Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
Remarkable how well they're polling then, if you think there's no problem with the Tory alternative.
It is remarkable that perhaps a third of voters, maybe even more, are seriously contemplating voting for what is undoubtedly the most disastrous team ever to present itself for government of the UK since modern democracy began.. All the same, you don't need to invent things about what I said.
Invent? I'm just trying to make sense of it.
Maybe you think 38% or something of the electorate have been hoodwinked into supporting Corbyn by his press coverage or something?
You said that I saw no problem with the Tory alternative. That was your invention.
I think the main reason why Labour are not being totally marmellised as they deserve is that there has been almost zero scrutiny of their policies. The reason for that is very simple, no-one took them seriously. So when Theresa May made a blunder on one policy, it was major news, because people expect the policy actually to be enacted.
Labour is getting plenty of scrutiny. It is just not policy related.
Post Brexit and with Labour promising free higher education and other hard left freebies for all (except those of us in the top 5%), the youths have an incentive to go out and vote this time.
The British people generally don't like being sent to the polls needlessly...
Lab GAIN Maidenhead ?!?
Perhaps not ....
Morning Mr Jack.
Do you think it all feels rather like 1987?
No. In 1987 the Conservatives benefited from a split opposition. No one election mirrors another in even broad terms. If I had to make comparisons it would be a combination of four.
1. Conservatives - 1992 - Major - Stick with nurse for fear of something worse. 2. Labour - 1983/87 - Foot an un-electable leader and Kinnock running a good campaign. 3. LibDem - 1970 - Thorpe - Struggling for traction. 4. SNP - 1745 - Sweeping Scotland before retreating
The 1745 election was most intriguing. The following years election less so.
Post Brexit and with Labour promising free higher education and other hard left freebies for all (except those of us in the top 5%), the youths have an incentive to go out and vote this time.
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
Remarkable how well they're polling then, if you think there's no problem with the Tory alternative.
It is remarkable that perhaps a third of voters, maybe even more, are seriously contemplating voting for what is undoubtedly the most disastrous team ever to present itself for government of the UK since modern democracy began.. All the same, you don't need to invent things about what I said.
Invent? I'm just trying to make sense of it.
Maybe you think 38% or something of the electorate have been hoodwinked into supporting Corbyn by his press coverage or something?
You said that I saw no problem with the Tory alternative. That was your invention.
You did say "Not at all", which suggested to me you didn't think today's Tories suffered "at all" by comparison with 1974's.
But if you think they're not up to much, but not as bad as Labour, that makes a bit more sense.
Post Brexit and with Labour promising free higher education and other hard left freebies for all (except those of us in the top 5%), the youths have an incentive to go out and vote this time.
Yeah, but 80-odd%? come on.
Loads of them won't be registered cos they couldn't be arsed. They say they are voting but don't actually know the necessary mechanics
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
Remarkable how well they're polling then, if you think there's no problem with the Tory alternative.
It is remarkable that perhaps a third of voters, maybe even more, are seriously contemplating voting for what is undoubtedly the most disastrous team ever to present itself for government of the UK since modern democracy began.. All the same, you don't need to invent things about what I said.
Invent? I'm just trying to make sense of it.
Maybe you think 38% or something of the electorate have been hoodwinked into supporting Corbyn by his press coverage or something?
You said that I saw no problem with the Tory alternative. That was your invention.
You did say "Not at all", which suggested to me you didn't think today's Tories suffered "at all" by comparison with 1974's.
But if you think they're not up to much, but not as bad as Labour, that makes a bit more sense.
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
The Labour team would look a lot stronger if it included many languishing on the backbenches. Mind you, the same could be said to a lesser extent of the Tories.
But just a note of caution, this election campaign has been remarkable in many ways but one of the more prominent is the extent to which Corbyn has detoxified himself (or the Tories have detoxified him) over the last month. He is not viewed by many people as toxic or incompetent, because Labour has run - and been allowed to run - an unexpectedly effective campaign. His policies have superficial appeal and the costs of funding them have not been adequately challenged. He has not been particularly caught out by the media nor lost his zen-like calm. More importantly, the complete shambles of the parliamentary Labour party have been forgotten by the public as Corbyn embraces the politics he always has: that of the campaign, the slogan and the rally.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
Post Brexit and with Labour promising free higher education and other hard left freebies for all (except those of us in the top 5%), the youths have an incentive to go out and vote this time.
I've just been relistening to the Polling Matters podcast, and I can only see one possible hope in the election for Labour. Young people and previous non voters are going to turn out in high numbers to vote for Corbyn.
Positives for Tories
- closer polls make their supporters more likely to turn out, and easier to push the May or Corbyn will be in power line. - increased support compared to last time not coming from seats in South where they hold most of the seats already - Labour may be artificially inflated in polling as their supporters are super enthusiastic about Corbyn, and polls are filling up with these people and not necessarily typical labour supporters. - the opposite may be true for May, she is not exactly enthusing supporters, but on the direct comparisons with Corbyn does very well, I.e best leader and best to negotiate Brexit. - Historical indicators point towards mid teens point lead based on actual votes in locals, and other comparators - this is from Matt Singh who got the last election spot on.
So on topic I disagree with the analysis on the basis that I can't see Labour ending up on most seats with a swing away from them. The other point is that whilst Libdems currently limited influence in HoC with 9 MPs, they have a disproportionate influence in the HoL which would be placated with electoral support for a Manifesto and leader to negotiate Brexit.
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
Remarkable how well they're polling then, if you think there's no problem with the Tory alternative.
It is remarkable that perhaps a third of voters, maybe even more, are seriously contemplating voting for what is undoubtedly the most disastrous team ever to present itself for government of the UK since modern democracy began.. All the same, you don't need to invent things about what I said.
Invent? I'm just trying to make sense of it.
Maybe you think 38% or something of the electorate have been hoodwinked into supporting Corbyn by his press coverage or something?
You said that I saw no problem with the Tory alternative. That was your invention.
You did say "Not at all", which suggested to me you didn't think today's Tories suffered "at all" by comparison with 1974's.
But if you think they're not up to much, but not as bad as Labour, that makes a bit more sense.
Post Brexit and with Labour promising free higher education and other hard left freebies for all (except those of us in the top 5%), the youths have an incentive to go out and vote this time.
And indeed they might - but I doubt it will be around double the level they have previously.
It's interesting to see how down the PB Tories are on May but she still has a reasonable chance of outpolling Thatcher. If we are looking at elections to compare with maybe 1979 might be apposite.
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
The Labour team would look a lot stronger if it included many languishing on the backbenches. Mind you, the same could be said to a lesser extent of the Tories.
But just a note of caution, this election campaign has been remarkable in many ways but one of the more prominent is the extent to which Corbyn has detoxified himself (or the Tories have detoxified him) over the last month. He is not viewed by many people as toxic or incompetent, because Labour has run - and been allowed to run - an unexpectedly effective campaign. His policies have superficial appeal and the costs of funding them have not been adequately challenged. He has not been particularly caught out by the media nor lost his zen-like calm. More importantly, the complete shambles of the parliamentary Labour party have been forgotten by the public as Corbyn embraces the politics he always has: that of the campaign, the slogan and the rally.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
The Tories decided to make this an election all about the leaders - Crosby's call, presumably. Their one incursion into policy proved to be sub-optimal - Crosby disowned it. As England returns to being a two-party country, a lot of people (though nowhere near enough for Labour) are prepared to leave the past in the past because they do not like the Tories and there is no alternative but Labour to them. Some, mostly the young, are genuinely enthusiastic about Corbyn because they don't see much hope coming from any other quarter.
Corbyn has just undone any good he did himself last night. He must have thought Women's Hour would just be a cosy chat. Emma Barnett has been viscous with him and left him looking an idiot. He had absolutely no idea of any figures behind Labour's childcare policy, despite it being 'launched' today and obviously a key topic for the programme. Barnett did a Paxman and just kept asking him.
On topic: one lesson we can certainly draw from February 1974 (and May 2015, and for that matter last November) is that vote share doesn't equate to seat numbers. If it is the case that Labour are still piling up votes in London and the inner cities generally and the Tories are picking them up in marginal constituencies in the West Midlands, the North and Scotland, then that will be Mrs May's salvation.
The alternative might be equally true with Tories reaping huge ex UKIP voter numbers in the east of England to no benefit.
Efficiency of distribution may be vital like US 2016, we just don't know how it'll wash out
Why are the blues 4/6 to overcome a lab lead of 274 in Ealing central and Acton. But 2/7 to take Harrow west where the lead was 2208? If they're not adjacent they almost are.
Because Harrow West is in outer London on the border with Hertfordshire, whereas Ealing Central is a pretty much a central London constituency. Harrow West actually swung to the Tories last time, against the trend.
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
The Labour team would look a lot stronger if it included many languishing on the backbenches. Mind you, the same could be said to a lesser extent of the Tories.
But just a note of caution, this election campaign has been remarkable in many ways but one of the more prominent is the extent to which Corbyn has detoxified himself (or the Tories have detoxified him) over the last month. He is not viewed by many people as toxic or incompetent, because Labour has run - and been allowed to run - an unexpectedly effective campaign. His policies have superficial appeal and the costs of funding them have not been adequately challenged. He has not been particularly caught out by the media nor lost his zen-like calm. More importantly, the complete shambles of the parliamentary Labour party have been forgotten by the public as Corbyn embraces the politics he always has: that of the campaign, the slogan and the rally.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
Where does this free run idea come from? Hasn't Corbyn been attacked more or less relentlessly by the conservatives and by their traditional media supporters?
Miss Vance, not a fan of parties protesting one another, to be honest.
No - but it must be quite a shock to the SNP system to see any opposition - it also helps the Tories narrative of 'only the Tories will stand up to the SNP' what with Corbyn promising Indyref2 and Nicola vowing to block Trident.....
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
The Labour team would look a lot stronger if it included many languishing on the backbenches. Mind you, the same could be said to a lesser extent of the Tories.
But just a note of caution, this election campaign has been remarkable in many ways but one of the more prominent is the extent to which Corbyn has detoxified himself (or the Tories have detoxified him) over the last month. He is not viewed by many people as toxic or incompetent, because Labour has run - and been allowed to run - an unexpectedly effective campaign. His policies have superficial appeal and the costs of funding them have not been adequately challenged. He has not been particularly caught out by the media nor lost his zen-like calm. More importantly, the complete shambles of the parliamentary Labour party have been forgotten by the public as Corbyn embraces the politics he always has: that of the campaign, the slogan and the rally.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
Where does this free run idea come from? Hasn't Corbyn been attacked more or less relentlessly by the conservatives and by their traditional media supporters?
I would have thought that calling an election was understandable and easy to defend. No one has ever mentioned it while I’ve been canvassing in Cornwall. She had a very small majority, which could well vanish within a couple of years, hardly helpful while the country is negotiating Brexit. Even if she couldn’t remember, Davis (who was a whip during the passage of the Maastricht treaty) would have told her of the difficulties of trying to get EU legislation through with a small majority; the deals with small parties and the knife edge votes. The opposition would be trying to cause trouble, which is part of their role. And that’s before we consider the House of Lords. Also, she was not leader in the 2015 election and all the commentators were pointing out that she lacked a personal mandate.
Also she not only had a big opinion poll lead but had just won a ‘safe’ seat from the opposition. The Libdems were still rebuilding while the Labour party was led by a trio who lacked credibility when it came to running the economy or dealing with security. A majority of 70+ seemed certain. It still does. If she had missed this opportunity she really would be weak and wobbly.
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
Remarkable how well they're polling then, if you think there's no problem with the Tory alternative.
It is remarkable that perhaps a third of voters, maybe even more, are seriously contemplating voting for what is undoubtedly the most disastrous team ever to present itself for government of the UK since modern democracy began.. All the same, you don't need to invent things about what I said.
Invent? I'm just trying to make sense of it.
Maybe you think 38% or something of the electorate have been hoodwinked into supporting Corbyn by his press coverage or something?
You said that I saw no problem with the Tory alternative. That was your invention.
You did say "Not at all", which suggested to me you didn't think today's Tories suffered "at all" by comparison with 1974's.
But if you think they're not up to much, but not as bad as Labour, that makes a bit more sense.
If you think that "The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times." means that I was saying that 'The Tories are not up to much', then the problem lies with your English comprehension skills.
FWIW, I think that, by historic standards, the current Tory team is reasonably good, standing up pretty well in comparison of the 1974 Heath cabinet, for example (May is clearly better than Heath, Hammond clearly better than Barber). It's not as good as the Cameron-Osborne team, of course, but that was quite exceptional.
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
Remarkable how well they're polling then, if you think there's no problem with the Tory alternative.
It is remarkable that perhaps a third of voters, maybe even more, are seriously contemplating voting for what is undoubtedly the most disastrous team ever to present itself for government of the UK since modern democracy began.. All the same, you don't need to invent things about what I said.
Invent? I'm just trying to make sense of it.
Maybe you think 38% or something of the electorate have been hoodwinked into supporting Corbyn by his press coverage or something?
You said that I saw no problem with the Tory alternative. That was your invention.
You did say "Not at all", which suggested to me you didn't think today's Tories suffered "at all" by comparison with 1974's.
But if you think they're not up to much, but not as bad as Labour, that makes a bit more sense.
If you think that "The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times." means that I was saying that 'The Tories are not up to much', then the problem lies with your English comprehension skills.
You missed that useful little word "if". Or perhaps misunderstood it. English comprehension skills ;-)
What I am left wondering about is what happens if Corbyn wins? The EU is all set for negotiating with Mrs May and both she and her ministers have been preparing for this for some time.
But Corbyn and Team Labour?
If they are prepared for the EU negotiations I would be astounded.
Very true. They would have a very steep learning curve. On the plus side - they are more realistic on immigration and are probably 'closer' to the EU negotiating position than the Tories.
And to be fair - they had almost no time or warning to prepare a manifesto - and they seem to have done a much better job of that.
If by "much better job" you mean they threw together a wishlist of pleasant things to do if the government had an infinite supply of money and no deficit in order to bribe voters then yes they did a much better job.
If you mean a "much better job" in that it is a plausible alternative program of government that can be implemented realistically ... then I would beg to disagree.
Governance isn't about telling everyone what they want to hear.
I think the purpose of the manifesto is to set out what you want to do in government while at the same time winning votes.
The Tory manifesto doesn't seem to be popular and is also pretty vague on key questions like where is money coming from, which taxes might have to go up, who is being affected by WFA and social car cap, who will be affected by reduced immigration etc.
Labour manifesto has a lot of spending commitments but also has proposed tax rises to compensate. IFS thinks the tax rises are insufficient to compensate and perhaps Labour should have done better - but they at least had a go at it!
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
The Labour team would look a lot stronger if it included many languishing on the backbenches. Mind you, the same could be said to a lesser extent of the Tories.
But just a note of caution, this election campaign has been remarkable in many ways but one of the more prominent is the extent to which Corbyn has detoxified himself (or the Tories have detoxified him) over the last month. He is not viewed by many people as toxic or incompetent, because Labour has run - and been allowed to run - an unexpectedly effective campaign. His policies have superficial appeal and the costs of funding them have not been adequately challenged. He has not been particularly caught out by the media nor lost his zen-like calm. More importantly, the complete shambles of the parliamentary Labour party have been forgotten by the public as Corbyn embraces the politics he always has: that of the campaign, the slogan and the rally.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
I think CCHQ surrendered the airwaves assuming his Labour manifesto would speak for itself.
Corbyn has just undone any good he did himself last night. He must have thought Women's Hour would just be a cosy chat. Emma Barnett has been viscous with him and left him looking an idiot. He had absolutely no idea of any figures behind Labour's childcare policy, despite it being 'launched' today and obviously a key topic for the programme. Barnett did a Paxman and just kept asking him.
Brutal.
Emma Barnett might have a career in political interviewing ahead of her - obviously she'd have to leave the BBC as they prefer men in all the top political jobs.
Why are the blues 4/6 to overcome a lab lead of 274 in Ealing central and Acton. But 2/7 to take Harrow west where the lead was 2208? If they're not adjacent they almost are.
Because Harrow West is in outer London on the border with Hertfordshire, whereas Ealing Central is a pretty much a central London constituency. Harrow West actually swung to the Tories last time, against the trend.
@gordonrayner: Corbyn goes on Woman's Hour to sell childcare policy& has Diane Abbott-style disaster because he didn't have costings. Inexplicable.
@OliverCooper: Please stop saying Corbyn's Woman's Hour appearance is as bad as Diane Abbott's policing debacle. It's far far worse. He didn't have a clue.
What I am left wondering about is what happens if Corbyn wins? The EU is all set for negotiating with Mrs May and both she and her ministers have been preparing for this for some time.
But Corbyn and Team Labour?
If they are prepared for the EU negotiations I would be astounded.
Very true. They would have a very steep learning curve. On the plus side - they are more realistic on immigration and are probably 'closer' to the EU negotiating position than the Tories.
And to be fair - they had almost no time or warning to prepare a manifesto - and they seem to have done a much better job of that.
The thing is, I can see Mrs May & Co taking us into a hard Brexit and I can see Corbyn & Co being completely bewildered and utterly incoherent in the Brexit negotiations.
What I cannot see, either way, is a good outcome.
I would say Mrs May & Co are completely bewildered and utterly incoherent in the Brexit negotiations. It risks a binary alternative of a much worse arrangement than otherwise would be and the void.
Corbyn has just undone any good he did himself last night. He must have thought Women's Hour would just be a cosy chat. Emma Barnett has been viscous with him and left him looking an idiot. He had absolutely no idea of any figures behind Labour's childcare policy, despite it being 'launched' today and obviously a key topic for the programme. Barnett did a Paxman and just kept asking him.
Brutal.
Emma Barnett might have a career in political interviewing ahead of her - obviously she'd have to leave the BBC as they prefer men in all the top political jobs.
She has already done a stint at LBC, where she came across as feminist and moderate Tory. She also has a Jewish background which may give some context to her obvious antipathy to Corbyn.
Corbyn has just undone any good he did himself last night. He must have thought Women's Hour would just be a cosy chat. Emma Barnett has been viscous with him and left him looking an idiot. He had absolutely no idea of any figures behind Labour's childcare policy, despite it being 'launched' today and obviously a key topic for the programme. Barnett did a Paxman and just kept asking him.
Brutal.
Emma Barnett might have a career in political interviewing ahead of her - obviously she'd have to leave the BBC as they prefer men in all the top political jobs.
She has already done a stint at LBC, where she came across as feminist and moderate Tory
Given how Jeremy Corbyn is this newly-minted carrying-all-before-him warrior, has he yet been invited to meet voters in any of the true marginals in this election?
And have Labour candidates been lining up to have photos taken to stick on their literature?
Corbyn has just undone any good he did himself last night. He must have thought Women's Hour would just be a cosy chat. Emma Barnett has been viscous with him and left him looking an idiot. He had absolutely no idea of any figures behind Labour's childcare policy, despite it being 'launched' today and obviously a key topic for the programme. Barnett did a Paxman and just kept asking him.
Brutal.
Emma Barnett might have a career in political interviewing ahead of her - obviously she'd have to leave the BBC as they prefer men in all the top political jobs.
She has already done a stint at LBC, where she came across as feminist and moderate Tory
She'll probably be fired from the BBC then.
That's a silly comment, really. Robinson is Tory and so is Davis.
@gordonrayner: Corbyn goes on Woman's Hour to sell childcare policy& has Diane Abbott-style disaster because he didn't have costings. Inexplicable.
@OliverCooper: Please stop saying Corbyn's Woman's Hour appearance is as bad as Diane Abbott's policing debacle. It's far far worse. He didn't have a clue.
Personally I find professing ignorance somewhat better than wild guessing.
Corbyn has just undone any good he did himself last night. He must have thought Women's Hour would just be a cosy chat. Emma Barnett has been viscous with him and left him looking an idiot. He had absolutely no idea of any figures behind Labour's childcare policy, despite it being 'launched' today and obviously a key topic for the programme. Barnett did a Paxman and just kept asking him.
Brutal.
Emma Barnett might have a career in political interviewing ahead of her - obviously she'd have to leave the BBC as they prefer men in all the top political jobs.
She has already done a stint at LBC, where she came across as feminist and moderate Tory
She'll probably be fired from the BBC then.
That's a silly comment, really. Robinson is Tory and so is Davis.
It was more the fact she's a woman - they don't get the top jobs at the BBC politico / news dept.
Let's face it, Corbyn's Woman's Hour meltdown was just emblematic of everything about Labour's economic case in this election. They have no idea because it is like one of those towns in western movies, all propped-up front and nothingness behind. Of course Corbyn doesn't know the details - there is no detail to know.
But this interview might now give the opportunity to lift the curtain to reveal the truth about the Wizard.... People are being taken for fools.
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
The Labour team would look a lot stronger if it included many languishing on the backbenches. Mind you, the same could be said to a lesser extent of the Tories.
But just a note of caution, this election campaign has been remarkable in many ways but one of the more prominent is the extent to which Corbyn has detoxified himself (or the Tories have detoxified him) over the last month. He is not viewed by many people as toxic or incompetent, because Labour has run - and been allowed to run - an unexpectedly effective campaign. His policies have superficial appeal and the costs of funding them have not been adequately challenged. He has not been particularly caught out by the media nor lost his zen-like calm. More importantly, the complete shambles of the parliamentary Labour party have been forgotten by the public as Corbyn embraces the politics he always has: that of the campaign, the slogan and the rally.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
Where does this free run idea come from? Hasn't Corbyn been attacked more or less relentlessly by the conservatives and by their traditional media supporters?
Yes, but about all the wrong things. There are only so many swing votes in play that could be delivered by who he met in the 1980s.
Corbyn doesn't do detail. As soon as Labour made the error of producing a 'fully-costed' plan, it should have been rebutted with assumptions questioned throughout. Had that been done effectively, it would be Labour whose policy launch the media would have regarded as a shamables and Corbyn who would have been subject to detailed questioning on costings and fundings - areas where he is deeply uncomfortable (as, according to reports, he's proving today).
Brexit and the economy are two of the biggest vote-determining issues and both require the leader to understand a great deal of detail. He hasn't really been properly challenged on either - not least because the media find it hard to run two similar stories at the same time and the 'manifesto falls apart' one was grabbed by Nick Timothy for the Tories.
@JamieRoss7: If the SNP wins a majority of seats next week, they'll take that as a "triple lock" on what they say is a pre-existing mandate for indyref2.
Corbyn has just undone any good he did himself last night. He must have thought Women's Hour would just be a cosy chat. Emma Barnett has been viscous with him and left him looking an idiot. He had absolutely no idea of any figures behind Labour's childcare policy, despite it being 'launched' today and obviously a key topic for the programme. Barnett did a Paxman and just kept asking him.
Brutal.
Emma Barnett might have a career in political interviewing ahead of her - obviously she'd have to leave the BBC as they prefer men in all the top political jobs.
She has already done a stint at LBC, where she came across as feminist and moderate Tory
She'll probably be fired from the BBC then.
That's a silly comment, really. Robinson is Tory and so is Davis.
It was more the fact she's a woman - they don't get the top jobs at the BBC politico / news dept.
Ok, fair enough. JoCo is the only one I can think of, it's true.
Corbyn has just undone any good he did himself last night. He must have thought Women's Hour would just be a cosy chat. Emma Barnett has been viscous with him and left him looking an idiot. He had absolutely no idea of any figures behind Labour's childcare policy, despite it being 'launched' today and obviously a key topic for the programme. Barnett did a Paxman and just kept asking him.
Brutal.
Emma Barnett might have a career in political interviewing ahead of her - obviously she'd have to leave the BBC as they prefer men in all the top political jobs.
@JamieRoss7: If the SNP wins a majority of seats next week, they'll take that as a "triple lock" on what they say is a pre-existing mandate for indyref2.
That seems an odd tactic, likely to firm up the pro-union vote and encourage anti-SNP tactical voting.
Let's face it, Corbyn's Woman's Hour meltdown was just emblematic of everything about Labour's economic case in this election. They have no idea because it is like one of those towns in western movies, all propped-up front and nothingness behind. Of course Corbyn doesn't know the details - there is no detail to know.
But this interview might now give the opportunity to lift the curtain to reveal the truth about the Wizard.... People are being taken for fools.
You seem to have mixed up Labour and Conservatives there. It is the Conservative manifesto which is uncosted.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
I think CCHQ surrendered the airwaves assuming his Labour manifesto would speak for itself.
Yes, they were quite explicit about it to journalists. It was a classic case of assuming everyone thinks like oneself - they think Corbyn is appalling, so giving Corbyn lots of airtime seemed a good idea.
Let's face it, Corbyn's Woman's Hour meltdown was just emblematic of everything about Labour's economic case in this election. They have no idea because it is like one of those towns in western movies, all propped-up front and nothingness behind. Of course Corbyn doesn't know the details - there is no detail to know.
But this interview might now give the opportunity to lift the curtain to reveal the truth about the Wizard.... People are being taken for fools.
It's disappointing that he didn't have the figures readily available. At least he didn't make it up. It happens to me at times on conference calls - sometimes saying "I'm not sure - I'll get back to you" is brutally honest.
Anyway, I expect the PB Tories to be orgasmic at the moment. You lot really are pathetic - desperate to put the torch back on Corbyn as your leader is totally hopeless and hapless. The crappiest PM we have ever had in the country. Look in the mirror, you morons!
@KennyFarq: New Scottish poll for Sky News asked No voters who they will back on 8 June. Usual caveats about subsamples, but: Tories 53%; Labour 22%.
The surge is on!
Wouldn't that be fairly consistent with most recent polling? Assuming Con receive only a very small proportion of the Yes vote, it'd probably leave them at about 32 overall.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
I think CCHQ surrendered the airwaves assuming his Labour manifesto would speak for itself.
Yes, they were quite explicit about it to journalists. It was a classic case of assuming everyone thinks like oneself - they think Corbyn is appalling, so giving Corbyn lots of airtime seemed a good idea.
They could just play womans hour on loop till election day. You must be a bit gutted he imploded Nick
Corbyn has just undone any good he did himself last night. He must have thought Women's Hour would just be a cosy chat. Emma Barnett has been viscous with him and left him looking an idiot. He had absolutely no idea of any figures behind Labour's childcare policy, despite it being 'launched' today and obviously a key topic for the programme. Barnett did a Paxman and just kept asking him.
Brutal.
Emma Barnett might have a career in political interviewing ahead of her - obviously she'd have to leave the BBC as they prefer men in all the top political jobs.
Corbyn has just undone any good he did himself last night. He must have thought Women's Hour would just be a cosy chat. Emma Barnett has been viscous with him and left him looking an idiot. He had absolutely no idea of any figures behind Labour's childcare policy, despite it being 'launched' today and obviously a key topic for the programme. Barnett did a Paxman and just kept asking him.
Brutal.
Emma Barnett might have a career in political interviewing ahead of her - obviously she'd have to leave the BBC as they prefer men in all the top political jobs.
She has already done a stint at LBC, where she came across as feminist and moderate Tory
She'll probably be fired from the BBC then.
That's a silly comment, really. Robinson is Tory and so is Davis.
It was more the fact she's a woman - they don't get the top jobs at the BBC politico / news dept.
I could have sworn their political editor is a woman and that Kirsty Wark and Emily Maitliss are regular Newsnight presenters.
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
?
But just a note of caution, this election campaign has been remarkable in many ways but one of the more prominent is the extent to which Corbyn has detoxified himself (or the Tories have detoxified him) over the last month. He is not viewed by many people as toxic or incompetent, because Labour has run - and been allowed to run - an unexpectedly effective campaign. His policies have superficial appeal and the costs of funding them have not been adequately challenged. He has not been particularly caught out by the media nor lost his zen-like calm. More importantly, the complete shambles of the parliamentary Labour party have been forgotten by the public as Corbyn embraces the politics he always has: that of the campaign, the slogan and the rally.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
Where does this free run idea come from? Hasn't Corbyn been attacked more or less relentlessly by the conservatives and by their traditional media supporters?
Yes, but about all the wrong things. There are only so many swing votes in play that could be delivered by who he met in the 1980s.
Corbyn doesn't do detail. As soon as Labour made the error of producing a 'fully-costed' plan, it should have been rebutted with assumptions questioned throughout. Had that been done effectively, it would be Labour whose policy launch the media would have regarded as a shamables and Corbyn who would have been subject to detailed questioning on costings and fundings - areas where he is deeply uncomfortable (as, according to reports, he's proving today).
Brexit and the economy are two of the biggest vote-determining issues and both require the leader to understand a great deal of detail. He hasn't really been properly challenged on either - not least because the media find it hard to run two similar stories at the same time and the 'manifesto falls apart' one was grabbed by Nick Timothy for the Tories.
That is to a great extent the Tories' own fault. They have been so obsessed with digging up Corbyn's foreign affairs views and associations of thirty or forty years ago that it has crowded out focus on Labour's economic policy. The same line has been taken by the trash press and has clearly influenced the media narrative - as was very clear from last nights Paxo interview
Comments
Sometimes it seems you can't open your mouth these days without having gay sex rammed down your throat.
You would be in the 30% judging by your comments last night
Me in the 55%
Most PB Tories in the 8%
1. Conservatives - 1992 - Major - Stick with nurse for fear of something worse.
2. Labour - 1983/87 - Foot an un-electable leader and Kinnock running a good campaign.
3. LibDem - 1970 - Thorpe - Struggling for traction.
4. SNP - 1745 - Sweeping Scotland before retreating
The 1745 election was most intriguing. The following years election less so.
If there's one thing that gets my back up.....
But if you think they're not up to much, but not as bad as Labour, that makes a bit more sense.
But just a note of caution, this election campaign has been remarkable in many ways but one of the more prominent is the extent to which Corbyn has detoxified himself (or the Tories have detoxified him) over the last month. He is not viewed by many people as toxic or incompetent, because Labour has run - and been allowed to run - an unexpectedly effective campaign. His policies have superficial appeal and the costs of funding them have not been adequately challenged. He has not been particularly caught out by the media nor lost his zen-like calm. More importantly, the complete shambles of the parliamentary Labour party have been forgotten by the public as Corbyn embraces the politics he always has: that of the campaign, the slogan and the rally.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
Positives for Tories
- closer polls make their supporters more likely to turn out, and easier to push the May or Corbyn will be in power line.
- increased support compared to last time not coming from seats in South where they hold most of the seats already
- Labour may be artificially inflated in polling as their supporters are super enthusiastic about Corbyn, and polls are filling up with these people and not necessarily typical labour supporters.
- the opposite may be true for May, she is not exactly enthusing supporters, but on the direct comparisons with Corbyn does very well, I.e best leader and best to negotiate Brexit.
- Historical indicators point towards mid teens point lead based on actual votes in locals, and other comparators - this is from Matt Singh who got the last election spot on.
So on topic I disagree with the analysis on the basis that I can't see Labour ending up on most seats with a swing away from them. The other point is that whilst Libdems currently limited influence in HoC with 9 MPs, they have a disproportionate influence in the HoL which would be placated with electoral support for a Manifesto and leader to negotiate Brexit.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1593584/#Comment_1593584
https://twitter.com/GraceBrodie/status/869484627072868352
@tamcohen: Corbyn says he's a member of CND "I don't think I'm the vice-president" - he was given this title as honorary position in Oct 2015
Brutal.
Efficiency of distribution may be vital like US 2016, we just don't know how it'll wash out
Also she not only had a big opinion poll lead but had just won a ‘safe’ seat from the opposition. The Libdems were still rebuilding while the Labour party was led by a trio who lacked credibility when it came to running the economy or dealing with security. A majority of 70+ seemed certain. It still does. If she had missed this opportunity she really would be weak and wobbly.
FWIW, I think that, by historic standards, the current Tory team is reasonably good, standing up pretty well in comparison of the 1974 Heath cabinet, for example (May is clearly better than Heath, Hammond clearly better than Barber). It's not as good as the Cameron-Osborne team, of course, but that was quite exceptional.
Mr. Chris, is the world no longer Corbyn's oyster?
The Tory manifesto doesn't seem to be popular and is also pretty vague on key questions like where is money coming from, which taxes might have to go up, who is being affected by WFA and social car cap, who will be affected by reduced immigration etc.
Labour manifesto has a lot of spending commitments but also has proposed tax rises to compensate. IFS thinks the tax rises are insufficient to compensate and perhaps Labour should have done better - but they at least had a go at it!
Diane Abbott however ....
@OliverCooper: Please stop saying Corbyn's Woman's Hour appearance is as bad as Diane Abbott's policing debacle. It's far far worse. He didn't have a clue.
And have Labour candidates been lining up to have photos taken to stick on their literature?
@KennyFarq: New Scottish poll for Sky News asked No voters who they will back on 8 June. Usual caveats about subsamples, but: Tories 53%; Labour 22%.
https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/869468503190982656
https://youtu.be/1f_tXtnRUMo
https://twitter.com/michaelpdeacon/status/869493360280653825
But this interview might now give the opportunity to lift the curtain to reveal the truth about the Wizard.... People are being taken for fools.
@HTScotPol: The new SNP manifesto is out. It's the first since @nicolasturgeon became FM not to feature her face on the cover #GE2017
Corbyn doesn't do detail. As soon as Labour made the error of producing a 'fully-costed' plan, it should have been rebutted with assumptions questioned throughout. Had that been done effectively, it would be Labour whose policy launch the media would have regarded as a shamables and Corbyn who would have been subject to detailed questioning on costings and fundings - areas where he is deeply uncomfortable (as, according to reports, he's proving today).
Brexit and the economy are two of the biggest vote-determining issues and both require the leader to understand a great deal of detail. He hasn't really been properly challenged on either - not least because the media find it hard to run two similar stories at the same time and the 'manifesto falls apart' one was grabbed by Nick Timothy for the Tories.
notabout indyRef2...https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/869494828240916482
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/869495633929019392
Anyway, I expect the PB Tories to be orgasmic at the moment. You lot really are pathetic - desperate to put the torch back on Corbyn as your leader is totally hopeless and hapless. The crappiest PM we have ever had in the country. Look in the mirror, you morons!
Marr , Davis (Newsnight), Neil, Dimbleby....
@HTScotPol: Pete Wishart tells SNP manifesto launch that Perth & N Perthshire is a "line in the sand" the Tories will not cross (if all goes well)