Ugh it must be election time, this place is infested with 200 post astroturfers. Seems to have been as slight improvement in sophistications since the US election, there are atleast modest attempts to have more than one point of view, now only 19/20 posts are knocking their target party.
It's a fairly big niche representing perhaps 30% of the population currently. Which is open society, pro-globalisation, business-friendly, moderate on social welfare. It is a niche that is open to the Lib Dems given both the Conservatives and Labour have hitched themselves to the closed society, anti-globalisation mast. Basically a return to the Liberals' 19thC roots.
It needs someone who can articulate a new direction for the Lib Dems. It also means losing some current support before building new support. To be fair to Tim Farron, during an election is not the time to reinvent yourself, when you are trying to shore up your current support. The timing of this election was dreadful for the Lib Dems
The problem is that quite a lot of that 30% are found in the student vote, who a) are much more enthusiastic about Corbyn and b) are pretty unlikely to vote anyway, and much less likely to vote absent Corbyn.
The real problem the LDs have at the moment is that for a whole load of people who are sympathetic to the general idea, the party as it is currently incarnated is neither very Liberal (recent leaders have been very statist in their outlook), nor especially Democratic (trying to ignore the referendum being the most conspicuous example)
Morning everyone. Not been on since the grim events of Saturday night, but been reading here and watching the coverage of course. Whilst it's fairly unseemly in some ways to speculate on the possibility electoral impacts of terrorism, it's a thing so we must. My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad. Set that against Corbyn's ludicrous volte face on shoot to kill. It's clearly nonsense but It presses a button (deliberate choice of words) that he is prepared to say he will change his stance in the public interest. Whether he will or not is irrelevant. My read on how the public will reach overall is this......... For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........
The problem for the conservatives is that no counter factual exists. If it does then they think need to find it I.e. Did France increase police numbers and still not prevent terrorist attacks. Secondly it's all very well talking about reduction in police numbers but the numbers were artificially high caused by Brown's end of tenure splurge. The numbers have reduced to levels from the early 2000s - it's not like it is the Wild West. Do we really think labour would not have reduced police numbers when faced with similar cost constraints? Again If I were the Tories I would be looking at their 2010 proposals. Is there such thing as the Conservative Research Department still?
I don't disagree with any of that. The problem is time. Coming up with a convincing argument and strategy in 3 days is impossible. However, perhaps the fact that we are in the position of 3 days to save the UK (being hyperbolic deliberately) speaks volumes about the disengagement of the political class from the reality on the ground.
The answer is fairly simple. The attackers were dead within 8 minutes despite there being 3 of them in a chaotic urban area. That indicates the force levels of the police were exactly right.
Those complaining need to indicate in what way the police were stretched on Saturday night.
Yes, point taken. However ,y point was about impact on the election due to its closeness and the running down of the clock to set out and imbed a position and background. It will be reacted, electorally, via knee jerk and gut instinct.
If we made it law that any Islamic terrorist who died in the act was to be buried in a pig skin and thereby not go to heaven / hook up with his 72 virgins - would that cut the rate of attacks? The Americans did this in the late 19th century in the Philippines, when facing Islamic insurgents. The policy was hugely succesful and basically brought the attacks to an end. These religious nutcases - they're nuts! Play 'em at their own game.
Yes, but the process has been more than helped by a misdirected and out of touch campaign by the Lib Dems who blew it in the first fortnight by allowing Labour to totally dominate the scene. There was no way back after that. Whoever advised their campaign may be looking for a P45. Hammond might be PM by the weekend someone said, he might be Leader of the Opposition?
Ultimately, though, Tim Farron is a social conservative with left wing economic views.
I don't think he attains that level of principle. I think he would like to be a social liberal (or anything else that would make him popular), but is constrained by his peculiar religious beliefs. But not very much constrained - eventually he realised he would have to say he didn't believe gay sex was a sin, and did so. Of course, the party as a whole is socially liberal.
"Theresa May’s pledge to build one million homes by 2020 will result in an actual housebuilding increase of only 9,000 properties a year, research has found.
The Conservative Party’s commitment, which runs from mid-2015 to the end of 2020, amounts to a housebuilding rate of 175,000 properties a year. However, the present ten-year average rate of housebuilding in England is only slightly smaller, at 166,000 new homes a year."
Which part of "The Toreees, the Toreees, the Toreees, the Toreees, the Toreees, the Toreees, the Toreees, the Toreees, the Toreees, the Toreees, the Toreees" particularly impressed you?
"Theresa May’s pledge to build one million homes by 2020 will result in an actual housebuilding increase of only 9,000 properties a year, research has found.
The Conservative Party’s commitment, which runs from mid-2015 to the end of 2020, amounts to a housebuilding rate of 175,000 properties a year. However, the present ten-year average rate of housebuilding in England is only slightly smaller, at 166,000 new homes a year."
So in other words, we're already building plenty of houses...good job.
This is really really bizarre reasoning from Woodcock - if Corbyn wins then there is no way on God's green earth Woodcock (Who will probably still be an MP if Corby does win) will be able to demand that of him.
Given what we already know about the PLP's lack of confidence in Corbyn, it's quite possible that a hung parliament on Thursday results in something bizzare like a number of Lab MPs quitting the party to prop up May over Corbyn. Any attempt at a 'coalition of chaos' will most likely result in a second election in the autumn as there's no way Corbyn will be able to hold everyone together.
Good on him. We need to be speaking more to the likes of Maajid Nawaz and Trevor Philips here too. Good to see article posted just above from other moderate Muslims and imams, we need to engage with them, put more resources into the Prevent strategy and encourage Muslim communities to continue to report the black sheep in their own families.
Tatchell's twitter is interesting - noone has more to lose than gay people when extreme Islamic ideologies taking hold.
This is really really bizarre reasoning from Woodcock - if Corbyn wins then there is no way on God's green earth Woodcock (Who will probably still be an MP if Corby does win) will be able to demand that of him.
Given what we already know about the PLP's lack of confidence in Corbyn, it's quite possible that a hung parliament on Thursday results in something bizzare like a number of Lab MPs quitting the party to prop up May over Corbyn. Any attempt at a 'coalition of chaos' will most likely result in a second election in the autumn as there's no way Corbyn will be able to hold everyone together.
I don't think that is right, the PLP will change their tune very very quickly. Salary before principles.
"Theresa May’s pledge to build one million homes by 2020 will result in an actual housebuilding increase of only 9,000 properties a year, research has found.
The Conservative Party’s commitment, which runs from mid-2015 to the end of 2020, amounts to a housebuilding rate of 175,000 properties a year. However, the present ten-year average rate of housebuilding in England is only slightly smaller, at 166,000 new homes a year."
Pretty much the same can be said about any government house building program ever. The rule of thumb seems to be to divide the claimed number of new builds by a thousand. Fatcha was the last government to take it seriously, she built more in one year than New Labour managed in it's entire 13 years in office!
It's very difficult for Labour to make capital out of the attack, as has been stated the police response was incredibly swift and the force was appropriate. If the attack had been somewhere with a slower response time and if the police had accidentally killed civilians then the Tories would be on the backfoot.
I agree security is by and large priced in, and a my version of a true black swan event would be a scandal rather than a terrorist attack. The Saudi funding line is a useful one for Labour but it's impossible to see any Blue to Lab switchers over this (if anything there will be a few the other way). I assume Labour hope these attacks may drive some Cons back to UKIP but not in sufficient numbers. It will be interesting how this plays out this week as we build up a picture of the terrorists and how known they were to the police, but some tough rhetoric from May (hopefully followed up with some action) and not letting Labour take over the airwaves should be enough to see them home.
A surprisingly sharp surge on Sporting's Tory Seats market this morning, up 7 seats at 367-373 (equivalent to a 90 seat majority), which must have resulted from outright weight of money since the other two major firms, Spreadex and IG are 3 or 4 seats behind ..... these two, unlike Sporting, were open yesterday and the Tory seats spread was already up a couple of points, thereby making Sporting appear out of step.
This is really really bizarre reasoning from Woodcock - if Corbyn wins then there is no way on God's green earth Woodcock (Who will probably still be an MP if Corby does win) will be able to demand that of him.
He's trying to see if a kite can fly. Unfortunately, made of lead, not really a chance. On the other hand, his constituency party will not be happy bunnies and may decide, sometime, before the next election that a new candidate might be required....
This election came too soon for us, and Fallon has not had a good campaign, but by 2022 we will be the only ones onstage as alternatives to the big 2, outside Scotland.
I guess you know why a lot of Cameroons think Steve Hilton's an absolute tosser.
It was amusing to see Ian Dun't response defending May. Clearly in the mad world of Dunt/Maugham and Grayling being an original Brexiteer is ever so slightly worse than being an adopted Brexiteer.
This is really really bizarre reasoning from Woodcock - if Corbyn wins then there is no way on God's green earth Woodcock (Who will probably still be an MP if Corby does win) will be able to demand that of him.
He's trying to see if a kite can fly. Unfortunately, made of lead, not really a chance. On the other hand, his constituency party will not be happy bunnies and may decide, sometime, before the next election that a new candidate might be required....
I reckon every other doorstep in Barrow is "I'd love to vote for YOU John, BUT". Probably one of the worst places in the whole country for Corbynism.
This is really really bizarre reasoning from Woodcock - if Corbyn wins then there is no way on God's green earth Woodcock (Who will probably still be an MP if Corby does win) will be able to demand that of him.
It's not bizarre - it's a logical extension of his local campaign for Barrow. Vote for me, vote for Labour, not for Corbyn.
Let's face it, in his position anyone would try anything. He's toast
Was just reading a piece about Labour MPs privately expressing thoughts that Labour on for approx 180 seats - still huge disparity between on the ground feedback and some national polls. ICM would seem to tally with the mood music.
(Surely that's the reason cons have ran such a dire campaign? )
This is really really bizarre reasoning from Woodcock - if Corbyn wins then there is no way on God's green earth Woodcock (Who will probably still be an MP if Corby does win) will be able to demand that of him.
Given what we already know about the PLP's lack of confidence in Corbyn, it's quite possible that a hung parliament on Thursday results in something bizzare like a number of Lab MPs quitting the party to prop up May over Corbyn. Any attempt at a 'coalition of chaos' will most likely result in a second election in the autumn as there's no way Corbyn will be able to hold everyone together.
I don't think that is right, the PLP will change their tune very very quickly. Salary before principles.
And if the Tories picked off a few Woodcocks, offering them ministerial cars instead? My view is that the Tories need to be in deep trouble, below 300 seats, before Corbyn gets a shot. The Ulstermen aren't going to prop up the IRA supporter, and neither are the Lib Dems.
That said, I think they'll be nearer 400 seats, probably 380 or thereabouts. My betting approach reflects that.
It's very difficult for Labour to make capital out of the attack, as has been stated the police response was incredibly swift and the force was appropriate. If the attack had been somewhere with a slower response time and if the police had accidentally killed civilians then the Tories would be on the backfoot.
I agree security is by and large priced in, and a my version of a true black swan event would be a scandal rather than a terrorist attack. The Saudi funding line is a useful one for Labour but it's impossible to see any Blue to Lab switchers over this (if anything there will be a few the other way). I assume Labour hope these attacks may drive some Cons back to UKIP but not in sufficient numbers. It will be interesting how this plays out this week as we build up a picture of the terrorists and how known they were to the police, but some tough rhetoric from May (hopefully followed up with some action) and not letting Labour take over the airwaves should be enough to see them home.
Hmm not sure. Cons may say CT is and always has been protected, but there is no doubt that cutting "bobbies on the beat" is something that people intuitively think might be a contributory factor (eg. noticing things that are out of place, etc in your area).
This is really really bizarre reasoning from Woodcock - if Corbyn wins then there is no way on God's green earth Woodcock (Who will probably still be an MP if Corby does win) will be able to demand that of him.
He's trying to see if a kite can fly. Unfortunately, made of lead, not really a chance. On the other hand, his constituency party will not be happy bunnies and may decide, sometime, before the next election that a new candidate might be required....
As said, the electorate will probably decide that on thursday....
The North Dome - the world's largest single gas-condensate reserve at 1.4 quadrillion cubic feet of gas - would be quite a prize.....Qatar currently shares it with Iran.
Squeeze Labour down to around 30% on the day due to people not turning out or wavering on voting for Jezza in the privacy of the Polling booth and you have Con 46% Lab 30% and the Tory landslide is back on,...
As a result of this constant Islamic terrorism I'd expect more normal people to carry weapons. It certainly crosses my mind when I'm on the train to London that I'd feel safer tooled up
Proxy war against Iran incoming. Qatar will not host the 2022 world cup and the middle east is about to pop.
Even the World Cup in Russia next year could be a bundle of laughs...
Indeed. Very susceptible to terror.
Not just terrorism as we see it now, but a lot of the old fashioned organised football violence which we pretty much got rid of a couple of decades ago in Europe.
There's got to be a chance that 2018 and 2022 World Cups both get moved, and I'd guess England (or a UK 'joint' hosting) would be an easy decision to make as an alternative.
Squeeze Labour down to around 30% on the day due to people not turning out or wavering on voting for Jezza in the privacy of the Polling booth and you have Con 46% Lab 30% and the Tory landslide is back on,...
Squeeze Labour down to around 30% on the day due to people not turning out or wavering on voting for Jezza in the privacy of the Polling booth and you have Con 46% Lab 30% and the Tory landslide is back on,...
ICM's methodology already assumes 2015 turnout by demographic sub-group. The question is to what extent young people will turn out in larger numbers than then. A further relative decline would be extremely surprising.
Mr. Eagles, interesting answer. Suggests a landslide in three figures. I still think 60-80 the likeliest band, but if it's not that I'd guess it'd be higher rather than lower.
Mr. Woolie, Sky's political coverage can optimistically be described as patchy. A spike in inflation is a 0.1% rise, you know.
Squeeze Labour down to around 30% on the day due to people not turning out or wavering on voting for Jezza in the privacy of the Polling booth and you have Con 46% Lab 30% and the Tory landslide is back on,...
Is this like Cleggasm and Milifandom?
Well both Cleggasm and Milifandom did see an increase the Lib Dem and Labour votes, and vote share, though both lost net seats, though in Miliband's case that was because of Scotland.
But Miliband in England saw votes stack up in the wrong places.
Squeeze Labour down to around 30% on the day due to people not turning out or wavering on voting for Jezza in the privacy of the Polling booth and you have Con 46% Lab 30% and the Tory landslide is back on,...
Is this like Cleggasm and Milifandom?
Corbyn's biggest risk is that this is Bart Simpsons attempt to be class president. Everyone supports him but nobody votes. However, the counter to this is Brexit, Trump etc etc
That Tory 44-45% firewall shows no signs of weakening with three days of campaigning to go.
Plenty of people made up their mind on Corbyn even before the election was called - and haven't wavered.
...... plus as I keep pointing out, yawn, something like 20% of those voting have already done so. and Labour therefore appears likely to have largely missed out on the surge of support in their favour insofar as this has taken place over the past 7-10 days, which might cost them a few seats in the ultra marginals.
Good on him. We need to be speaking more to the likes of Maajid Nawaz and Trevor Philips here too. Good to see article posted just above from other moderate Muslims and imams, we need to engage with them, put more resources into the Prevent strategy and encourage Muslim communities to continue to report the black sheep in their own families.
Tatchell's twitter is interesting - noone has more to lose than gay people when extreme Islamic ideologies taking hold.
With two significantly different methodologies producing divergent outcomes, it seems odd that pollsters have all plumped for one or the other, and no-one has tried to find some sort of balance between the two approaches?
Squeeze Labour down to around 30% on the day due to people not turning out or wavering on voting for Jezza in the privacy of the Polling booth and you have Con 46% Lab 30% and the Tory landslide is back on,...
Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
Most polls have SCons on 25 to 30% and SLAB on 20 to 25% though Comres has SLab lower and Survation higher
I think SCON will come 3rd as SLAB "surges" back to c.25% - Will be interesting to watch SCON & their MSM fanboys spinning 3rd as a win !
I wouldn't be surprised to see SCON, SLAB and the Nationalists all score in the 30s.
The LibDems may get <5% but still get more seats than SLAB !</p>
LibDems are odds on favourites in 5 Scottish seats (and in 6 English seats and 1 Welsh seat).
They are also shorter than 2/1 against in another 10 seats.
Weighted average number of seats, based on top 40 targets is 16 seats.
I'm almost certain of it. Social media has progressed 2 years and has an even bigger impact on our lives and influence on the news, and Corbyn encourages the shouters even more than the more centrist Clegg and Miliband ever did to mislead us of the strength of support. Yet the pattern suggests less and less youth engagement (excluding brexit, which the youth lost). Add in the fact dark events like terrorism (new for younger voters) will diminish much of the anti Tory sentiment as the nation builds bridges and I fail to see Labour getting anywhere near 40 points.
Squeeze Labour down to around 30% on the day due to people not turning out or wavering on voting for Jezza in the privacy of the Polling booth and you have Con 46% Lab 30% and the Tory landslide is back on,...
Is this like Cleggasm and Milifandom?
Well both Cleggasm and Milifandom did see an increase the Lib Dem and Labour votes, and vote share, though both lost net seats, though in Miliband's case that was because of Scotland.
But Miliband in England saw votes stack up in the wrong places.
That's kind of what I meant. The from really initial low expectations, Corbyn does better, but the surge doesn't turn out to be anywhere near as massive (and in the case of 2015 Tories, their polling showed their own numbers never moved throughout). Didn't the Lib Dem in 2010 have one or two polls where they were basically neck and neck with the Tories?
What a dismal choice we face, I decided when the election was called I wouldn't be voting, nothing has changed my mind. No party has given me a single positive reason to support them.
I was prepared to give May a chance because she wasn't Cameron but she's every bit as vacuous. I have absolutely no idea what she believes in.
I genuinely don't think she believes in much.
For some time I have suspected individuals in politics of having no view at all on anything. Those who switch party are the obvious exemplars. They see each party as a franchise and simply pick one according to how well they can do in it versus their personal ambitions. What it purports to stand for is neither here nor there.
At first blush this seems egregiously unprincipled until one considers that as a graduate applying to entry schemes everyone does the same. You pick from unrelated choices according to rewards and to aignment with your personal goals.
Car dealers don't much care if they sell Hondas or BMWs. Fast-food ranchisees probably don't much care whether they sell Burger King burgers, McDonalds burgers or Unlucky Fried Kitten. Whatever you sell, you would, if asked, assert to be the best. But the fact is that you're running a fundamentally identical business which even includes selling chicken burgers when you aren't KFC.
Politicians are the same. There is really no reason other than inertia why Labour and the Conservatives could not swap manifestoes.
Thanks Alistair, great header as always. On the offtopic question of psephology vs theology of the crimson tide, this was an interesting thread from 2015.
Even accounting of their bat-shit crazy economic proposals, putting forward Diane Abbot to head the nation's security apparatus must be the scariest aspect of Labour getting power?
Squeeze Labour down to around 30% on the day due to people not turning out or wavering on voting for Jezza in the privacy of the Polling booth and you have Con 46% Lab 30% and the Tory landslide is back on,...
Squeeze Labour down to around 30% on the day due to people not turning out or wavering on voting for Jezza in the privacy of the Polling booth and you have Con 46% Lab 30% and the Tory landslide is back on,...
Is this like Cleggasm and Milifandom?
Well both Cleggasm and Milifandom did see an increase the Lib Dem and Labour votes, and vote share, though both lost net seats, though in Miliband's case that was because of Scotland.
But Miliband in England saw votes stack up in the wrong places.
That's kind of what I meant. The from really initial low expectations, Corbyn does better, but the surge doesn't turn out to be anywhere near as massive (and in the case of 2015 Tories, their polling showed their own numbers never moved throughout). Didn't the Lib Dem in 2010 have one or two polls where they were basically neck and neck with the Tories?
Two polls had the Lib Dems leading but long before voting day and they'd fallen back to high 20s in the final week. 23.7% in the actuality below anything they polled post debates.
Mr. Eagles, interesting answer. Suggests a landslide in three figures. I still think 60-80 the likeliest band, but if it's not that I'd guess it'd be higher rather than lower.
Mr. Woolie, Sky's political coverage can optimistically be described as patchy. A spike in inflation is a 0.1% rise, you know.
I'd feel a lot more confident about my prediction if Nick Timothy had spent the last seven weeks locked in a fridge and Mrs May hadn't proved as crap as I had been warning.
At the start of the campaign I was confident of a 100 seat plus majority, now less so.
It's very difficult for Labour to make capital out of the attack, as has been stated the police response was incredibly swift and the force was appropriate. If the attack had been somewhere with a slower response time and if the police had accidentally killed civilians then the Tories would be on the backfoot.
I agree security is by and large priced in, and a my version of a true black swan event would be a scandal rather than a terrorist attack. The Saudi funding line is a useful one for Labour but it's impossible to see any Blue to Lab switchers over this (if anything there will be a few the other way). I assume Labour hope these attacks may drive some Cons back to UKIP but not in sufficient numbers. It will be interesting how this plays out this week as we build up a picture of the terrorists and how known they were to the police, but some tough rhetoric from May (hopefully followed up with some action) and not letting Labour take over the airwaves should be enough to see them home.
Hmm not sure. Cons may say CT is and always has been protected, but there is no doubt that cutting "bobbies on the beat" is something that people intuitively think might be a contributory factor (eg. noticing things that are out of place, etc in your area).
I disagree completely with the premise of measuring inputs (number of police staff) rather than outputs (crime rates and incident response times) but Labour and the Police Federation have certainly done a good political job on this story over the past couple of weeks.
Mr. Eagles, interesting answer. Suggests a landslide in three figures. I still think 60-80 the likeliest band, but if it's not that I'd guess it'd be higher rather than lower.
Mr. Woolie, Sky's political coverage can optimistically be described as patchy. A spike in inflation is a 0.1% rise, you know.
Yes. This Beth person seems to be a past master at the making a statement rather than presenting the news style of journalism though. At least she's not as awful as Kay 'I think I'm a hard nosed journalist but I like puppies' Burley though who just Hector's people as devil's advocate however ridiculous she sounds.
As a result of this constant Islamic terrorism I'd expect more normal people to carry weapons. It certainly crosses my mind when I'm on the train to London that I'd feel safer tooled up
Guns are difficult to access and carry heavy sentences if caught. But I can imagine more people carrying tasers.
Even mace/pepper spray would have been handy to have had Saturday night against somebody wielding a knife.
Lib Dems on 8%...I know that is what they got in 2015 and Tiny Tim has had a crap campaign, but I don't know I just feel like really, there has to be soft lefties remain types who like SO are disgusted by Corbyn in the way Miliband certainly didn't.
Morning everyone. Not been on since the grim events of Saturday night, but been reading here and watching the coverage of course. Whilst it's fairly unseemly in some ways to speculate on the possibility electoral impacts of terrorism, it's a thing so we must. My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad. Set that against Corbyn's ludicrous volte face on shoot to kill. It's clearly nonsense but It presses a button (deliberate choice of words) that he is prepared to say he will change his stance in the public interest. Whether he will or not is irrelevant. My read on how the public will reach overall is this......... For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........
In Oct 1974 the IRA bombed two pubs in Guildford five days before the election.
Yes, but the dynamic is different this time. Islamist terrorism comes with very different baggage socially to the IRA campaign which was very much a single issue republican campaign. It was fought in a very different time with very different political and social sttitudes.
The different social attitudes apparently included refusal to be cowed - possibly it helped that anyone then over ~50 had experienced World War 2 as an adult - and much less political correctness.
But I'd say the IRA came closer than these nutcases have done so far to threatening our way of life:
They assassinated multiple MPs, and Lord Mountbatten They planted a few bombs which as they said later could have been designed to kill the Queen of England ... if they'd wished to go that far They came very close to blowing up Thatcher and her cabinet in the 1980s They attacked Downing St. in the 1990s and so on.
Three attacks in 9 weeks getting through, after 12 years with them all stopped, does worry me rather.
The N.Ireland experience did tend to show what policies worked, e.g. total, ruthless infiltration by the security services was what led to the ceasefire and what didn't, e.g. internment and petty rules on not allowing Gerry Adams' voice on TV.
Morning everyone. Not been on since the grim events of Saturday night, but been reading here and watching the coverage of course. Whilst it's fairly unseemly in some ways to speculate on the possibility electoral impacts of terrorism, it's a thing so we must. My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad. Set that against Corbyn's ludicrous volte face on shoot to kill. It's clearly nonsense but It presses a button (deliberate choice of words) that he is prepared to say he will change his stance in the public interest. Whether he will or not is irrelevant. My read on how the public will reach overall is this......... For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........
In Oct 1974 the IRA bombed two pubs in Guildford five days before the election.
Yes, but the dynamic is different this time. Islamist terrorism comes with very different baggage socially to the IRA campaign which was very much a single issue republican campaign. It was fought in a very different time with very different political and social sttitudes.
The different social attitudes apparently included refusal to be cowed - possibly it helped that anyone then over ~50 had experienced World War 2 as an adult - and much less political correctness.
But I'd say the IRA came closer than these nutcases have done so far to threatening our way of life:
They assassinated multiple MPs, and Lord Mountbatten They planted a few bombs which as they said later could have been designed to kill the Queen of England ... if they'd wished to go that far They came very close to blowing up Thatcher and her cabinet in the 1980s They attacked Downing St. in the 1990s and so on.
Three attacks in 9 weeks getting through, after 12 years with them all stopped, does worry me rather.
The N.Ireland experience did tend to show what policies worked, e.g. total, ruthless infiltration by the security services was what led to the ceasefire and what didn't, e.g. internment and petty rules on not allowing Gerry Adams' voice on TV.
Comments
The real problem the LDs have at the moment is that for a whole load of people who are sympathetic to the general idea, the party as it is currently incarnated is neither very Liberal (recent leaders have been very statist in their outlook), nor especially Democratic (trying to ignore the referendum being the most conspicuous example)
The Americans did this in the late 19th century in the Philippines, when facing Islamic insurgents. The policy was hugely succesful and basically brought the attacks to an end. These religious nutcases - they're nuts! Play 'em at their own game.
"Theresa May’s pledge to build one million homes by 2020 will result in an actual housebuilding increase of only 9,000 properties a year, research has found.
The Conservative Party’s commitment, which runs from mid-2015 to the end of 2020, amounts to a housebuilding rate of 175,000 properties a year. However, the present ten-year average rate of housebuilding in England is only slightly smaller, at 166,000 new homes a year."
I agree security is by and large priced in, and a my version of a true black swan event would be a scandal rather than a terrorist attack. The Saudi funding line is a useful one for Labour but it's impossible to see any Blue to Lab switchers over this (if anything there will be a few the other way). I assume Labour hope these attacks may drive some Cons back to UKIP but not in sufficient numbers. It will be interesting how this plays out this week as we build up a picture of the terrorists and how known they were to the police, but some tough rhetoric from May (hopefully followed up with some action) and not letting Labour take over the airwaves should be enough to see them home.
Con 45 (nc) Lab 34 (nc) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 5 (nc) Greens 3 (nc)
Changes from The Sun on Sunday Poll
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/05/london-attack-isis-claims-responsibility-victims-named-live-updates?page=with:block-593519e8e4b0bdd87e2f36e2#block-593519e8e4b0bdd87e2f36e2
https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/871619551867408385
Plenty of people made up their mind on Corbyn even before the election was called - and haven't wavered.
Let's face it, in his position anyone would try anything. He's toast
(Surely that's the reason cons have ran such a dire campaign? )
That said, I think they'll be nearer 400 seats, probably 380 or thereabouts. My betting approach reflects that.
Con 43 Lab 34 LD 10 UKIP 3
Tories to outperform UNS by 20-25 seats
As Labour pile up votes in all the wrong places.
I do expect at least half a dozen Tory losses though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEdhjxU3frg
The North Dome - the world's largest single gas-condensate reserve at 1.4 quadrillion cubic feet of gas - would be quite a prize.....Qatar currently shares it with Iran.
It really would be hilarious if the Lib Dems ended up with more seats north of the border than labour..
There's got to be a chance that 2018 and 2022 World Cups both get moved, and I'd guess England (or a UK 'joint' hosting) would be an easy decision to make as an alternative.
Mr. Woolie, Sky's political coverage can optimistically be described as patchy. A spike in inflation is a 0.1% rise, you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkVPsRcepZo
this mp needs to get a proper job.
But Miliband in England saw votes stack up in the wrong places.
However, the counter to this is Brexit, Trump etc etc
Honestly Labour is a BAME/middle class coalition these days. The proof of the pudding will be if our very own @Tissue_Price can win in Don Valley.
https://twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/871646549616603137
hang your heads in shame.
They are also shorter than 2/1 against in another 10 seats.
Weighted average number of seats, based on top 40 targets is 16 seats.
I'm almost certain of it. Social media has progressed 2 years and has an even bigger impact on our lives and influence on the news, and Corbyn encourages the shouters even more than the more centrist Clegg and Miliband ever did to mislead us of the strength of support. Yet the pattern suggests less and less youth engagement (excluding brexit, which the youth lost).
Add in the fact dark events like terrorism (new for younger voters) will diminish much of the anti Tory sentiment as the nation builds bridges and I fail to see Labour getting anywhere near 40 points.
For some time I have suspected individuals in politics of having no view at all on anything. Those who switch party are the obvious exemplars. They see each party as a franchise and simply pick one according to how well they can do in it versus their personal ambitions. What it purports to stand for is neither here nor there.
At first blush this seems egregiously unprincipled until one considers that as a graduate applying to entry schemes everyone does the same. You pick from unrelated choices according to rewards and to aignment with your personal goals.
Car dealers don't much care if they sell Hondas or BMWs. Fast-food ranchisees probably don't much care whether they sell Burger King burgers, McDonalds burgers or Unlucky Fried Kitten. Whatever you sell, you would, if asked, assert to be the best. But the fact is that you're running a fundamentally identical business which even includes selling chicken burgers when you aren't KFC.
Politicians are the same. There is really no reason other than inertia why Labour and the Conservatives could not swap manifestoes.
Every voter needs to see that ad before voting.
At the start of the campaign I was confident of a 100 seat plus majority, now less so.
https://twitter.com/MerryMichaelW/status/871623672456499200
EC&A ought to be one of the seats Labour will outperform the most in the whole country, surely ?
Who do you trust on UK security
Theresa May 42%
Jeremy Corbyn 16%
Edit: or was!!
Very naughty if true
Even mace/pepper spray would have been handy to have had Saturday night against somebody wielding a knife.
But I'd say the IRA came closer than these nutcases have done so far to threatening our way of life:
They assassinated multiple MPs, and Lord Mountbatten
They planted a few bombs which as they said later could have been designed to kill the Queen of England ... if they'd wished to go that far
They came very close to blowing up Thatcher and her cabinet in the 1980s
They attacked Downing St. in the 1990s
and so on.
Three attacks in 9 weeks getting through, after 12 years with them all stopped, does worry me rather.
The N.Ireland experience did tend to show what policies worked, e.g. total, ruthless infiltration by the security services was what led to the ceasefire and what didn't, e.g. internment and petty rules on not allowing Gerry Adams' voice on TV.
Just a clever plan to drag in more help?