotiation time calling elections AFTER triggering Article 50 with its countdown clock, creating unnecessary bureaucratic structures to deal with Brexit, pursuing futile court cases to avoid putting a two line act before parliament, doesn't develop a Brexit strategy, doesn't go out into the EU to make the case for Britain at the heart of Europe so our partners are more likely to want us on their side ... in fact doesn't do a SINGLE thing that is effectual for Brexit?
**sniggers**
https://twitter.com/tobyperkinsmp/status/869204270066827264/photo/1
May and the Tories: 37%
Corbyn and Labour: 42%
(via @ComRes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jGByeaSKA8
She was patting non-whites and non-Christians on the back for being in the room, and she couldn't resist pointing out that none of them had yet been executed.
As for the election, it hasn't wasted any significant time, because of the French and German elections. But there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a large majority will strengthen the PM's hand. This is pretty basic stuff.
Amber Rudd won't comment
ETA: Thought he sounded familiar - I remember this story
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2977991/What-tall-story-Labour-forced-deny-claims-Miliband-stood-box-pictured-6ft-6in-MP.html
https://www.apple.com/uk/itunes/charts/songs/
Secondly, 3m views really isn't a lot, the Heineken 'worlds apart' experiment video last month got about that in its first few days on Facebook (it's on about 6m now). My ex girlfriend managed to get 60m views on a single video of her she posted over one weekend.
It's not all bad news for the Tories, I doubt the BBC are paying to promote their interview content, meaning the views / shares there are largely organic (i.e. not paid) and therefore have much higher impact and reach. That means for me the Abbott Marr interview is probably the bigger story.
The Tory attack ad is effective but it is not the slam dunk people are saying it is.
The headline view count on digital video is a very poor metric, particularly if the views are being paid for. The best metrics are engagement (comments) and organic shares. The other one is %age of people who viewed the video to completion but none of us will have access to that data. My gut tells me it's low for the Tory attack ad but much higher for the Abbott interview.
The public counter for a Facebook "view" can be as little as 3 seconds.
So all that 3m view count tells me is the Tories are paying a lot of money to push it hard to the maximum number of people. It doesn't mean it's effective.
... and free Owls for all.