On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Listening to the boss of Ryanair who have just made record profits say of Brexit if we don't manage to negotiate another 'Open Sky' policy with the EU from 2019 we will literally not be able to fly to Europe.
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but we've also got the worst deck.
Yep - this stuff tends to be poo-pooed by ardent Leavers, but it all has to be sorted out as part of a deal. If we walk away it won't be. There are so many other areas where this applies. What we need to get - but won't - is what the government believes a bad deal that leads to the UK walking away would actually look like.
It may be my political bias but I think if both leaders were injected with truth serum then May would say pretty much what she's been saying whereas Corbyn would come out with the most hair raising left wing crap
I caight the last two mins of corbyn accidentally whilst channel hopoing , on C4 plus i hr You only had to look at the lying eyes of Corbyn. When pressed about the Queen. He effectively said, I can't do anything about it, we have a democracy, but when I get hold of the levers of power.. there was a nasty smirk.. Odious odious man.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
18-24 turnout may not be that high, but I think it will be much higher than 43% (2015). It may well beat the 64% achieved in the EU referendum. Tuition fees and maintenance grants are a very important issue in many families.
Even the 50%+ who don't go to university?
Not so much for them, but going to university will look more attractive for some people when grants are available and they won't have to be in huge debt when they leave.
Reintroducing grants for fees and maintenance would be a major poke in the eye for the banks but it may be difficult for the Trident group in Labour to scupper.
The relative fraction of poorer students going to uni in England has gone up quicker than in Scotland, where there are no tuition fees.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Listening to the boss of Ryanair who have just made record profits say in relation to Brexit "if we don't manage to negotiate another 'Open Sky' policy with the EU from 2019 we will literally not be able to fly to Europe".
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but we've also got the worst deck.
The boss of Ryanair? Michael O'Leary? Who is Irish? Who has made a fortune by resenting having to carry his passengers?
OK, then.
Well, that proves it. No need to take anything that he says seriously. He's Irish. So, when we walk away from a deal what you are saying is that there will be no affects on air travel. In other words, in this area, the UK will continue to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Is that right?
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Given social media these days, you can sort of see why...
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Listening to the boss of Ryanair who have just made record profits say of Brexit if we don't manage to negotiate another 'Open Sky' policy with the EU from 2019 we will literally not be able to fly to Europe.
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but we've also got the worst deck.
The problem with both positions, a bad hand or complex negotiations, I don't have great confidence in May, but I have no confidence at all in Corbyn.
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Given social media these days, you can sort of see why...
Yup. If you went by social media posts labour would win every election.
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Given social media these days, you can sort of see why...
Yup. If you went by social media posts labour would win every election.
I'm reminded of Cameron's wise words on the subject of Twitter and Britain.
It may be my political bias but I think if both leaders were injected with truth serum then May would say pretty much what she's been saying whereas Corbyn would come out with the most hair raising left wing crap
Theresa May with truth serum might tell us what taxes she plans to increase, and by how much, as well as what she has in mind for Brexit that she claimed she needed this election to get a mandate for.
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Given social media these days, you can sort of see why...
Yup. If you went by social media posts labour would win every election.
I'm reminded of Cameron's wise words on the subject of Twitter and Britain.
The mention of Cameron and the suggestion of ‘his wisdom in the same sentence must rate as highly unusual!
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
18-24 turnout may not be that high, but I think it will be much higher than 43% (2015). It may well beat the 64% achieved in the EU referendum. Tuition fees and maintenance grants are a very important issue in many families.
Even the 50%+ who don't go to university?
Not so much for them, but going to university will look more attractive for some people when grants are available and they won't have to be in huge debt when they leave.
Reintroducing grants for fees and maintenance would be a major poke in the eye for the banks but it may be difficult for the Trident group in Labour to scupper.
The current university loan system is effect one where the student signs up to a graduate tax. The government "loan" has zero implications on personal debt as considered by commercial lenders for housing etc.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Listening to the boss of Ryanair who have just made record profits say of Brexit if we don't manage to negotiate another 'Open Sky' policy with the EU from 2019 we will literally not be able to fly to Europe.
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but we've also got the worst deck.
The problem with both positions, a bad hand or complex negotiations, I don't have great confidence in May, but I have no confidence at all in Corbyn.
Keir Starmer will do the negotiations. PM Corbyn will concentrate on domestic policy.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Listening to the boss of Ryanair who have just made record profits say of Brexit if we don't manage to negotiate another 'Open Sky' policy with the EU from 2019 we will literally not be able to fly to Europe.
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but we've also got the worst deck.
The problem with both positions, a bad hand or complex negotiations, I don't have great confidence in May, but I have no confidence at all in Corbyn.
Keir Starmer will do the negotiations. PM Corbyn will concentrate on domestic policy.
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Given social media these days, you can sort of see why...
Yup. If you went by social media posts labour would win every election.
I'm reminded of Cameron's wise words on the subject of Twitter and Britain.
And yet it is the blue team which places its faith in social media -- though perhaps Facebook and Youtube more than Twitter. Did you somehow miss the pb Tories creaming themselves over the number of shares of the Tories' anti-Corbyn attack videos?
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
May leads Corbyn 41-39 as best PM in the 25-34 age group which is interesting.
Looks like the under 34 years and the elderly are fading away from the SNP. Sell SNP seats?
The 18-34 Scottish subsample must be minute!
You can only go with the data you are provided
Nevertheless the margin of error for one party in one (ok two) age groups in 10% of the country ought to demand some sort of health warning along the lines of "this data is probably meaningless..."?
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Given social media these days, you can sort of see why...
Yup. If you went by social media posts labour would win every election.
I'm reminded of Cameron's wise words on the subject of Twitter and Britain.
And yet it is the blue team which places its faith in social media -- though perhaps Facebook and Youtube more than Twitter. Did you somehow miss the pb Tories creaming themselves over the number of shares of the Tories' anti-Corbyn attack videos?
Yeah, Facebook is probably more representative than twitter.
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Given social media these days, you can sort of see why...
Yup. If you went by social media posts labour would win every election.
I'm reminded of Cameron's wise words on the subject of Twitter and Britain.
And yet it is the blue team which places its faith in social media -- though perhaps Facebook and Youtube more than Twitter. Did you somehow miss the pb Tories creaming themselves over the number of shares of the Tories' anti-Corbyn attack videos?
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
The idea that turnout amongst that age group will somehow double is ridiculous, especially since they were the only age cohort to see turnout drop between 2015 and the referendum.
But a crucial point here is that there is a limit on the 18-24 numbers due to registration, as you can see by the 12 point gap between % of all in the age group and % of electorate.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
Nope. A major lesson of this campaign is that a left wing message could resonate, but it has to be delivered by someone who does not come with the baggage that Corbyn brings.
I don't know. Is there perhaps something in the idea that people are voting for Labour because they fell safe that it won't win (see the repeated postings of a couple of people on here). To move from that to a Left (not centre left) platform with a better face would win has something of the one more heave argument beloved by Benn, Heffer et al.
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Given social media these days, you can sort of see why...
I don't think social media has anything to do it!
Anyhow they will tell you, if you ask nicely. Generally done by finding a way of indicating that you might put them down as possible Labour...
Conservatives now again switched by the bookies to showing as favourites to gain Perth and North Perthshire from Pete Wishart, the SNP MP since 2001.
Are the Tories really going to overturn the 10K SNP majority in the teeth of the SNP manifesto having been switched to Perth (after Manchester) followed by a mass canvas by the many members attending the launch?
I don't think Wishart is going to lose all of his majority no matter what may happen elsewhere..
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Given social media these days, you can sort of see why...
Yup. If you went by social media posts labour would win every election.
I'm reminded of Cameron's wise words on the subject of Twitter and Britain.
And yet it is the blue team which places its faith in social media -- though perhaps Facebook and Youtube more than Twitter. Did you somehow miss the pb Tories creaming themselves over the number of shares of the Tories' anti-Corbyn attack videos?
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Listening to the boss of Ryanair who have just made record profits say of Brexit if we don't manage to negotiate another 'Open Sky' policy with the EU from 2019 we will literally not be able to fly to Europe.
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but we've also got the worst deck.
The problem with both positions, a bad hand or complex negotiations, I don't have great confidence in May, but I have no confidence at all in Corbyn.
Keir Starmer will do the negotiations. PM Corbyn will concentrate on domestic policy.
Foxy,have you changed to labour because everything you post is pro labour,nothing now in lib dems interest ?
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
Nope. A major lesson of this campaign is that a left wing message could resonate, but it has to be delivered by someone who does not come with the baggage that Corbyn brings.
I don't know. Is there perhaps something in the idea that people are voting for Labour because they fell safe that it won't win (see the repeated postings of a couple of people on here). To move from that to a Left (not centre left) platform with a better face would win has something of the one more heave argument beloved by Benn, Heffer et al.
I think it is more fundamental than that. In every electoral contest during these troubled times there is a 'break the system' candidate, and Corbyn has now assumed that mantle. Such messages always attract the young and repel the elderly, which is exactly what we see.
A third of the French were prepared to vote for Le Pen on the same basis, despite her baggage being heavier than Corbyn's (but with the compensating advantage of a base political constituency of more appeal to older voters).
When people are in a mood for radical change, there is space for a leading radical candidate. It didn't work in 1983 because the mood was different (i.e. the government was already imposing quite enough radical change already and the reaction was to the contrary).
Labour's gamble in sticking left is that the mood will be the same in 2022.
Mr. Pulpstar, indeed. But if we are seeing shy Conservatives in the polls (or not seeing them, to be more exact) that'd lead to a very high polling figure on the day.
May leads Corbyn 41-39 as best PM in the 25-34 age group which is interesting.
Looks like the under 34 years and the elderly are fading away from the SNP. Sell SNP seats?
The 18-34 Scottish subsample must be minute!
2 people!
Interestingly they found 16 people voting SNP but only 15 gave their age.
Whilst PBers will have stocked up well with popcorn for 8/9th June I feel it my duty to advice the site to also be well provisioned with rotten tomatoes for some pollsters ....
Mr. Pulpstar, indeed. But if we are seeing shy Conservatives in the polls (or not seeing them, to be more exact) that'd lead to a very high polling figure on the day.
May leads Corbyn 41-39 as best PM in the 25-34 age group which is interesting.
Looks like the under 34 years and the elderly are fading away from the SNP. Sell SNP seats?
The 18-34 Scottish subsample must be minute!
2 people!
Interestingly they found 16 people voting SNP but only 15 gave their age.
Whilst PBers will have stocked up well with popcorn for 8/9th June I feel it my duty to advice the site to also be well provisioned with rotten tomatoes for some pollsters ....
Good morning election run in buddies. Due to my firm belief not to intrude on the private grief of politicians facing the public I used PB to gauge last night, and have since seen a handful of clips. Seems pretty obvious the remainder of the campaign will be the Tories trying to run in on leadership and Brexit, mop up the last vestiges of waverers. Especially expect to hear about Corbyn being prepared to sign ANY deal, however bad for Britain. He did well of course, he managed to avoid opening fire whilst draped in an Irish Tricolour and didn't threaten to nut the Queen. Falklands will haunt him though. Survation turnout = lol. I bet half the certain to vote kids aren't even registered. They'll turn up and be all huffy and on the news on June 8. And the crusties won't be as high either. The lure of countdown and tincture will keep 20 odd% of them in the armchair. On a more serious (hilarious) note, I fully expect the Lib Dems to be annihilated. There's a chance they will be equal in seats with the Greens IMHO. One of my partners friends has come out as a sandalista and she's wrong about everything that ever happened or will happen.
The biggest source of error in the poll is one we haven't yet spotted. The description on page two says that the sample is weighted first by demography and second by stated intention to vote. So far so good (except with the potential bias noted downthread). It then says that anyone who said they were undecided, or refused to say, is eliminated from the sample used to produce the final VI.
If you look at the detailed data, it is striking that significantly fewer of the 18-24 cohort say they were undecided, or refused to say, than the older age groups. The young are all fired up for Corbyn and willing to say (which in my mind does suggest that their turnout may surprise on the upside).
But the effect of eliminating the DKs and WSs without any further balancing is to reduce the proportions of middle aged people remaining in the sample below that of the youngsters. Yet some of these respondents will vote, as they always do, and I don't believe that the relative uncertainty as to VI amongst the middle aged cohorts will translate into lower turnout? With VI so differentiated by age, the age balance of the final sample is the single key factor in polling correctly.
Very good spot. We have seen on here that a bunch of folk are still not sure how best to express their dislike of Corbyn - stick with Labour but holding their nose, vote Tory to keep Corbyn out but they are really LibDems, vote LibDem to keep out Corbyn but they are really Labour, go Tory for the first time even though they have previously always voted Labour.....
When those Don't Knows finally resolve their conscience and decide how to vote, I don't see it being anything but bad news for Labour on 8th June.
The undecideds are just as likely to be those repelled by May as Corbyn.
They also tend to be younger women (men seem more decisive in polls), a demographic more likely to break for Labour.
Are there any stats on this, or is it all just guesswork at this point? Would have thought undecideds were more likely to stick with the status quo.
I don't agree with Mark that they are necessarily less likely to vote for Corbyn - but the point is that they will break with the rest of their age group. Eliminating them from the sample is downweighting their demographic in the final VI.
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Probably right. If you follow up with a jocular "but if I peered over your shoulder, would I like what I see?" they quite often give you a wink or a nod!
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
What austerity is that ?
During the last decade governments have borrowed and spent over a trillion quid and Britain has had deficits in both trade and tourism every single month.
It would be refreshing if the people who want more government spending on W and on X and on Y and on Z would, just once, suggest how to create some more wealth to pay for it.
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Given social media these days, you can sort of see why...
Yup. If you went by social media posts labour would win every election.
I'm reminded of Cameron's wise words on the subject of Twitter and Britain.
And yet it is the blue team which places its faith in social media -- though perhaps Facebook and Youtube more than Twitter. Did you somehow miss the pb Tories creaming themselves over the number of shares of the Tories' anti-Corbyn attack videos?
Accelerating. The last million took 24 hours (to 4 pm yday) should hit 4 m by lunchtime. Dunno what this means, really, but where would we be if we banned iffy and incomprehensible statistics from the site?
May leads Corbyn 41-39 as best PM in the 25-34 age group which is interesting.
Looks like the under 34 years and the elderly are fading away from the SNP. Sell SNP seats?
The 18-34 Scottish subsample must be minute!
2 people!
Interestingly they found 16 people voting SNP but only 15 gave their age.
Whilst PBers will have stocked up well with popcorn for 8/9th June I feel it my duty to advice the site to also be well provisioned with rotten tomatoes for some pollsters ....
Barring a last second polling surge by the SNP I am predicting a very unhappy night for ten. It looks like the differential turn out that was key at Holyrood and the council elections is going to carry through to Westminster. Con voters are far more likely to vote and the SNP is leaking votes back to Labour whilst Con holds steady.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
What austerity is that ?
During the last decade governments have borrowed and spent over a trillion quid and Britain has had deficits in both trade and tourism every single month.
It would be refreshing if the people who want more government spending on W and on X and on Y and on Z would, just once, suggest how to create some more wealth to pay for it.
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
No deal means just that. We would walk away from all agreements in which the ECJ currently has jurisdiction with nothing to replace the current arrangements.
May leads Corbyn 41-39 as best PM in the 25-34 age group which is interesting.
Looks like the under 34 years and the elderly are fading away from the SNP. Sell SNP seats?
The 18-34 Scottish subsample must be minute!
2 people!
Interestingly they found 16 people voting SNP but only 15 gave their age.
Whilst PBers will have stocked up well with popcorn for 8/9th June I feel it my duty to advice the site to also be well provisioned with rotten tomatoes for some pollsters ....
Blink once for ICM, twice for YouGov.
You(gov) turn if you want too I(CM) am not for turning.
May leads Corbyn 41-39 as best PM in the 25-34 age group which is interesting.
Looks like the under 34 years and the elderly are fading away from the SNP. Sell SNP seats?
The 18-34 Scottish subsample must be minute!
2 people!
Interestingly they found 16 people voting SNP but only 15 gave their age.
Whilst PBers will have stocked up well with popcorn for 8/9th June I feel it my duty to advice the site to also be well provisioned with rotten tomatoes for some pollsters ....
Blink once for ICM, twice for YouGov.
You(gov) turn if you want too I(CM) am not for turning.
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
It would mean WTO terms, wouldn't it? Or, to quote the PM herself, 'the consequences would be dire.'
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
Nope. A major lesson of this campaign is that a left wing message could resonate, but it has to be delivered by someone who does not come with the baggage that Corbyn brings.
I hope for your sake that McDonnell doesn't win any future leadership election.
As a mate put it in a txt yesterday, Corbyn isn't the worst Labour could offer. Only the third worst behind Abott and McDonnell...
I suppose a similar construction could be applied to the Tories and Tessy, Andrea & Boris.
May leads Corbyn 41-39 as best PM in the 25-34 age group which is interesting.
Looks like the under 34 years and the elderly are fading away from the SNP. Sell SNP seats?
The 18-34 Scottish subsample must be minute!
2 people!
Interestingly they found 16 people voting SNP but only 15 gave their age.
Whilst PBers will have stocked up well with popcorn for 8/9th June I feel it my duty to advice the site to also be well provisioned with rotten tomatoes for some pollsters ....
Barring a last second polling surge by the SNP I am predicting a very unhappy night for ten. It looks like the differential turn out that was key at Holyrood and the council elections is going to carry through to Westminster. Con voters are far more likely to vote and the SNP is leaking votes back to Labour whilst Con holds steady.
My Conservative Wobble Bottom Index presently indicates 42-48 SNP seats.
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
No deal means just that. We would walk away from all agreements in which the ECJ currently has jurisdiction with nothing to replace the current arrangements.
I'm sure that some people think 'No Deal' means that we remain in the EU. They are in for a shock.
It would however be more sensible to take stamp duty - which affects only people who move - and turn it into some sort of annual tax linked to land or property. On average people move every seven years, yet stamp duty falls only on those who move, and so discourages moving to a new job, downsizing (or upsizing for a new family), all things we shouldn't be discouraging.
Doesn't change the fact that any annual tax you put on property owners will land on the back of tenants not property owners. By definition the have nots of our society.
I have had to rent for the last 13 years as can no longer get a mortgage and I can assure you from my experience and that of my friends that an increase in the landlords costs get passed straight down
Having been a tenant I agree with you that in the immediate it does often seem like that. But ultimately the price of renting a property depends on supply and demand. Taxation doesn't change either of these directly. There might be an indirect effect if landlords exited the market discouraged by extra costs, but in the current economic environment I wouldn't expect that to be significant.
The immediate effect is likely to be a small reduction in the value of the property, reflecting the transfer of the tax burden to the current owner from the future buyer.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
What austerity is that ?
During the last decade governments have borrowed and spent over a trillion quid and Britain has had deficits in both trade and tourism every single month.
It would be refreshing if the people who want more government spending on W and on X and on Y and on Z would, just once, suggest how to create some more wealth to pay for it.
The austerity that means most councils up north will be reduced to legally required bare basics and social care within the next 2 years...
I'm just an ordinary morris dancing F1 tipster and part-time geneticist who lives in the lab under his castle and is in the process of constructing a space cannon.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Oh sure, there are elements of fantasy on both sides and that is a good example. But she is burdened down with the responsibilities of office and Corbyn is not. Most of the perceptions of who is having a good campaign and who is not come down to that.
The key point for this election being she didn't claim them as she was a remainer. She's clean of leave tactics and can position herself as regretfully but diligently implementing the will of the people.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Oh sure, there are elements of fantasy on both sides and that is a good example. But she is burdened down with the responsibilities of office and Corbyn is not. Most of the perceptions of who is having a good campaign and who is not come down to that.
The likely coincidence of the next economic downturn with Brexit is going to be hugely significant. People tend to judge by absolute not relative circumstance, so if we are in economic difficulty the government will have a hard time even if Brexit hasn't contributed. If the shock of Brexit makes things worse (as is exceedingly likely, at least in the short term) things could get very torrid indeed.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
What austerity is that ?
During the last decade governments have borrowed and spent over a trillion quid and Britain has had deficits in both trade and tourism every single month.
It would be refreshing if the people who want more government spending on W and on X and on Y and on Z would, just once, suggest how to create some more wealth to pay for it.
I find it depressing that it is so commonly accepted that austerity is some sort of lifestyle choice rather than an economic necessity.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
What austerity is that ?
During the last decade governments have borrowed and spent over a trillion quid and Britain has had deficits in both trade and tourism every single month.
It would be refreshing if the people who want more government spending on W and on X and on Y and on Z would, just once, suggest how to create some more wealth to pay for it.
Reverse Brexit.
If you hadn't noticed we're already in the EU while running these deficits.
Stay in the EU and the bill will go exponential.
You'd need to turn straw into gold to afford that.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Listening to the boss of Ryanair who have just made record profits say of Brexit if we don't manage to negotiate another 'Open Sky' policy with the EU from 2019 we will literally not be able to fly to Europe.
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but we've also got the worst deck.
The problem with both positions, a bad hand or complex negotiations, I don't have great confidence in May, but I have no confidence at all in Corbyn.
Keir Starmer will do the negotiations. PM Corbyn will concentrate on domestic policy.
Thinking about where to put ones X Corbyn for all his newly revealed personal qualities has the worst team behind him that I can remember. No sensible leader would choose Diane Abbott to sell Labour during a general election campaign. What's more some of his spending ideas sound whacko.
Theresa May seems superficially pleasant but she's the hardest of all hard Brexiteers which as someone upthread has suggested is going to be the most defining issue of the next five years.
Farron can only win in a few carefully chosen seats so to all intents and purposes can be ignored.
So it's definitely a case of the best of a bad job. But because the election is for five years and Brexit is forever It has to be Corbyn. There's just too much at stake to allow Boris Fox and Davis to wreck the country just to avoid the short term eccentricities of Corbyn.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side th.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Listening to the boss of Ryanair who have just made record profits say of Brexit if we don't manage to negotiate another 'Open Sky' policy with the EU from 2019 we will literally not be able to fly to Europe.
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but we've also got the worst deck.
The problem with both positions, a bad hand or complex negotiations, I don't have great confidence in May, but I have no confidence at all in Corbyn.
Keir Starmer will do the negotiations. PM Corbyn will concentrate on domestic policy.
Thinking about where to put ones X Corbyn for all his newly revealed personal qualities has the worst team behind him that I can remember. No sensible leader would choose Diane Abbott to sell Labour during a general election campaign. What's more some of his spending ideas sound whacko.
Theresa May seems superficially pleasant but she's the hardest of all hard Brexiteers which as someone upthread has suggested is going to be the most defining issue of the next five years.
Farron can only win in a few carefully chosen seats so to all intents and purposes can be ignored.
So it's definitely a case of the best of a bad job. But because the election is for five years and Brexit is forever It has to be Corbyn. There's just too much at stake to allow Boris Fox and Davis to wreck the country just to avoid the short term eccentricities of Corbyn.
The one big problem with that Roger is that Corbyn's plans will take a huge amount of time and effort to implement and his eye will be off the Brexit ball. It's a huge huge risk. The blue version is the safer and probably saves labour. Government 17-22 will destroy them forever.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
What austerity is that ?
During the last decade governments have borrowed and spent over a trillion quid and Britain has had deficits in both trade and tourism every single month.
It would be refreshing if the people who want more government spending on W and on X and on Y and on Z would, just once, suggest how to create some more wealth to pay for it.
I find it depressing that it is so commonly accepted that austerity is some sort of lifestyle choice rather than an economic necessity.
Austerity is not an economic necessity and may well make things worse, as for instance when Osborne's Plan A choked off the economic recovery he inherited from Labour (insert Ed Balls' flatlining hand gesture here).
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
What austerity is that ?
During the last decade governments have borrowed and spent over a trillion quid and Britain has had deficits in both trade and tourism every single month.
It would be refreshing if the people who want more government spending on W and on X and on Y and on Z would, just once, suggest how to create some more wealth to pay for it.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
What austerity is that ?
During the last decade governments have borrowed and spent over a trillion quid and Britain has had deficits in both trade and tourism every single month.
It would be refreshing if the people who want more government spending on W and on X and on Y and on Z would, just once, suggest how to create some more wealth to pay for it.
You have the answer.. if by some mysterious force Britain suddenly switched enough consumption away from imports/foreign travel in favour of the domestic alternatives to flatten the current account the budget deficit would be wiped out instantly, even on quite a conservative estimate of the multiplier.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT
she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Listening to the boss of Ryanair who have just made record profits say of Brexit if we don't manage to negotiate another 'Open Sky' policy with the EU from 2019 we will literally not be able to fly to Europe.
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but we've also got the worst deck.
The problem with both positions, a bad hand or complex negotiations, I don't have great confidence in May, but I have no confidence at all in Corbyn.
Keir Starmer will do the negotiations. PM Corbyn will concentrate on domestic policy.
Thinking about where to put ones X Corbyn for all his newly revealed personal qualities has the worst team behind him that I can remember. No sensible leader would choose Diane Abbott to sell Labour during a general election campaign. What's more some of his spending ideas sound whacko.
Theresa May seems superficially pleasant but she's the hardest of all hard Brexiteers which as someone upthread has suggested is going to be the most defining issue of the next five years.
Farron can only win in a few carefully chosen seats so to all intents and purposes can be ignored.
So it's definitely a case of the best of a bad job. But because the election is for five years and Brexit is forever It has to be Corbyn. There's just too much at stake to allow Boris Fox and Davis to wreck the country just to avoid the short term eccentricities of Corbyn.
An interesting way of describing Corbyn's position
Conservatives now again switched by the bookies to showing as favourites to gain Perth and North Perthshire from Pete Wishart, the SNP MP since 2001.
Are the Tories really going to overturn the 10K SNP majority in the teeth of the SNP manifesto having been switched to Perth (after Manchester) followed by a mass canvas by the many members attending the launch?
I don't think Wishart is going to lose all of his majority no matter what may happen elsewhere..
It is a big seat with a rural element I doubt the SNP launch there will make much difference but on local election results and current polls it will be a Tory gain
Keir Starmer will do the negotiations. PM Corbyn will concentrate on domestic policy.
I fear one of PBers most eminent medical men is in need of the finest treatment the NHS may provide. Is there a brain surgeon in the house?
Starmer & ? (Emily?) as against Davis/Boris/Fox isn't that uneven a match.
Clearly having Fox involved is like securing a ball and chain to your best relay swimmer. Unfortunately for Labour they can't find the pool, have lost all their speedos and half the team drowned after Diane Abbott advised on a Dover training session that the English Channel was only 200 metres wide.
Thinking about where to put ones X Corbyn for all his newly revealed personal qualities has the worst team behind him that I can remember. No sensible leader would choose Diane Abbott to sell Labour during a general election campaign. What's more some of his spending ideas sound whacko.
Theresa May seems superficially pleasant but she's the hardest of all hard Brexiteers which as someone upthread has suggested is going to be the most defining issue of the next five years.
Farron can only win in a few carefully chosen seats so to all intents and purposes can be ignored.
So it's definitely a case of the best of a bad job. But because the election is for five years and Brexit is forever It has to be Corbyn. There's just too much at stake to allow Boris Fox and Davis to wreck the country just to avoid the short term eccentricities of Corbyn.
You had me there... right up to the last sentence. "Eccentricities"? "Short term"? Seriously?
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
Nor would free movement and paying 100 billion euros to the EU if that is the price of any deal
Keir Starmer will do the negotiations. PM Corbyn will concentrate on domestic policy.
I fear one of PBers most eminent medical men is in need of the finest treatment the NHS may provide. Is there a brain surgeon in the house?
Fear not for my marbles, they are intact. I am predicting a 76 seat Tory majority.
The gains required for even a Labour minority government are totally implausible. This election has always been about the size of a Tory majority, not its existence.
Personally I would favour NOC, but I cannot see that as likely.
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
It would mean WTO terms, wouldn't it? Or, to quote the PM herself, 'the consequences would be dire.'
It would mean WTO terms on trade. It would mean paralysis and chaos on anything else where the ECJ currently has ultimate jurisdiction.
When you think of what No Deal would mean in practice, the only Bad Deal a sane government could walk away from would include some kind of military occupation by the EU.
Just a point about IRA/Hamas/Falklands etc. It's not about convincing the nation or the youth, it's about convincing 100-200,000 WWC voters in the Midlands and North that he's unpatriotic and dangerous. It might well work as it's now becoming a daily drip drip drip like social care was for a while the other way.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
What austerity is that ?
During the last decade governments have borrowed and spent over a trillion quid and Britain has had deficits in both trade and tourism every single month.
It would be refreshing if the people who want more government spending on W and on X and on Y and on Z would, just once, suggest how to create some more wealth to pay for it.
I find it depressing that it is so commonly accepted that austerity is some sort of lifestyle choice rather than an economic necessity.
At some time the financial mentality of this country changed from spending what we have and earn to spending what we think we deserve.
Even the old leftists of the 1970s and 1980s wanted to redistribute wealth to fund spending but now the widespread feeling is that we are entitled to spend money without worrying where it is coming from.
Conservatives now again switched by the bookies to showing as favourites to gain Perth and North Perthshire from Pete Wishart, the SNP MP since 2001.
Are the Tories really going to overturn the 10K SNP majority in the teeth of the SNP manifesto having been switched to Perth (after Manchester) followed by a mass canvas by the many members attending the launch?
I don't think Wishart is going to lose all of his majority no matter what may happen elsewhere..
Banff & Buchan will see the biggest Tory swing I think.
Conservatives now again switched by the bookies to showing as favourites to gain Perth and North Perthshire from Pete Wishart, the SNP MP since 2001.
Are the Tories really going to overturn the 10K SNP majority in the teeth of the SNP manifesto having been switched to Perth (after Manchester) followed by a mass canvas by the many members attending the launch?
I don't think Wishart is going to lose all of his majority no matter what may happen elsewhere..
Banff & Buchan will see the biggest Tory swing I think.
I think 2010 vote shares will be instructive here as to where they might gain. Argyll and Bute looks an option, as does NE Fife if the Libs collapse further.
Conservatives now again switched by the bookies to showing as favourites to gain Perth and North Perthshire from Pete Wishart, the SNP MP since 2001.
Are the Tories really going to overturn the 10K SNP majority in the teeth of the SNP manifesto having been switched to Perth (after Manchester) followed by a mass canvas by the many members attending the launch?
I don't think Wishart is going to lose all of his majority no matter what may happen elsewhere..
Banff & Buchan will see the biggest Tory swing I think.
I think 2010 vote shares will be instructive here as to where they might gain. Argyll and Bute looks an option, as does NE Fife if the Libs collapse further.
NE Fife will be one of the few Lib Dem successes of the evening.
Sniffing the air this morning I get the impression the Tory party would bank a 70 seat majority if you offered it but Team May still believes it will exceed 400 seats
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
Nor would free movement and paying 100 billion euros to the EU if that is the price of any deal
Euros 100 billion is small change compared to the damage a "no deal" Brexit would cause. The reality, of course, is that no deal is a deal: the worst possible one that could be achieved,
Conservatives now again switched by the bookies to showing as favourites to gain Perth and North Perthshire from Pete Wishart, the SNP MP since 2001.
Are the Tories really going to overturn the 10K SNP majority in the teeth of the SNP manifesto having been switched to Perth (after Manchester) followed by a mass canvas by the many members attending the launch?
I don't think Wishart is going to lose all of his majority no matter what may happen elsewhere..
Banff & Buchan will see the biggest Tory swing I think.
I think 2010 vote shares will be instructive here as to where they might gain. Argyll and Bute looks an option, as does NE Fife if the Libs collapse further.
NE Fife will be one of the few Lib Dem successes of the evening.
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
It would mean the absence of any regime to govern our international affairs because these are currently regulated by our membership of the EU. Both internally within the EU and externally through the many bilateral arrangements the EU has with third parties. That our aircraft wouldn't be certified or insured outside our shores without an equivalent arrangement should mean obviously that both sides will of course put such an arrangement in place. But it does require agreement. We just cannot walk away. There are thousands of such issues to be resolved by March 2019. Our government should be totally focused on that. They are not in the slightest
Just a point about IRA/Hamas/Falklands etc. It's not about convincing the nation or the youth, it's about convincing 100-200,000 WWC voters in the Midlands and North that he's unpatriotic and dangerous. It might well work as it's now becoming a daily drip drip drip like social care was for a while the other way.
I live in a marginal and I have had targeted facebook messages - it seems a simple way to get the message out where needed. For labour I see some extremely motivated people on facebooked and with signs at houses etc but quite how effective this will be is yet to be seen. A number of those Corbyn advocates have posted stuff on how the Tories masterminded the terrorist attack because of their manifesto launch, which always begs the quest lol to me, wouldn't it have been easier to get the manifesto right.
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
It would mean WTO terms, wouldn't it? Or, to quote the PM herself, 'the consequences would be dire.'
It would mean WTO terms on trade. It would mean paralysis and chaos on anything else where the ECJ currently has ultimate jurisdiction.
When you think of what No Deal would mean in practice, the only Bad Deal a sane government could walk away from would include some kind of military occupation by the EU.
There will almost certainly be a deal. But if you walk into a car showroom announcing that you're definitely going to buy a car you're hardly going to get the salesman bending over backwards to make you a good offer. The PMs job is to do the best for the country. I'm not particularly impressed with TM right now but her line on no deal better than a bad deal is exactly the position to take at this point IMO. Especially as she is trying (sort of) to win an election.
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
Nor would free movement and paying 100 billion euros to the EU if that is the price of any deal
Euros 100 billion is small change compared to the damage a "no deal" Brexit would cause. The reality, of course, is that no deal is a deal: the worst possible one that could be achieved,
So lets say you pay the 100 billion.
Then a year later the EU demands another 100 billion - do you pay that ?
And if you do what happens if a year after that the EU demands yet another 100 billion ?
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
It would mean the absence of any regime to govern our international affairs because these are currently regulated by our membership of the EU. Both internally within the EU and externally through the many bilateral arrangements the EU has with third parties. That our aircraft wouldn't be certified or insured outside our shores without an equivalent arrangement should mean obviously that both sides will of course put such an arrangement in place. But it does require agreement. We just cannot walk away. There are thousands of such issues to be resolved by March 2019. Our government should be totally focused on that. They are not in the slightest
Yep - it is absolutely terrifying.
In my little world, without any agreement, UK owners of EU granted trademark and design rights will lose them across Europe (even in the UK) if we walk out without an agreement. Needless to say, that would be a very big deal indeed.
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
Nor would free movement and paying 100 billion euros to the EU if that is the price of any deal
Euros 100 billion is small change compared to the damage a "no deal" Brexit would cause. The reality, of course, is that no deal is a deal: the worst possible one that could be achieved,
Whilst I don't understand the implications of no deal, I voted remain due to the uncertainty of that, surely you can envision a situation where no deal is better than something. When we say no deal we do mean trading as per WTO tariffs, so there is a degree of certainty to that part.
I listened to mishal Hussain on today this morning and she was under the misapprehension that common intelligence sharing in Europe had to have something better for EU countries. She was advised by the security expert that it wouldn't make a difference, and that countries outside EU participate. You would think senior BBC journalists would be better briefed.
OT, but Thanet South decision is due either today, tomorrow, or Thursday, given that the one-year extension was granted June 1 2016.
Bad timing for the Tories. Only a few points ahead means people will care more, and wither there's a charge, bad, or People can talk about the system being rigged, bad.
No deal is better than a bad deal is like saying no government is better than a bad government. It's arrant nonsense but nonsense that seems to get the approval of the public. She has an election to win, so she will say anything to get elected, just as her opponents do. We should hope she will ignore it when she is safely re-elected. I am worried though.
What would 'no deal’ mean? As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell. O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return. Neither wold be popular!
It would mean WTO terms, wouldn't it? Or, to quote the PM herself, 'the consequences would be dire.'
It would mean WTO terms on trade. It would mean paralysis and chaos on anything else where the ECJ currently has ultimate jurisdiction.
When you think of what No Deal would mean in practice, the only Bad Deal a sane government could walk away from would include some kind of military occupation by the EU.
There will almost certainly be a deal. But if you walk into a car showroom announcing that you're definitely going to buy a car you're hardly going to get the salesman bending over backwards to make you a good offer. The PMs job is to do the best for the country. I'm not particularly impressed with TM right now but her line on no deal better than a bad deal is exactly the position to take at this point IMO. Especially as she is trying (sort of) to win an election.
It is only plausible if there is a credible plan to walk away. There is no evidence that anyone in the government has done that. Indeed DD specifically said that they hadn't.
It is like telling the only car salesman in town that you are going to walk away in a thunderstorm, while simultaneously chucking away your umbrella, pouring a coffee, and sitting in their demonstator. A completely incoherent position.
Comments
You only had to look at the lying eyes of Corbyn. When pressed about the Queen. He effectively said, I can't do anything about it, we have a democracy, but when I get hold of the levers of power.. there was a nasty smirk.. Odious odious man.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/27/poor-scots-squeezed-out-of-university-by-snp-cap-on-places/
May leads Corbyn 41-39 as best PM in the 25-34 age group which is interesting.
Looks like the under 34 years and the elderly are fading away from the SNP. Sell SNP seats?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-40090143
As I understand it it would mean, in the short-term anyway, tariffs on much, if not all of that whuch buy we buy and, more importnatly, on all of that which we sell.
O a more mundane level it would also mean that airline passengers in the ‘BA situation’ would not be entitled to compensation, and that roaming charges in the EU would return.
Neither wold be popular!
Approaching 3.8million, btw
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/869448471820083202
https://order-order.com/2017/05/27/corbyn-ira-attack-ad-hits-1-million-views/
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/869132045523595265
But a crucial point here is that there is a limit on the 18-24 numbers due to registration, as you can see by the 12 point gap between % of all in the age group and % of electorate.
Anyhow they will tell you, if you ask nicely. Generally done by finding a way of indicating that you might put them down as possible Labour...
Interestingly they found 16 people voting SNP but only 15 gave their age.
Are the Tories really going to overturn the 10K SNP majority in the teeth of the SNP manifesto having been switched to Perth (after Manchester) followed by a mass canvas by the many members attending the launch?
I don't think Wishart is going to lose all of his majority no matter what may happen elsewhere..
It's not a criticism just a observation.
A third of the French were prepared to vote for Le Pen on the same basis, despite her baggage being heavier than Corbyn's (but with the compensating advantage of a base political constituency of more appeal to older voters).
When people are in a mood for radical change, there is space for a leading radical candidate. It didn't work in 1983 because the mood was different (i.e. the government was already imposing quite enough radical change already and the reaction was to the contrary).
Labour's gamble in sticking left is that the mood will be the same in 2022.
Due to my firm belief not to intrude on the private grief of politicians facing the public I used PB to gauge last night, and have since seen a handful of clips. Seems pretty obvious the remainder of the campaign will be the Tories trying to run in on leadership and Brexit, mop up the last vestiges of waverers. Especially expect to hear about Corbyn being prepared to sign ANY deal, however bad for Britain. He did well of course, he managed to avoid opening fire whilst draped in an Irish Tricolour and didn't threaten to nut the Queen. Falklands will haunt him though.
Survation turnout = lol. I bet half the certain to vote kids aren't even registered. They'll turn up and be all huffy and on the news on June 8. And the crusties won't be as high either. The lure of countdown and tincture will keep 20 odd% of them in the armchair.
On a more serious (hilarious) note, I fully expect the Lib Dems to be annihilated. There's a chance they will be equal in seats with the Greens IMHO. One of my partners friends has come out as a sandalista and she's wrong about everything that ever happened or will happen.
During the last decade governments have borrowed and spent over a trillion quid and Britain has had deficits in both trade and tourism every single month.
It would be refreshing if the people who want more government spending on W and on X and on Y and on Z would, just once, suggest how to create some more wealth to pay for it.
Any polls expected today?
The immediate effect is likely to be a small reduction in the value of the property, reflecting the transfer of the tax burden to the current owner from the future buyer.
Sadly the deficit is being spent on benefits...
I'm just an ordinary morris dancing F1 tipster and part-time geneticist who lives in the lab under his castle and is in the process of constructing a space cannon.
Stay in the EU and the bill will go exponential.
You'd need to turn straw into gold to afford that.
Theresa May seems superficially pleasant but she's the hardest of all hard Brexiteers which as someone upthread has suggested is going to be the most defining issue of the next five years.
Farron can only win in a few carefully chosen seats so to all intents and purposes can be ignored.
So it's definitely a case of the best of a bad job. But because the election is for five years and Brexit is forever It has to be Corbyn. There's just too much at stake to allow Boris Fox and Davis to wreck the country just to avoid the short term eccentricities of Corbyn.
Thinking about where to put ones X Corbyn for all his newly revealed personal qualities has the worst team behind him that I can remember. No sensible leader would choose Diane Abbott to sell Labour during a general election campaign. What's more some of his spending ideas sound whacko.
Theresa May seems superficially pleasant but she's the hardest of all hard Brexiteers which as someone upthread has suggested is going to be the most defining issue of the next five years.
Farron can only win in a few carefully chosen seats so to all intents and purposes can be ignored.
So it's definitely a case of the best of a bad job. But because the election is for five years and Brexit is forever It has to be Corbyn. There's just too much at stake to allow Boris Fox and Davis to wreck the country just to avoid the short term eccentricities of Corbyn.
You had me there... right up to the last sentence. "Eccentricities"? "Short term"? Seriously?
The gains required for even a Labour minority government are totally implausible. This election has always been about the size of a Tory majority, not its existence.
Personally I would favour NOC, but I cannot see that as likely.
When you think of what No Deal would mean in practice, the only Bad Deal a sane government could walk away from would include some kind of military occupation by the EU.
Even the old leftists of the 1970s and 1980s wanted to redistribute wealth to fund spending but now the widespread feeling is that we are entitled to spend money without worrying where it is coming from.
Things are not going to end well.
Argyll and Bute looks an option, as does NE Fife if the Libs collapse further.
'Really enjoyed BH Monday, I'm voting for 4 more!'
Then a year later the EU demands another 100 billion - do you pay that ?
And if you do what happens if a year after that the EU demands yet another 100 billion ?
Is there a point at which you say no ?
In my little world, without any agreement, UK owners of EU granted trademark and design rights will lose them across Europe (even in the UK) if we walk out without an agreement. Needless to say, that would be a very big deal indeed.
I listened to mishal Hussain on today this morning and she was under the misapprehension that common intelligence sharing in Europe had to have something better for EU countries. She was advised by the security expert that it wouldn't make a difference, and that countries outside EU participate. You would think senior BBC journalists would be better briefed.
It is like telling the only car salesman in town that you are going to walk away in a thunderstorm, while simultaneously chucking away your umbrella, pouring a coffee, and sitting in their demonstator. A completely incoherent position.