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.
Yes, this morning's debacle must come as a great relief to those who were as astonished as I was to see him look like a Prime Minister in waiting last nite.
On topic, there has certainly been hubris and arrogance about how May and the Tories have treated this election like a walk-in-the-park.
However, February 1974 followed a very turbulent 3 1/2 years period of Heathite Government of 3-day weeks, the energy crisis, and the start of The Troubles. It was a very bleak period and the UK looked in permanent crisis. There had been more U-turns on the 1970 manifesto than in a grand prix track circuit, and there was a basic air of Tory cluelessness. It wasn't clear what re-electing them would offer over and above further conflict with the Trade Unions, and they'd already failed to deliver on migration and (funnily enough) denied a direct vote on EEC accession.
May's Tories go into Government with a good record of economic growth, and a plan for the EU negotiations to come, including a commitment to implement a referendum vote held barely 11 months ago. The message and messenger is more credible but, for the reasons outlined in my first paragraph, it will probably cost them the landslide they sought in my view.
That's a lesson that all politicians should learn. But probably won't.
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.
Which will happen first - the BBC let a woman have her own politics show or Labour electing a woman leader ?
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.
I don't think there is much doubt that the Tories could meet their manifesto promises since there is nothing expensive in that dire document to inspire the hope that things will ever get better. Hence their present wobble.
On the other hand the Labour is only costed in the sense that they have stuck some numbers on the promises. Nobody in their right mind who has a right mind believes those numbers are correct though.. or even close.
Corbyn not only has enough baggage to fill a warehouse, he is also woefully poor on policy detail. The Tories really did have a range of choices in terms of attacking him. They went for the most obvious and it will deliver a clear victory, but it is probably not the one they should have chosen if they were looking strategically at how to manage the next few years.
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.
That might well be right but if so, it was appalling complacent. You cannot simply expect the media to ask your questions for you. It's been known for a while that Labour policies were individually quite popular. By failing to attack at the right time, rather than Corbyn toxifying the policies, the policies have detoxified him because they've made him sound in tune with a strand of opinion well beyond his core vote.
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.
Of course Corbyn and his cronies are hopeless but the fact that Theresa May hasn't been able to expose their uselessness says a lot about how crap she and the Tories are too.
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.
Which will happen first - the BBC let a woman have her own politics show or Labour electing a woman leader ?
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.
Having detailed worked through policies supported by credible costings is not the best ground for the Tories to go on the offensive, though, is it?
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.
I don't think there is much doubt that the Tories could meet their manifesto promises since there is nothing expensive in that dire document to inspire the hope that things will ever get better. Hence their present wobble.
On the other hand the Labour is only costed in the sense that they have stuck some numbers on the promises. Nobody in their right mind who has a right mind believes those numbers are correct though.. or even close.
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's Jewish, so very unlikely to go easier on a key enabler of anti-Semitism.
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!
If I want to see morons, the Shadow Cabinet has a wonderful selection for me to peruse....
Corbyn deserves the torch putting on him. He has put himself up to be our Prime Minister. The person charged with keeping us safe from our enemies. Charged with securing the economy. Charged with securing the best Brexit deal possible.
The guy is a fucking joke. On any level, on every level, he is unfit to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. And you know this. The faux enthusiasm for the guy from you and others who have been set against him from his election is cringe-making to observe. And very funny. because when he loses next week, you will all be saying "we knew he was shit and had to go..."
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.
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.
Spot on. The Economy and Public Finances should be something Hammond (if May doesn't want to do it, and she clearly doesn't because it's all a bit too George Osborne for her) should be all over because several newscycles of negative headlines and interviews could be wrought from that for Labour.
Corbyn not only has enough baggage to fill a warehouse, he is also woefully poor on policy detail. The Tories really did have a range of choices in terms of attacking him. They went for the most obvious and it will deliver a clear victory, but it is probably not the one they should have chosen if they were looking strategically at how to manage the next few years.
The thing is, though, the press have been attacking Corbyn ferociously in every way they can think of ever since he was elected leader. I'm not sure it's reasonable to think that further attacks during the election campaign are going to make that much difference. My theory for the rise in Corbyn's ratings, as people have seen more of him during the campaign, is simply that whatever the reality is, it can't be as bad as the tabloid presentation people have been seeing previously.
Yes, this morning's debacle must come as a great relief to those who were as astonished as I was to see him look like a Prime Minister in waiting last nite.
Seems the guy's human after all.
*night
How he performed last night explains exactly why he cleaned up both Labour leadership elections, which most of us weren't paying close enough attention to understand.
How he's performed as Labour leader day-to-day, in office, explains why he is entirely unfit to the office of PM.
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!
If I want to see morons, the Shadow Cabinet has a wonderful selection for me to peruse....
Corbyn deserves the torch putting on him. He has put himself up to be our Prime Minister. The person charged with keeping us safe from our enemies. Charged with securing the economy. Charged with securing the best Brexit deal possible.
The guy is a fucking joke. On any level, on every level, he is unfit to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. And you know this. The faux enthusiasm for the guy from you and others who have been set against him from his election is cringe-making to observe. And very funny. because when he loses next week, you will all be saying "we knew he was shit and had to go..."
Nevertheless this might well be the election where everyone loses. May might escape, if the outturn is at the upper end of expectations, but her credibility and reputation aren't coming out of this well.
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.
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
I agree. Had I been overseeing Tory election strategy, I'd have run on an overall theme of Trust: who do you trust to deliver Brexit; who do you trust to keep the economy growing; who do you trust to keep you safe?
One other aspect of the Tories waiting for Labour to fall apart is that abandoning the airwaves has prevented the party from advancing its own positive case beyond the slogan of Strong and Stable: a slogan which was fatally undermined by the Care Charging folly.
On topic, there has certainly been hubris and arrogance about how May and the Tories have treated this election like a walk-in-the-park.
However, February 1974 followed a very turbulent 3 1/2 years period of Heathite Government of 3-day weeks, the energy crisis, and the start of The Troubles. It was a very bleak period and the UK looked in permanent crisis. There had been more U-turns on the 1970 manifesto than in a grand prix track circuit, and there was a basic air of Tory cluelessness. It wasn't clear what re-electing them would offer over and above further conflict with the Trade Unions, and they'd already failed to deliver on migration and (funnily enough) denied a direct vote on EEC accession.
May's Tories go into Government with a good record of economic growth, and a plan for the EU negotiations to come, including a commitment to implement a referendum vote held barely 11 months ago. The message and messenger is more credible but, for the reasons outlined in my first paragraph, it will probably cost them the landslide they sought in my view.
That's a lesson that all politicians should learn. But probably won't.
Sorry Casino but I can't let one of your points pass.
It wasn't May's Tories that had a good record, but Cameron's (and Osborne's).
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's Jewish, so very unlikely to go easier on a key enabler of anti-Semitism.
Hmmm - I imagine that it was more to do with her being a very good interviewer.
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.
Which will happen first - the BBC let a woman have her own politics show or Labour electing a woman leader ?
That evil Murdoch and Tories though..
Translation - you lost the argument :-D
Never mind a woman, will anyone other than a Dimbleby ever present the BBC's election coverage?
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.
Of course Corbyn and his cronies are hopeless but the fact that Theresa May hasn't been able to expose their uselessness says a lot about how crap she and the Tories are too.
Yep, crap campaign so far (though they often are...).
The saving grace is that the voters know what Corbyn is. Four weeks of trying to play the genial gent has not papered over a lifetimes work of doing down this country.
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.
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.
Spot on. The Economy and Public Finances should be something Hammond (if May doesn't want to do it, and she clearly doesn't because it's all a bit too George Osborne for her) should be all over because several newscycles of negative headlines and interviews could be wrought from that for Labour.
The National Insurance rise and U-turned fall in this year's budget surely tempers enthusiasm for Hammond and May's grasp of their own manifesto.
Yes, this morning's debacle must come as a great relief to those who were as astonished as I was to see him look like a Prime Minister in waiting last nite.
Seems the guy's human after all.
The obvious thing about JC and his remarkably successful election campaign is that the area where he is seen to be most toxic by the media and many many people (security / terror etc) is the easiest for him to defend in public.
It is a subject where he is passionate and authentic, he has spent 40 years rehearsing his unchanged views, and as he is both passionate and authentic he is bound to come over well. For his opponents not to realise this is a major failing on their part. It it is not the content of what he says, but the impression you get of him that moves more people.
In modern politics there are few politicans with more authenticity and passion over a subject than JC and his association with his 'friends'. Allowing him to present himself as passionate and authentic has allowed his ratings and acceptability to increase.
You always out your opponent on ground on which they are uncomfortable. JC has had the luxury of spending most of the time in his comfort zone.
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.
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 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
I agree. Had I been overseeing Tory election strategy, I'd have run on an overall theme of Trust: who do you trust to deliver Brexit; who do you trust to keep the economy growing; who do you trust to keep you safe?
One other aspect of the Tories waiting for Labour to fall apart is that abandoning the airwaves has prevented the party from advancing its own positive case beyond the slogan of Strong and Stable: a slogan which was fatally undermined by the Care Charging folly.
Yep - the Tories have made what will be a tough five years even tougher for themselves. By making it all about Corbyn, they will not be getting the Brexit sign-off they were clearly hoping for.
The Tories have spent the entire campaign hoping that a succession of 'car crash' interviews will finally sink Labour, only to see them increase in the polls. Like Trump, Corbyn's Labour seems resistant to the natural forces of politics. Why? Perhaps it just adds to his dishevelled, outsider's charm. Had I been told three years ago that Jezz would be leading Labour, I'd have predicted them polling at 5-7%. That they're not means that no outcome - even a Corbyn triumph - can be discounted.
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.
It is a Sir Richard Mottram moment....
Thanks for that, I didn't know about Richard Mottram's apparently famous quote: "We're all fucked. I'm fucked. You're fucked. The whole department's fucked. It's been the biggest cock-up ever and we're all completely fucked.
In practice, we won't walk away from a Brexit deal. We can't. It will be the mediocre deal, and significantly worse than the one we would have had if a more competent and responsible prime minister engaged in the negotiations.
Yes, this morning's debacle must come as a great relief to those who were as astonished as I was to see him look like a Prime Minister in waiting last nite.
Seems the guy's human after all.
*night
How he performed last night explains exactly why he cleaned up both Labour leadership elections, which most of us weren't paying close enough attention to understand.
How he's performed as Labour leader day-to-day, in office, explains why he is entirely unfit to the office of PM.
The Tories have 9 days left to communicate that.
Sure.
I'd heard Corbyn could be very good in front of a live audience so I shouldn't have been too surprised but last nite was the first time I'd ever seen him in full flow and I have to say I was impressed. He certainly looked a lot more Prime Ministerial than the Prime Minister.
Of course that doesn't mean everybody should go vote for him. There's a lot more to it than that and it will take more than one strong TV performance to convince the doubters, of which I remain one. But credit where credit is due.
And of course if there's much more of that kind of stuff you'd have to wonder whether the Conservative election strategy of focusing on how bad he is, rather than how good they are, could just go awry.
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.
@JamieRoss7: Sturgeon says if the SNP wins a majority of seats in Scotland next week it will be a mandate to keep Scotland in the European single market.
Yes, this morning's debacle must come as a great relief to those who were as astonished as I was to see him look like a Prime Minister in waiting last nite.
Seems the guy's human after all.
*night
How he performed last night explains exactly why he cleaned up both Labour leadership elections, which most of us weren't paying close enough attention to understand.
How he's performed as Labour leader day-to-day, in office, explains why he is entirely unfit to the office of PM.
The Tories have 9 days left to communicate that.
Sure.
I'd heard Corbyn could be very good in front of a live audience so I shouldn't have been too surprised but last nite was the first time I'd ever seen him in full flow and I have to see I was impressed. He certainly looked a lot more Prime Ministerial than the Prime Minister.
Of course that doesn't mean everybody should go vote for him. There's a lot more to it than that and it will take more than one strong TV performance to convince the doubters, of which I remain one. But credit where credit is due.
And of course if there's much more of that kind of stuff you'd have to wonder whether the Conservative election strategy of focusing on how bad he is, rather than how good they are, could just go awry.
I wasn't impressed with either of them, to be honest. They both seemed robotic as if someone had pressed a button and they were just playing a recorded answer of their policy on X. Neither of them is a politician who can use an interview to have a genuine conversation, as for example Blair, Cameron, Obama or Ken Clarke.
Yep - the Tories have made what will be a tough five years even tougher for themselves. By making it all about Corbyn, they will not be getting the Brexit sign-off they were clearly hoping for.
Maybe. But they could also end up in the spectacular position of an 80-seat majority and Corbyn cemented into place because he polled 35%. I think they'd be pretty happy with that.
Corbyn not only has enough baggage to fill a warehouse, he is also woefully poor on policy detail. The Tories really did have a range of choices in terms of attacking him. They went for the most obvious and it will deliver a clear victory, but it is probably not the one they should have chosen if they were looking strategically at how to manage the next few years.
Yes, this morning's debacle must come as a great relief to those who were as astonished as I was to see him look like a Prime Minister in waiting last nite.
Seems the guy's human after all.
The obvious thing about JC and his remarkably successful election campaign is that the area where he is seen to be most toxic by the media and many many people (security / terror etc) is the easiest for him to defend in public.
It is a subject where he is passionate and authentic, he has spent 40 years rehearsing his unchanged views, and as he is both passionate and authentic he is bound to come over well. For his opponents not to realise this is a major failing on their part. It it is not the content of what he says, but the impression you get of him that moves more people.
In modern politics there are few politicans with more authenticity and passion over a subject than JC and his association with his 'friends'. Allowing him to present himself as passionate and authentic has allowed his ratings and acceptability to increase.
You always out your opponent on ground on which they are uncomfortable. JC has had the luxury of spending most of the time in his comfort zone.
@tnewtondunn: Nicola Sturgeon's manifesto speech word mentions: Tory/Tories - 26 Independent - 1 Independence - 0 Odd from a party for Scots nationalism?
I wasn't impressed with either of them, to be honest. They both seemed robotic as if someone had pressed a button and they were just playing a recorded answer of their policy on X.
They are both as bad as each other. They've both oozed into post in the wake of a party trauma and have both mistaken themselves for weighty political figures. Corbyn is principled but deeply stupid, while May is unprincipled, cunning and slow-witted.
It's like watching two rabbits playing tennis. The ball keeps going into the net or getting called out. While there will eventually be a winner, each's score is composed chiefly of points awarded for the other player's foot faults and other mistakes, not for winning sparkling rallies. Borg versus McEnroe 1981 it is not.
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
@GuardianHeather: It will alarm Labour HQ because focus groups have shown Diane Abbott's tough interview on police costings cut through - feeds a narrative.
Yes, this morning's debacle must come as a great relief to those who were as astonished as I was to see him look like a Prime Minister in waiting last nite.
Seems the guy's human after all.
The obvious thing about JC and his remarkably successful election campaign is that the area where he is seen to be most toxic by the media and many many people (security / terror etc) is the easiest for him to defend in public.
It is a subject where he is passionate and authentic, he has spent 40 years rehearsing his unchanged views, and as he is both passionate and authentic he is bound to come over well. For his opponents not to realise this is a major failing on their part. It it is not the content of what he says, but the impression you get of him that moves more people.
In modern politics there are few politicans with more authenticity and passion over a subject than JC and his association with his 'friends'. Allowing him to present himself as passionate and authentic has allowed his ratings and acceptability to increase.
You always out your opponent on ground on which they are uncomfortable. JC has had the luxury of spending most of the time in his comfort zone.
Very perceptive point that.
Surely there is campaigning Theresa and President PM Theresa
@tnewtondunn: Nicola Sturgeon's manifesto speech word mentions: Tory/Tories - 26 Independent - 1 Independence - 0 Odd from a party for Scots nationalism?
@LadPolitics: Latest seat betting suggests SNP will lose: E Renfrews Dumfries & G Berwicks, R & S E Dunbartons Edinburgh W NE Fife W Aberdeens & K #GE2017
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.
It is a Sir Richard Mottram moment....
Thanks for that, I didn't know about Richard Mottram's apparently famous quote: "We're all fucked. I'm fucked. You're fucked. The whole department's fucked. It's been the biggest cock-up ever and we're all completely fucked.
In practice, we won't walk away from a Brexit deal. We can't. It will be the mediocre deal, and significantly worse than the one we would have had if a more competent and responsible prime minister engaged in the negotiations.
Yep - the Tories have made what will be a tough five years even tougher for themselves. By making it all about Corbyn, they will not be getting the Brexit sign-off they were clearly hoping for.
Maybe. But they could also end up in the spectacular position of an 80-seat majority and Corbyn cemented into place because he polled 35%. I think they'd be pretty happy with that.
I am not sure about that. If Corbyn Labour can get 35% after all the stuff that has been thrown at him and before the Brexit negotiations begin, that gives Labour a very high floor, so to speak.
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!
If I want to see morons, the Shadow Cabinet has a wonderful selection for me to peruse....
Corbyn deserves the torch putting on him. He has put himself up to be our Prime Minister. The person charged with keeping us safe from our enemies. Charged with securing the economy. Charged with securing the best Brexit deal possible.
The guy is a fucking joke. On any level, on every level, he is unfit to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. And you know this. The faux enthusiasm for the guy from you and others who have been set against him from his election is cringe-making to observe. And very funny. because when he loses next week, you will all be saying "we knew he was shit and had to go..."
Who said I am a fan of Corbyn? I am not! Just trying to bring some balance to a right-wing dominated blog like this. Let me flip the question - what do you think of TMay? Do you agree she's probably the worst PM we have ever had? Cameron would be 25 percent clear now.
@LadPolitics: Latest seat betting suggests SNP will lose: E Renfrews Dumfries & G Berwicks, R & S E Dunbartons Edinburgh W NE Fife W Aberdeens & K #GE2017
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
All the polls are clear that May enjoys a substantial lead over Corbyn, that the Tories have a substantial lead on all things security-related and that they will win the election with ease. The attacks are working.
Indeed - this is a common view from the Indian establishment. An Indian diplomat friend of mine said something very similar to me a few weeks ago.
Brexit= a calamity
Brexiteers=idiots
Bad Brexit deal the EU will give TMay=read all about it fronTMay herself. And people here are enthusiastic about the hapless PM . Jesus!!!
Have you considered how a Jeremy Corbyn Brexit might play out ?
Maybe by accident, Corbyn suggested a better negotiation approach in the so-called car crash interview on Woman's Hour than the one apparently being pursued by May. If you are negotiating to retain aspects of a current arrangement where the default is to lose it all, your best starting point is that you are not going to move unless you get what you want, instead of walking away and losing everything.
Just watched May v Corbyn. Probably won't change anything, but it further reinforced the view that May is simply hopeless under interrogation, clearly hates it, and lacks the quick wit and polish any other front line politician would have. Corbyn has got so much better at appearing competent and statesmanlike and not some bearded left wing loon. The format didn't allow any real scrutiny of Labour's policies so he just got free airtime to sell his jam for everyone mad populism whilst May was under scrutiny on her policy and record and had no killer rebuttals. There were good responses available to her to everything she was under pressure on but she failed to hit the target. Nor did she demolish Labour policies. What a wasted opportunity. She is frankly hopeless.
She wasn't *THAT* bad! I scored it Jezza 6 and Tezza 5.
If I remember correctly, Bob was exactly the same before the least GE.
May was fine last night. Did all she needed to do. Corbyn was a lot better than expected, but his answers on security generally and the Falklands specifically would not have convinced anyone who was not already going to vote Labour.
Falklands "Tory Plot" - surely even some 83 Labour voters would draw the line at that ?
Do you have a hearing problem
JP Do you think Falklands was a Tory plot
JC No
Why did he ever think it was? Someone belatedly coming to reason is to be applauded to some extent, but that he has apparently previously said it is bizarre.
@tnewtondunn: Nicola Sturgeon's manifesto speech word mentions: Tory/Tories - 26 Independent - 1 Independence - 0 Odd from a party for Scots nationalism?
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Tbh I'm not sure the Womans Hour thing matters very much, except as a missed opportunity for Corbyn to make a positive case. It's like when David Cameron forgot which football team he claimed to support -- everyone has a good laugh but it does not change a single vote.
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.
I don't think there is much doubt that the Tories could meet their manifesto promises since there is nothing expensive in that dire document to inspire the hope that things will ever get better. Hence their present wobble.
On the other hand the Labour is only costed in the sense that they have stuck some numbers on the promises. Nobody in their right mind who has a right mind believes those numbers are correct though.. or even close.
Has a no deal Brexit been costed?
Interesting question. Not any easy thing to do - and anyone who claims to have done it is basically talking rubbish, because the second and higher order economic adjustments it would provoke are sufficiently dramatic they might well be bigger than the first order ones.
There have been some estimates but they all overlook things which would clearly be absolutely massive. I've seen a few City economists have a go and anyone could tear their efforts to shreds.
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
All the polls are clear that May enjoys a substantial lead over Corbyn, that the Tories have a substantial lead on all things security-related and that they will win the election with ease. The attacks are working.
erm excuse me - the attacks are working because some of them are based in fact. It was noted on here, rightly, that the debate worked for Lab because it stayed on security rather than economics.
This morning the sainted Emma sent Lab firmly back to economics. And to say he/they were dreadful would qualify as understatement of the century.
I was part of the 38% in 2005 and the 52% in 2010.
52% seems plausible for this time, back to 2010 levels. Well done them if they get more than that, even if an incredibly blatant electoral bribe is the cause (the elderly typically show up with or without the bribe though I imagine those are nice bonuses).
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!
If I want to see morons, the Shadow Cabinet has a wonderful selection for me to peruse....
Corbyn deserves the torch putting on him. He has put himself up to be our Prime Minister. The person charged with keeping us safe from our enemies. Charged with securing the economy. Charged with securing the best Brexit deal possible.
The guy is a fucking joke. On any level, on every level, he is unfit to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. And you know this. The faux enthusiasm for the guy from you and others who have been set against him from his election is cringe-making to observe. And very funny. because when he loses next week, you will all be saying "we knew he was shit and had to go..."
Who said I am a fan of Corbyn? I am not! Just trying to bring some balance to a right-wing dominated blog like this. Let me flip the question - what do you think of TMay? Do you agree she's probably the worst PM we have ever had? Cameron would be 25 percent clear now.
She's the least bad PM given the circumstances we are in (eg. Brexit, etc). She is neutral enough to gain the support of the mad Brexiters, has acknowledged that some of the mad Brexiters need to be involved in Brexit, and she overlays it all with a sheen of overwhelming greyness, boredom and obfuscation. Again, something that the country needs right now, given the emotions aroused following the Brexit vote last year.
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!
If I want to see morons, the Shadow Cabinet has a wonderful selection for me to peruse....
Corbyn deserves the torch putting on him. He has put himself up to be our Prime Minister. The person charged with keeping us safe from our enemies. Charged with securing the economy. Charged with securing the best Brexit deal possible.
The guy is a fucking joke. On any level, on every level, he is unfit to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. And you know this. The faux enthusiasm for the guy from you and others who have been set against him from his election is cringe-making to observe. And very funny. because when he loses next week, you will all be saying "we knew he was shit and had to go..."
Who said I am a fan of Corbyn? I am not! Just trying to bring some balance to a right-wing dominated blog like this. Let me flip the question - what do you think of TMay? Do you agree she's probably the worst PM we have ever had? Cameron would be 25 percent clear now.
Theresa May ranks well above Gordon Brown, so no I do not agree.
EDIT: She also ranks massively above the PM Jeremy Corbyn would be. Thankfully, you will never have to endure the shame of seeing how bad that would have been....
Yes, this morning's debacle must come as a great relief to those who were as astonished as I was to see him look like a Prime Minister in waiting last nite.
Seems the guy's human after all.
*night
How he performed last night explains exactly why he cleaned up both Labour leadership elections, which most of us weren't paying close enough attention to understand.
How he's performed as Labour leader day-to-day, in office, explains why he is entirely unfit to the office of PM.
The Tories have 9 days left to communicate that.
Sure.
I'd heard Corbyn could be very good in front of a live audience so I shouldn't have been too surprised but last nite was the first time I'd ever seen him in full flow and I have to see I was impressed. He certainly looked a lot more Prime Ministerial than the Prime Minister.
Of course that doesn't mean everybody should go vote for him. There's a lot more to it than that and it will take more than one strong TV performance to convince the doubters, of which I remain one. But credit where credit is due.
And of course if there's much more of that kind of stuff you'd have to wonder whether the Conservative election strategy of focusing on how bad he is, rather than how good they are, could just go awry.
I wasn't impressed with either of them, to be honest. They both seemed robotic as if someone had pressed a button and they were just playing a recorded answer of their policy on X. Neither of them is a politician who can use an interview to have a genuine conversation, as for example Blair, Cameron, Obama or Ken Clarke.
Well you set the bar a bit high with Blair/Cameron/Obama/Clarke but I take your point.
Maybe I set it a bit low for Jeremy and was surprised how emphatically he cleared it.
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Tbh I'm not sure the Womans Hour thing matters very much, except as a missed opportunity for Corbyn to make a positive case. It's like when David Cameron forgot which football team he claimed to support -- everyone has a good laugh but it does not change a single vote.
Not really. The electorate couldn't give a toss which football team the PM supports. They do want their PM to gave some idea what their proposals will cost.
We still have a week and a half to go. No doubt the Tory campaign will sharpen up, focussing more on the right weaknesses of Corbyn / Labour. We're still heading for a significant (EU awkward squad proof) majority. If not a landslide. And then we'll get a decent Brexit deal - or none at all. Either is good. And Labour will still be commanded by a certain J. Corbyn esq. And the far left will not have been trounced. They'll still have a plausible 'one more push' in them. :-) What's not to like?
On "no deal", the UK would save £9bn net contributions and start to collect £2-£3bn of customs duties (prior to striking any new trade deals) and not pay the E100bn.
Full customs checks, full non-EU tariffs etc. would hit financial markets, car manufacturing and agriculture exports hardest. Disruption would also be potentially faced in transport and communication networks (but not energy, since these arrangements are largely commercial and "non-physical").
HMG would need to compensate for that (increase agricultural support significantly, compensate for 10% duty on exported cars, and 5% on exported components). The Independent and Guardian suggested 4.5bn-6bn per year. Another 5-8bn per year could be lost in financial services revenue, although I doubt it'd be that high. HMG would also need to price in a corporation tax cut from 17% to 10%, that could be up to 10bn per year. HMG would also need to factor in and support relocation of business and supply chains for a few years, say another 2-3bn per year, so that could cost - in total - up to £27bn per year in tax cuts and additional support.
So, I'd expect the public finances to be between 8-16bn per year worse off in the short term, although that excludes the E100bn danegeld which would otherwise have to be paid and would balance out most of the effects in the first few years. I'd expect us to deregulate in a few areas as well.
So not ideal, but not catastrophic. The main impacts (and very visual, and nasty, headlines) would be the queues at Dover and Calais, and the long queues of Brits trying to holiday abroad. It's that sort of thing, combined with the economy stagnating, that might turn politically toxic for the Tories, not the money, with immigration largely "solving" itself as a public issue by dipping below 150k per year as all that happens.
The risk would then be that Labour are returned to office in GE2022 and took us straight back into the EEA, because, by that stage, free movement is politically acceptable, with an aim to renegotiate accession to the EU 10-15 years after that.
In fact, if you're a Remainer, that's now your most credible path back to "Remain".
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.
I don't think there is much doubt that the Tories could meet their manifesto promises since there is nothing expensive in that dire document to inspire the hope that things will ever get better. Hence their present wobble.
On the other hand the Labour is only costed in the sense that they have stuck some numbers on the promises. Nobody in their right mind who has a right mind believes those numbers are correct though.. or even close.
Has a no deal Brexit been costed?
Interesting question. Not any easy thing to do - and anyone who claims to have done it is basically talking rubbish, because the second and higher order economic adjustments it would provoke are sufficiently dramatic they might well be bigger than the first order ones.
There have been some estimates but they all overlook things which would clearly be absolutely massive. I've seen a few City economists have a go and anyone could tear their efforts to shreds.
It would be a bit like trying to cost Lord North's loss of the Colonies.
Comments
Seems the guy's human after all.
However, February 1974 followed a very turbulent 3 1/2 years period of Heathite Government of 3-day weeks, the energy crisis, and the start of The Troubles. It was a very bleak period and the UK looked in permanent crisis. There had been more U-turns on the 1970 manifesto than in a grand prix track circuit, and there was a basic air of Tory cluelessness. It wasn't clear what re-electing them would offer over and above further conflict with the Trade Unions, and they'd already failed to deliver on migration and (funnily enough) denied a direct vote on EEC accession.
May's Tories go into Government with a good record of economic growth, and a plan for the EU negotiations to come, including a commitment to implement a referendum vote held barely 11 months ago. The message and messenger is more credible but, for the reasons outlined in my first paragraph, it will probably cost them the landslide they sought in my view.
That's a lesson that all politicians should learn. But probably won't.
That evil Murdoch and Tories though..
On the other hand the Labour is only costed in the sense that they have stuck some numbers on the promises. Nobody in their right mind who has a right mind believes those numbers are correct though.. or even close.
Corbyn deserves the torch putting on him. He has put himself up to be our Prime Minister. The person charged with keeping us safe from our enemies. Charged with securing the economy. Charged with securing the best Brexit deal possible.
The guy is a fucking joke. On any level, on every level, he is unfit to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. And you know this. The faux enthusiasm for the guy from you and others who have been set against him from his election is cringe-making to observe. And very funny. because when he loses next week, you will all be saying "we knew he was shit and had to go..."
How he performed last night explains exactly why he cleaned up both Labour leadership elections, which most of us weren't paying close enough attention to understand.
How he's performed as Labour leader day-to-day, in office, explains why he is entirely unfit to the office of PM.
The Tories have 9 days left to communicate that.
One other aspect of the Tories waiting for Labour to fall apart is that abandoning the airwaves has prevented the party from advancing its own positive case beyond the slogan of Strong and Stable: a slogan which was fatally undermined by the Care Charging folly.
It wasn't May's Tories that had a good record, but Cameron's (and Osborne's).
OK?
Carry on.
The saving grace is that the voters know what Corbyn is. Four weeks of trying to play the genial gent has not papered over a lifetimes work of doing down this country.
It is a subject where he is passionate and authentic, he has spent 40 years rehearsing his unchanged views, and as he is both passionate and authentic he is bound to come over well. For his opponents not to realise this is a major failing on their part. It it is not the content of what he says, but the impression you get of him that moves more people.
In modern politics there are few politicans with more authenticity and passion over a subject than JC and his association with his 'friends'. Allowing him to present himself as passionate and authentic has allowed his ratings and acceptability to increase.
You always out your opponent on ground on which they are uncomfortable. JC has had the luxury of spending most of the time in his comfort zone.
maybe we can take back all that call centre and IT work and have things that actually work
In practice, we won't walk away from a Brexit deal. We can't. It will be the mediocre deal, and significantly worse than the one we would have had if a more competent and responsible prime minister engaged in the negotiations.
I cannot believe he asked the interviewer what her estimate of the costings were. Eye watering levels of incompetence, and utter stupidity.
Putting yourself forward to be PM is not the same as operating as a cult leader, Mr Corbyn.
I'd heard Corbyn could be very good in front of a live audience so I shouldn't have been too surprised but last nite was the first time I'd ever seen him in full flow and I have to say I was impressed. He certainly looked a lot more Prime Ministerial than the Prime Minister.
Of course that doesn't mean everybody should go vote for him. There's a lot more to it than that and it will take more than one strong TV performance to convince the doubters, of which I remain one. But credit where credit is due.
And of course if there's much more of that kind of stuff you'd have to wonder whether the Conservative election strategy of focusing on how bad he is, rather than how good they are, could just go awry.
So abuse from @jeremycorbyn supporters begins.He didn't know his figures plain & simple.Catch up on my interview @BBCWomansHour #womanshour
Ummm
Brexit= a calamity
Brexiteers=idiots
Bad Brexit deal the EU will give TMay=read all about it fronTMay herself. And people here are enthusiastic about the hapless PM . Jesus!!!
Tory/Tories - 26
Independent - 1
Independence - 0
Odd from a party for Scots nationalism?
https://twitter.com/timesofindia/status/869491950029684736
It's like watching two rabbits playing tennis. The ball keeps going into the net or getting called out. While there will eventually be a winner, each's score is composed chiefly of points awarded for the other player's foot faults and other mistakes, not for winning sparkling rallies. Borg versus McEnroe 1981 it is not.
PresidentPM Theresahttps://twitter.com/NicolaSturgoen/status/856589811171373057
E Renfrews
Dumfries & G
Berwicks, R & S
E Dunbartons
Edinburgh W
NE Fife
W Aberdeens & K
#GE2017
We were very well governed by the Coalition. They reined each other in.
https://twitter.com/george_osborne/status/869503569254338561
Like the Faroe isles or something.
The public aren't stupid, and none of us live in a vacuum. This must have an effect.
**runs for cover as next opinion poll shows 5% gap**
There have been some estimates but they all overlook things which would clearly be absolutely massive. I've seen a few City economists have a go and anyone could tear their efforts to shreds.
This morning the sainted Emma sent Lab firmly back to economics. And to say he/they were dreadful would qualify as understatement of the century.
https://twitter.com/mirrorpolitics/status/869497499551236096
#womanshour
Corbyn struggles with childcare costs on Woman's Hour
EDIT: She also ranks massively above the PM Jeremy Corbyn would be. Thankfully, you will never have to endure the shame of seeing how bad that would have been....
Maybe I set it a bit low for Jeremy and was surprised how emphatically he cleared it.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/180867/Infographic-3-in-10-people-aged-18-to-24-not-registered.pdf
And then we'll get a decent Brexit deal - or none at all. Either is good.
And Labour will still be commanded by a certain J. Corbyn esq. And the far left will not have been trounced. They'll still have a plausible 'one more push' in them. :-)
What's not to like?
Full customs checks, full non-EU tariffs etc. would hit financial markets, car manufacturing and agriculture exports hardest. Disruption would also be potentially faced in transport and communication networks (but not energy, since these arrangements are largely commercial and "non-physical").
HMG would need to compensate for that (increase agricultural support significantly, compensate for 10% duty on exported cars, and 5% on exported components). The Independent and Guardian suggested 4.5bn-6bn per year. Another 5-8bn per year could be lost in financial services revenue, although I doubt it'd be that high. HMG would also need to price in a corporation tax cut from 17% to 10%, that could be up to 10bn per year. HMG would also need to factor in and support relocation of business and supply chains for a few years, say another 2-3bn per year, so that could cost - in total - up to £27bn per year in tax cuts and additional support.
So, I'd expect the public finances to be between 8-16bn per year worse off in the short term, although that excludes the E100bn danegeld which would otherwise have to be paid and would balance out most of the effects in the first few years. I'd expect us to deregulate in a few areas as well.
So not ideal, but not catastrophic. The main impacts (and very visual, and nasty, headlines) would be the queues at Dover and Calais, and the long queues of Brits trying to holiday abroad. It's that sort of thing, combined with the economy stagnating, that might turn politically toxic for the Tories, not the money, with immigration largely "solving" itself as a public issue by dipping below 150k per year as all that happens.
The risk would then be that Labour are returned to office in GE2022 and took us straight back into the EEA, because, by that stage, free movement is politically acceptable, with an aim to renegotiate accession to the EU 10-15 years after that.
In fact, if you're a Remainer, that's now your most credible path back to "Remain".