Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP/Green though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP/Green though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
If Jezza got rid of the oath of loyalty to the Queen, SF may be willing to take their seats.
This election is already a disaster with the centre-left stuck on ~ 8% and the hard batshit mental left on ~30+%. Everyone needs to do their bit against Jez imo.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
That would be a good outcome, Angus Robertson would be an excellent Deputy PM, and having Scots in the Brexit negotiations would be a massive step forward.
Angus Robertson may lose his seat, they would almost certainly need the LDs too
Lib-Dems would only do "confidence and supply" this time?
Still, a Lab/SNP/Green coalition with Lib-Dems offering support on key votes isn't out of the question.
JCICIPM?
Even if confidence and supply only it would still rely on LD support
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
They want to blow up the deficit, scare off private finance and increase taxes just before we are just a kicking economically from Brexit and a probably recession. If I thought for a moment their plans could work I would consider them, they will fail and cause real long term issues that we are really going to struggle to solve.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
That would be a good outcome, Angus Robertson would be an excellent Deputy PM, and having Scots in the Brexit negotiations would be a massive step forward.
Very true - that could work well
How would SNP MPs in a UK cabinet work with SNP MPs taking the whip from Nicola Sturgeon?
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
The Tory Manifesto did neither. To reiterate a point said on here yesterday, that for all the talk about the JAMs there is very little in the manifesto which outlines how the May government is going to help them.
She will help them by (a) keeping the economy going, (b) slowly reducing the deficit, (c) keeping taxes to sane levels.
None of which Corbyn will deliver.
It may be boring, but it's what we need to get through the next few years.
People are sick to death of Austerity and tax giveaways to the better off
Anyone else watched Designated Survivor yet? So far....it's ok, a thick version of The West Wing with some conspiracy theory inserted as the plot driver.
It's...middling.
It's The West Wing meets 24 and is somehow less satisfying than both of those shows.
The West Wing is one of the greatest TV shows of all time. Designated Survivor is, err, not.
Anyone watching American Gods? Mental.
Sounded like crap so would not even waste time looking at it, "This is US " has been pretty good so far.
@Thescreamingeagles You do realise the hang em flog em brigade currently being with the Tories is the only thing stopping Jez getting power at the moment ?
I think we make a rookie error (on both this site, and in the UK generally). We see the EU as a monolithic entity with one view. In reality, it's a barely functional set of fiefdoms that are constantly at war with each other, and with differing goals. On top of which, the net contributions have a great deal of additional say, because they can always threaten to pull the plug.
Some groups inside the EU are both friendly and sensible. Others are downright hostile. Most have their own goals, and Brexit is important to them only in as much as it allows them to further them.
The negotiation space is something that is better than nothing but not as good as what had before. I am not hugely enthused by that, but given we made, absent another referendum that I don't want, an irreversible decision to Brexit, it's acceptable.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
That would be a good outcome, Angus Robertson would be an excellent Deputy PM, and having Scots in the Brexit negotiations would be a massive step forward.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP/Green though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
If Jezza got rid of the oath of loyalty to the Queen, SF may be willing to take their seats.
Sorry Alex and Angus it's got to be Gerry Adams for DPM!
The Conservatives need to be a bit more robust on University funding and point out a few key facts:
1) Over 50% of young people do not go to university. Labour's policy would transfer the costs from those that do benefit (but who retain a safety net if they don't) to those who don't 2) Student loans don't just pay for tuition - people take them out for living costs as well 3) Shifting university funding to the state means that it has to compete with other areas of public expenditure. This inevitably leads to caps/rationing of places and limits opportunity. Universities will target people who are prepared to pay.
Labour should promise to bring back maintenance grants too, and housing benefit for students. Universities don't care who pays, so long as they get the money.
I would love it if the Tories did argue exactly as you propose.
Why don't Labour just promise that everyone will get £100k a year tax free from the government and be done with it?
Oops. Labour are promising to reintroduce maintenance grants. In your face, Blairites!
The country seemed to run OK before it became the norm for people aged 21 to be in debt up to their eyebrows.
@Thescreamingeagles You do realise the hang em flog em brigade currently being with the Tories is the only thing stopping Jez getting power at the moment ?
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
The Tory Manifesto did neither. To reiterate a point said on here yesterday, that for all the talk about the JAMs there is very little in the manifesto which outlines how the May government is going to help them.
She will help them by (a) keeping the economy going, (b) slowly reducing the deficit, (c) keeping taxes to sane levels.
None of which Corbyn will deliver.
It may be boring, but it's what we need to get through the next few years.
People are sick to death of Austerity and tax giveaways to the better off
And free tuition fees, the triple lock and fuel allowances for all isn't the same thing?
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
The Tory Manifesto did neither. To reiterate a point said on here yesterday, that for all the talk about the JAMs there is very little in the manifesto which outlines how the May government is going to help them.
She will help them by (a) keeping the economy going, (b) slowly reducing the deficit, (c) keeping taxes to sane levels.
None of which Corbyn will deliver.
It may be boring, but it's what we need to get through the next few years.
"Yes it hurt, yes it worked."
A line that worked so well for the Tories in 1997.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Labour's manifesto is better costed than the Conservative one. If you don't like the assumptions, that's fair but the Tories have locked the Chancellor in a cupboard.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
That would be a good outcome, Angus Robertson would be an excellent Deputy PM, and having Scots in the Brexit negotiations would be a massive step forward.
And freedom of movement brushed under the carpet?
An EEA/EFTA type arrangement does allow some restrictions, particularly on access to housing and benefits. Richard Tyndall was always an exponent of this.
I think that soft Brexit is a mirage, so wouldn't be acceptable to the EU, but maybe I am wrong.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Yes, that undermines it for me as well. It's another reason for me to not vote Labour.
I think that a positive vision is achievable, it's just that Labour's way of getting there is unrealistic - you cannot give everyone a free owl simply by increasing corporation tax, for example.
But voters expect politicians to believe that things can get better, that they can improve. That's why they'll have more time for those who acknowledge that expectation than those who don't.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Labour's manifesto is better costed than the Conservative one. If you don't like the assumptions, that's fair but the Tories have locked the Chancellor in a cupboard.
Is Spreadsheet Phil still in that Cupboard?
Last time I saw him he was £20 Bn wrong on his HS2 cost answer.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP/Green though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
If Jezza got rid of the oath of loyalty to the Queen, SF may be willing to take their seats.
Sorry Alex and Angus it's got to be Gerry Adams for DPM!
Isn't he a TD now, so not eligible?
In any case too many beards would make cabinet meetings confusing. It would be like craft ale night down the Holborn Slug and Lettuce.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Labour's manifesto is better costed than the Conservative one. If you don't like the assumptions, that's fair but the Tories have locked the Chancellor in a cupboard.
Is Spreadsheet Phil still in that Cupboard?
Last time I saw him he was £20 Bn wrong on his HS2 cost answer.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Labour's manifesto is better costed than the Conservative one. If you don't like the assumptions, that's fair but the Tories have locked the Chancellor in a cupboard.
Is Spreadsheet Phil still in that Cupoard?
Last time I saw him he was £20 Bn wrong on his HS2 cost answer.
I think what this election needs is an unofficial leak of an A.R.S.E
JohnO is forecasting a Tory majority of 100.
I trust John
What did JohnO forecast in 2015 out of interest.
I think he was on something like Con 315, he was out campaigning like me, and couldn't reconcile what he was getting on the doorstep with the national polls.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
The Tory Manifesto did neither. To reiterate a point said on here yesterday, that for all the talk about the JAMs there is very little in the manifesto which outlines how the May government is going to help them.
She will help them by (a) keeping the economy going, (b) slowly reducing the deficit, (c) keeping taxes to sane levels.
None of which Corbyn will deliver.
It may be boring, but it's what we need to get through the next few years.
That's just more of the same.
How will she do (a. when it looks like Brexit will be a total disaster.
(b. Many JAMs that I know have been negatively affected by cuts and even so she's a part of a government which promised the deficit would be gone by now and isn't.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Labour's manifesto is better costed than the Conservative one. If you don't like the assumptions, that's fair but the Tories have locked the Chancellor in a cupboard.
Is Spreadsheet Phil still in that Cupboard?
Last time I saw him he was £20 Bn wrong on his HS2 cost answer.
"The thinktank’s deputy director, Carl Emmerson, accused Labour of “pretending that everything can be paid for” under plans to raise taxes on the richest, many of whom will avoid paying higher rates of tax."
What are the odds that Nissan and others will relocate to Europe if Corbyn gets his way over corporation tax and millions lost from the City with a financial transaction tax
I think what this election needs is an unofficial leak of an A.R.S.E
JohnO is forecasting a Tory majority of 100.
I trust John
What did JohnO forecast in 2015 out of interest.
I think he was on something like Con 315, he was out campaigning like me, and couldn't reconcile what he was getting on the doorstep with the national polls.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Yes, that undermines it for me as well. It's another reason for me to not vote Labour.
I think that a positive vision is achievable, it's just that Labour's way of getting there is unrealistic - you cannot give everyone a free owl simply by increasing corporation tax, for example.
But voters expect politicians to believe that things can get better, that they can improve. That's why they'll have more time for those who acknowledge that expectation than those who don't.
I agree with most of the measures in the Labour manifesto. But it is fundamentally dishonest about how the pledges would be funded. It is economically illiterate. It is basically just a massive lie and should be called out as such.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP/Green though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
If Jezza got rid of the oath of loyalty to the Queen, SF may be willing to take their seats.
Sorry Alex and Angus it's got to be Gerry Adams for DPM!
Isn't he a TD now, so not eligible?
In any case too many beards would make cabinet meetings confusing. It would be like craft ale night down the Holborn Slug and Lettuce.
Toby had a beard last time I saw him up close. Dont think it will get him in a Corbyn Cabinet
I think what this election needs is an unofficial leak of an A.R.S.E
JohnO is forecasting a Tory majority of 100.
I trust John
What did JohnO forecast in 2015 out of interest.
I think he was on something like Con 315, he was out campaigning like me, and couldn't reconcile what he was getting on the doorstep with the national polls.
DId u feel the same? I mean on the door step did u feel the tories were clearly ahead of labour?
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Yes, that undermines it for me as well. It's another reason for me to not vote Labour.
I think that a positive vision is achievable, it's just that Labour's way of getting there is unrealistic - you cannot give everyone a free owl simply by increasing corporation tax, for example.
But voters expect politicians to believe that things can get better, that they can improve. That's why they'll have more time for those who acknowledge that expectation than those who don't.
I agree with most of the measures in the Labour manifesto. But it is fundamentally dishonest about how the pledges would be funded. It is economically illiterate. It is basically just a massive lie and should be called out as such.
You'd be surprised by how many on Twitter believe that it can be funded simply by 'taxing the rich' because Eoin Clarke told them so.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Yes, that undermines it for me as well. It's another reason for me to not vote Labour.
I think that a positive vision is achievable, it's just that Labour's way of getting there is unrealistic - you cannot give everyone a free owl simply by increasing corporation tax, for example.
But voters expect politicians to believe that things can get better, that they can improve. That's why they'll have more time for those who acknowledge that expectation than those who don't.
I agree with most of the measures in the Labour manifesto. But it is fundamentally dishonest about how the pledges would be funded. It is economically illiterate. It is basically just a massive lie and should be called out as such.
You'd be surprised by how many on Twitter believe that it can be funded simply by 'taxing the rich' because Eoin Clarke told them so.
We would have a major financial crisis within 2 months. I doubt Brexit talks would ever begin.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Yes, that undermines it for me as well. It's another reason for me to not vote Labour.
I think that a positive vision is achievable, it's just that Labour's way of getting there is unrealistic - you cannot give everyone a free owl simply by increasing corporation tax, for example.
But voters expect politicians to believe that things can get better, that they can improve. That's why they'll have more time for those who acknowledge that expectation than those who don't.
I agree with most of the measures in the Labour manifesto. But it is fundamentally dishonest about how the pledges would be funded. It is economically illiterate. It is basically just a massive lie and should be called out as such.
You'd be surprised by how many on Twitter believe that it can be funded simply by 'taxing the rich' because Eoin Clarke told them so.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Yes, that undermines it for me as well. It's another reason for me to not vote Labour.
I think that a positive vision is achievable, it's just that Labour's way of getting there is unrealistic - you cannot give everyone a free owl simply by increasing corporation tax, for example.
But voters expect politicians to believe that things can get better, that they can improve. That's why they'll have more time for those who acknowledge that expectation than those who don't.
I agree with most of the measures in the Labour manifesto. But it is fundamentally dishonest about how the pledges would be funded. It is economically illiterate. It is basically just a massive lie and should be called out as such.
Not sure it's a lie. I think it's more likely rooted in avtotal inability to understand reality.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Yes, that undermines it for me as well. It's another reason for me to not vote Labour.
I think that a positive vision is achievable, it's just that Labour's way of getting there is unrealistic - you cannot give everyone a free owl simply by increasing corporation tax, for example.
But voters expect politicians to believe that things can get better, that they can improve. That's why they'll have more time for those who acknowledge that expectation than those who don't.
I agree with most of the measures in the Labour manifesto. But it is fundamentally dishonest about how the pledges would be funded. It is economically illiterate. It is basically just a massive lie and should be called out as such.
You'd be surprised by how many on Twitter believe that it can be funded simply by 'taxing the rich' because Eoin Clarke told them so.
Most people on twitter don't even think the "taxing the rich" is necessary. They just share articles about Fractional Reserve Banking, which is all they need.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Yes, that undermines it for me as well. It's another reason for me to not vote Labour.
I think that a positive vision is achievable, it's just that Labour's way of getting there is unrealistic - you cannot give everyone a free owl simply by increasing corporation tax, for example.
But voters expect politicians to believe that things can get better, that they can improve. That's why they'll have more time for those who acknowledge that expectation than those who don't.
I agree with most of the measures in the Labour manifesto. But it is fundamentally dishonest about how the pledges would be funded. It is economically illiterate. It is basically just a massive lie and should be called out as such.
You'd be surprised by how many on Twitter believe that it can be funded simply by 'taxing the rich' because Eoin Clarke told them so.
Surprise me. How many is it?
If you're really interested, follow Corbynistas on Twitter. You'll see how many of my age group especially retweet Eoin Clarke and use him as a reference point for their Pro-Corbyn arguments.
I think what this election needs is an unofficial leak of an A.R.S.E
JohnO is forecasting a Tory majority of 100.
I trust John
What did JohnO forecast in 2015 out of interest.
I think he was on something like Con 315, he was out campaigning like me, and couldn't reconcile what he was getting on the doorstep with the national polls.
Thanks.
My tiny anecdote is that I've seen zero party posters in people's window.
Which is certainly a shift away from Labour.
Lots of St George's flags on tower blocks and in the pit villages though - you'd almost think there was an England game on.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Labour's manifesto is better costed than the Conservative one. If you don't like the assumptions, that's fair but the Tories have locked the Chancellor in a cupboard.
Is Spreadsheet Phil still in that Cupboard?
Last time I saw him he was £20 Bn wrong on his HS2 cost answer.
Phil Hammond was in Bolsover last week.
So that's Hammond, Leadsom and Thornberry you've had recently.
I bet that's more front bench politicians than north-eastern Derbyshire has ever seen before.
I think what this election needs is an unofficial leak of an A.R.S.E
JohnO is forecasting a Tory majority of 100.
I trust John
What did JohnO forecast in 2015 out of interest.
I think he was on something like Con 315, he was out campaigning like me, and couldn't reconcile what he was getting on the doorstep with the national polls.
DId u feel the same? I mean on the door step did u feel the tories were clearly ahead of labour?
Yup, and that the Lord Ashcroft constituency polls were bollocks.
We'd done a lot of campaigning in Pudsey and he produced a constituency poll with the Tories and Lab tied on 40%.
Looking at Corbyn's full quote about the Scottish referendum he probably did not mean to say what he is reported as saying. But the fact that he gave the answer he did shows how crap he is at these things.
I think what this election needs is an unofficial leak of an A.R.S.E
JohnO is forecasting a Tory majority of 100.
I trust John
What did JohnO forecast in 2015 out of interest.
I think he was on something like Con 315, he was out campaigning like me, and couldn't reconcile what he was getting on the doorstep with the national polls.
Thanks.
My tiny anecdote is that I've seen zero party posters in people's window.
Which is certainly a shift away from Labour.
Lots of St George's flags on tower blocks and in the pit villages though - you'd almost think there was an England game on.
I have seen a lot of Tory and Labour posters in Enfield North, Tory and LD posters in Tunbridge Wells and Epping, Tory posters by the side of the motorway in Essex and Labour posters in Edmonton
What are the odds that Nissan and others will relocate to Europe if Corbyn gets his way over corporation tax and millions lost from the City with a financial transaction tax
Probably not as short as them mothballing their UK operations if there is no Brexit deal that ensures their access to the single market remains substantially unchanged.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Yes, that undermines it for me as well. It's another reason for me to not vote Labour.
I think that a positive vision is achievable, it's just that Labour's way of getting there is unrealistic - you cannot give everyone a free owl simply by increasing corporation tax, for example.
But voters expect politicians to believe that things can get better, that they can improve. That's why they'll have more time for those who acknowledge that expectation than those who don't.
I agree with most of the measures in the Labour manifesto. But it is fundamentally dishonest about how the pledges would be funded. It is economically illiterate. It is basically just a massive lie and should be called out as such.
You'd be surprised by how many on Twitter believe that it can be funded simply by 'taxing the rich' because Eoin Clarke told them so.
Surprise me. How many is it?
If you're really interested, follow Corbynistas on Twitter. You'll see how many of my age group especially retweet Eoin Clarke and use him as a reference point for their Pro-Corbyn arguments.
But your age group does no register, does not vote and has excrement for brains :-)
Anyone else watched Designated Survivor yet? So far....it's ok, a thick version of The West Wing with some conspiracy theory inserted as the plot driver.
It's...middling.
It's The West Wing meets 24 and is somehow less satisfying than both of those shows.
The West Wing is one of the greatest TV shows of all time. Designated Survivor is, err, not.
Anyone watching American Gods? Mental.
Designated Survivor is a fine concept, but sadly the scripts frequently insult the intelligence of its audience.
American Gods is indeed a bit mental, but rather brilliant if you can get past the first episode. Ian McShane is an acting god. In every sense.
(edit) Perhaps not one to watch with granny, though.
Would you let us know what the FTSE100 index is currently Scott.
As I remember you were very keen to report the share prices 11 months ago.
Sterling’s Brexit-fuelled decline over the past year has been Britain’s “least successful” currency devaluation in history, an analysis of the latest growth figures has revealed.
Croydon Central has 3/1 for Labour gain, but there are temptations out there further. Lab take Broxtowe for example at 12/1. Will Purple Leavers really turnout for Soubry?
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Yes, that undermines it for me as well. It's another reason for me to not vote Labour.
I think that a positive vision is achievable, it's just that Labour's way of getting there is unrealistic - you cannot give everyone a free owl simply by increasing corporation tax, for example.
But voters expect politicians to believe that things can get better, that they can improve. That's why they'll have more time for those who acknowledge that expectation than those who don't.
I agree with most of the measures in the Labour manifesto. But it is fundamentally dishonest about how the pledges would be funded. It is economically illiterate. It is basically just a massive lie and should be called out as such.
You'd be surprised by how many on Twitter believe that it can be funded simply by 'taxing the rich' because Eoin Clarke told them so.
Surprise me. How many is it?
If you're really interested, follow Corbynistas on Twitter. You'll see how many of my age group especially retweet Eoin Clarke and use him as a reference point for their Pro-Corbyn arguments.
But your age group does no register, does not vote and has excrement for brains :-)
The latter assertion is unfair, lots of older voters believe in fantasy economics too.
See: Brexit, with those who believed the £350m for the NHS promise as well as believing that we can reduce immigration to the 'tens of thousands' with economic growth totally unaffected.
Well I'm suitably terrified of the Corbyn surge, real or imagined, and has inspired me to sign up for door knocking for the Tories in SW London. Never done it before, any tips?!
What are the odds that Nissan and others will relocate to Europe if Corbyn gets his way over corporation tax and millions lost from the City with a financial transaction tax
Probably not as short as them mothballing their UK operations if there is no Brexit deal that ensures their access to the single market remains substantially unchanged.
What are the odds that Nissan and others will relocate to Europe if Corbyn gets his way over corporation tax and millions lost from the City with a financial transaction tax
Probably not as short as them mothballing their UK operations if there is no Brexit deal that ensures their access to the single market remains substantially unchanged.
Exactly I would have thought Nissan and any large exporting business would take Labours softer BREXIT over TMICIPMs No Deal every time
Well I'm suitably terrified of the Corbyn surge, real or imagined, and has inspired me to sign up for door knocking for the Tories in SW London. Never done it before, any tips?!
Carry a small bag with breath mints, wipes, a bottle of water, and a small metal ruler.
Wear comfortable footwear.
Never put your fingers and thumbs where you can't see them when posting leaflets (that's where the metal ruler comes in handy)
Well I'm suitably terrified of the Corbyn surge, real or imagined, and has inspired me to sign up for door knocking for the Tories in SW London. Never done it before, any tips?!
Well I'm suitably terrified of the Corbyn surge, real or imagined, and has inspired me to sign up for door knocking for the Tories in SW London. Never done it before, any tips?!
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Labour's manifesto is better costed than the Conservative one. If you don't like the assumptions, that's fair but the Tories have locked the Chancellor in a cupboard.
Is Spreadsheet Phil still in that Cupboard?
Last time I saw him he was £20 Bn wrong on his HS2 cost answer.
The Tories have dropped their pledge not to raise taxes so they are scared the Chancellor will be asked how much they are going up, and terrified Hammond might answer.
I think what this election needs is an unofficial leak of an A.R.S.E
JohnO is forecasting a Tory majority of 100.
I trust John
What did JohnO forecast in 2015 out of interest.
I think he was on something like Con 315, he was out campaigning like me, and couldn't reconcile what he was getting on the doorstep with the national polls.
DId u feel the same? I mean on the door step did u feel the tories were clearly ahead of labour?
Yup, and that the Lord Ashcroft constituency polls were bollocks.
We'd done a lot of campaigning in Pudsey and he produced a constituency poll with the Tories and Lab tied on 40%.
I felt the Tories were close to a 7-10% lead.
Actual result was
Con 46.4% Lab 37.6%
Was it ever analysed whether the Ashcroft constituency polls were even less accurate than the national polls ?
Well I'm suitably terrified of the Corbyn surge, real or imagined, and has inspired me to sign up for door knocking for the Tories in SW London. Never done it before, any tips?!
Keep an orange rosette in your pocket in case you get into a tight spot in enemy territory. The Lib Dems are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions.
Would you let us know what the FTSE100 index is currently Scott.
As I remember you were very keen to report the share prices 11 months ago.
Sterling’s Brexit-fuelled decline over the past year has been Britain’s “least successful” currency devaluation in history, an analysis of the latest growth figures has revealed.
I have done pretty well out of the Stock market in the last year. I went to a cash/defensives position a few weeks pre vote, bought back in on the dip afterwards, and have risen with the market since. In the last 6 months my Euro denominated stocks and funds have done particularly well. My market equities are 2 orders of magnitude better than my gambling winnings, in Sterling terms. I accept your point that in other currencies the gains are more modest.
I am in a fairly defensive position now, ready for Brexit, but am musing over what else to do to prepare for a May bellyflop.
Most people on twitter don't even think the "taxing the rich" is necessary. They just share articles about Fractional Reserve Banking, which is all they need.
If there was a test on public finances and the wider economy before you were allowed to vote — basic things, nothing trick — it would probably eliminate 90% of the electorate. Hell it would eliminate a majority of MPs.
Well I'm suitably terrified of the Corbyn surge, real or imagined, and has inspired me to sign up for door knocking for the Tories in SW London. Never done it before, any tips?!
Carry a small bag with breath mints, wipes, a bottle of water, and a small metal ruler.
Wear comfortable footwear.
Never put your fingers and thumbs where you can't see them when posting leaflets (that's where the metal ruler comes in handy)
I use a wooden spatula compared to the metal ruler
Comments
If I thought for a moment their plans could work I would consider them, they will fail and cause real long term issues that we are really going to struggle to solve.
Is your man Toby getting a bit panicky ?
Source : Some crackers right wing twitter feed.
Doesn't mean its not true though.
The country seemed to run OK before it became the norm for people aged 21 to be in debt up to their eyebrows.
A line that worked so well for the Tories in 1997.
I think that soft Brexit is a mirage, so wouldn't be acceptable to the EU, but maybe I am wrong.
I trust John
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/fake-news-tories-said-things-10521331
I think that a positive vision is achievable, it's just that Labour's way of getting there is unrealistic - you cannot give everyone a free owl simply by increasing corporation tax, for example.
But voters expect politicians to believe that things can get better, that they can improve. That's why they'll have more time for those who acknowledge that expectation than those who don't.
Last time I saw him he was £20 Bn wrong on his HS2 cost answer.
In any case too many beards would make cabinet meetings confusing. It would be like craft ale night down the Holborn Slug and Lettuce.
How will she do (a. when it looks like Brexit will be a total disaster.
(b. Many JAMs that I know have been negatively affected by cuts and even so she's a part of a government which promised the deficit would be gone by now and isn't.
(c. Both parties are going to increase taxes.
"The thinktank’s deputy director, Carl Emmerson, accused Labour of “pretending that everything can be paid for” under plans to raise taxes on the richest, many of whom will avoid paying higher rates of tax."
They hammer them both.
It is basically just a massive lie and should be called out as such.
Maybe a Hammond like Cupboard
Anyway TMICIPM so he may as well shave.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-31-frigate-order-increased-vessels-assembled-scotland/
as he any info this time?
I have done about 20 canvasses this time compared to a couple in 2015
I think there is a swing to Lab in Chesterfield a swing away from Lab in NE Derbyshire and TCTC in Derby North.
I think TMICIPM and the final % will be circa 9% Tory lead
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-glum-bucket-quentin-letts-daily-mail_uk_592c3cc9e4b053f2d2ad6d27?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004
My tiny anecdote is that I've seen zero party posters in people's window.
Which is certainly a shift away from Labour.
Lots of St George's flags on tower blocks and in the pit villages though - you'd almost think there was an England game on.
Survation:
CON 43% (nc)
LAB 37% (+3)
LD 8% (nc)
UKIP 4% (nc)
Dunno where the +3 is coming from, got no SNP, PC or Green figures.
We'd done a lot of campaigning in Pudsey and he produced a constituency poll with the Tories and Lab tied on 40%.
I felt the Tories were close to a 7-10% lead.
Actual result was
Con 46.4% Lab 37.6%
If Survation is following normal pattern then fieldwork will have been Fri 26 + Sat 27 - so scope for Bank Holiday effect.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/6dyykc/gmbsurvation_poll_con_43_lab_37_3_ldem_8_ukip_4/
American Gods is indeed a bit mental, but rather brilliant if you can get past the first episode.
Ian McShane is an acting god. In every sense.
(edit) Perhaps not one to watch with granny, though.
Sterling’s Brexit-fuelled decline over the past year has been Britain’s “least successful” currency devaluation in history, an analysis of the latest growth figures has revealed.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pounds-fall-the-worst-devaluation-in-history-czkfwhznc
@GuidoFawkes: Young Marxist Owen Jones wrote “I militarily support the IRA against the British State.” 2/3
@GuidoFawkes: A few years after he wrote that he was hired as a research assistant by... John McDonnell MP 3/3
See: Brexit, with those who believed the £350m for the NHS promise as well as believing that we can reduce immigration to the 'tens of thousands' with economic growth totally unaffected.
Wear comfortable footwear.
Never put your fingers and thumbs where you can't see them when posting leaflets (that's where the metal ruler comes in handy)
I am in a fairly defensive position now, ready for Brexit, but am musing over what else to do to prepare for a May bellyflop.
NEW THREAD