It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Ed Miliband, the second worst leader Labour has ever had, is a country mile ahead of Corbyn.
so how come Jezza is getting better polling than Ed ?
even the pessimistic view says he'll do no worse
He might poll better than Ed but he's still incompetent.
Ashcroft model has Con 47, LD 26/27 in Oxford West & Abingdon. Nope.
Why do you think otherwise?
Methodologically, I think Ashcroft has underestimated hardcore Remain areas like Oxford and Cambridge. On the ground, the Lib Dems are still pouring activists into it, and if their internal polling were showing 47/27 they would have diverted resources to defending other seats by now. Finally, Lib Dems actually took seats off the Conservatives here in the locals - a very rare occurrence in the shires.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Ed Miliband, the second worst leader Labour has ever had, is a country mile ahead of Corbyn.
so how come Jezza is getting better polling than Ed ?
even the pessimistic view says he'll do no worse
He might poll better than Ed but he's still incompetent.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Cameron's victories in 2010 and 2015 were bigger than Thatcher's in 1979 and 1983, albeit from a lower base.
Conservatives should be thanking Cameron, not deriding him. The 2010 result was brilliant, and only occurred because he continued the task Howard started of turning the party around.
I doubt any of the other Conservative front benchers - and yes, including Davis - could have done it.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Cameron's victories in 2010 and 2015 were bigger than Thatcher's in 1979 and 1983, albeit from a lower base.
Conservatives should be thanking Cameron, not deriding him. The 2010 result was brilliant, and only occurred because he continued the task Howard started of turning the party around.
I doubt any of the other Conservative front benchers - and yes, including Davis - could have done it.
Ashcroft model has Con 47, LD 26/27 in Oxford West & Abingdon. Nope.
Why do you think otherwise?
Methodologically, I think Ashcroft has underestimated hardcore Remain areas like Oxford and Cambridge. On the ground, the Lib Dems are still pouring activists into it, and if their internal polling were showing 47/27 they would have diverted resources to defending other seats by now. Finally, Lib Dems actually took seats off the Conservatives here in the locals - a very rare occurrence in the shires.
Fair enough. I was just interested to know. Do you think the Lib Dems will win Oxford West & Abingdon?
Chatting to a friend this afternoon-he is well connected locally and nationally. Never seen him so utterly underwhelmed about a campaign before-really scathing of Timothy and Hill in particular.
I don't think Crosby comes out of it looking good, either. The narrative is beardie Timothy got past him and dripped poison in Tessa's ear, but that is so often part of the narrative that it should be something he foresees and forestalls, e.g. by making it a condition of his contract that he gets to sign off the manifesto. And briefing against your employer isn't in any circumstances good.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
Labour have the problem that anyone who fits that bill isn't wacky enough for the current membership to elect as leader
Did you watch that Tony Benn interview? His leadership bid was based on a platform amazingly similar to what Corbyn is trying
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
If May wins a majority
June 9th - Amber Rudd COE
And that is her successor
Yes. Probably.
Three women leaders to Labour's and the LibDems' none, and not an all-women shortlist in sight. Makes you think...or it should.
Ashcroft model has Con 47, LD 26/27 in Oxford West & Abingdon. Nope.
Why do you think otherwise?
Methodologically, I think Ashcroft has underestimated hardcore Remain areas like Oxford and Cambridge. On the ground, the Lib Dems are still pouring activists into it, and if their internal polling were showing 47/27 they would have diverted resources to defending other seats by now. Finally, Lib Dems actually took seats off the Conservatives here in the locals - a very rare occurrence in the shires.
Even if there internal polling was distinctly underwhelming, where else are the LibDems going to send those activists they are "pouring" into OW&A? South-west London? The southern Midlands isn't exactly a target-rich environment for them.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Cameron's victories in 2010 and 2015 were bigger than Thatcher's in 1979 and 1983, albeit from a lower base.
Conservatives should be thanking Cameron, not deriding him. The 2010 result was brilliant, and only occurred because he continued the task Howard started of turning the party around.
I doubt any of the other Conservative front benchers - and yes, including Davis - could have done it.
There is a weird strand that seems to think he was utterly useless, but I just don't see how that is credible - even if what he faced was terrible, you have to be able to take advantage (as TMay may or may not be able to do re Corbyn - although should still make progress)
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
She has no intention of fighting 2022 anyway.
Labour have a really good chance of winning on a "time for a change" ticket in 2022 - As long as they got for a sensible leader.
Labour have the problem that absolutely irrespective of the scale of defeat on Thursday (if defeat it is) Corbyn personally has had a stupendously good campaign and looks set to stay in post, at the very minimum, until party conference this autumn, at which he can swing the reduction of plp support required for leadership nominations from 15% to 5%. 2022 then becomes a replay of tory drone vs lefty nutter. How does it play in 2022? Long Bailey or whoever won't have the baggage of IRA history Corbyn does, but will have his main problem of differentially non-turning-out support from the yoof.
2022 could easily be depressingly like 2017, in short.
Corbyn does not control the Labour party machinery and this campaign will not change that. Those who do - the activists that canvass and attend CLP meetings, and the unions - will know what cost them this election. The key will be how the unions respond to that. I'd expect all but Unite to want Corbyn to stand down.
However, given this election result will not be close and there is not much Labour can usefully do once it is known, there is no need to hurry Corbyn's departure. It is clear that in Brexit Britain an anti-austerity message can get a hearing, but the person delivering it has to be someone without the baggage the Corbyn and his mates bring. There is room for compromise on how to move forward from here for Labour. We'll see what happens. But one thing is certain: the party's existential crisis is no longer an issue. We have returned to two party politics in England and wales, and Labour is the second party.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Cameron's victories in 2010 and 2015 were bigger than Thatcher's in 1979 and 1983, albeit from a lower base.
Conservatives should be thanking Cameron, not deriding him. The 2010 result was brilliant, and only occurred because he continued the task Howard started of turning the party around.
I doubt any of the other Conservative front benchers - and yes, including Davis - could have done it.
how could the victories be bigger when he had fewer MPs ?
Labour have the problem that absolutely irrespective of the scale of defeat on Thursday (if defeat it is) Corbyn personally has had a stupendously good campaign and looks set to stay in post
I was bemused in 1987 at the way Labour applauded itself for its fabulous campaign having cataclysmically lost. They duly left Kinnock in charge and sure enough he fought the next election the same way and he lost that one as well.
Inputs versus outputs.
Nobody who went into a campaign with 20-point poll leads held onto them. Blair managed a 13-point win in 1997 but nobody said he'd blown it.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Cameron's victories in 2010 and 2015 were bigger than Thatcher's in 1979 and 1983, albeit from a lower base.
Conservatives should be thanking Cameron, not deriding him. The 2010 result was brilliant, and only occurred because he continued the task Howard started of turning the party around.
I doubt any of the other Conservative front benchers - and yes, including Davis - could have done it.
There is a weird strand that seems to think he was utterly useless, but I just don't see how that is credible - even if what he faced was terrible, you have to be able to take advantage (as TMay may or may not be able to do re Corbyn - although should still make progress)
Cameron was a) extremely good at General Elections b) extremely poor at the EU Referendum. Book-ends of his achievements.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
She has no intention of fighting 2022 anyway.
Labour have a really good chance of winning on a "time for a change" ticket in 2022 - As long as they got for a sensible leader.
Labour have the problem that absolutely irrespective of the scale of defeat on Thursday (if defeat it is) Corbyn personally has had a stupendously good campaign and looks set to stay in post, at the very minimum, until party conference this autumn, at which he can swing the reduction of plp support required for leadership nominations from 15% to 5%. 2022 then becomes a replay of tory drone vs lefty nutter. How does it play in 2022? Long Bailey or whoever won't have the baggage of IRA history Corbyn does, but will have his main problem of differentially non-turning-out support from the yoof.
2022 could easily be depressingly like 2017, in short.
But one thing is certain: the party's existential crisis is no longer an issue. We have returned to two party politics in England and wales, and Labour is the second party.
Things can change very quickly! Nothing is certain!
Chatting to a friend this afternoon-he is well connected locally and nationally. Never seen him so utterly underwhelmed about a campaign before-really scathing of Timothy and Hill in particular.
Since we're sharing, had an elected Tory tell me the other day the national lot 'don't know what the f*** they are doing'. Of course, he may be a bedwetter Tory.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
No -- Labour should have attacked the Tories on defence and security: army cuts and police cuts. Corbyn did slip in the 20,000 fewer police line into one of the debates but it should have been a major theme from day one. Get the debate off hypothetical nuclear wars and back to planet Earth where the Tories are vulnerable.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
Labour going into a general election with Jeremy Corbyn as leader is like the Tories going into one with John Redwood or Iain Duncan Smith at the helm. That's a non-partisan way of looking at the situation I think.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
Labour have the problem that anyone who fits that bill isn't wacky enough for the current membership to elect as leader
Did you watch that Tony Benn interview? His leadership bid was based on a platform amazingly similar to what Corbyn is trying
Yep, Corbyn is firmly stuck in the late 70s/early 80s.
We will see what choices the Labour electorate get when it comes time to choose a new leader. What is noticeable is that Corbyn has felt the need to pretend he has changed his mind on all the security-related issues he had spent 40 years decrying. What interests the Labour membership most is the redistributive economics that Corbyn talks about, not his views on policing and anti-terrorism.
That Opinium survey still looks quite optimistic for Labour, and at least a point or two too low for the Tories. And if my theories about the implications of a return to two-party politics south of the Tweed are anywhere near accurate, the difference in terms of seat count between a 7% and a 9% lead could be very significant.
At this stage, I remain more convinced by the non-polling data suggesting a good night for the Tories. I just don't see, beyond (perhaps) Brighton Kemptown and one or two seats in London, where Labour is meant to make any gains from the Conservatives; the Conservatives, on the other hand, have a great many opportunities available.
Labour's second-best prospect from the Tories in London is Hendon with a 7.5% majority.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
If May wins a majority
June 9th - Amber Rudd COE
And that is her successor
Yes. Probably.
Three women leaders to Labour's and the LibDems' none, and not an all-women shortlist in sight. Makes you think...or it should.
May has not impressed.
Perhaps PB Tories should consider ability over genitalia when selecting leaders.
Ashcroft's model really doesn't think the LDs will, after all, manage to cluster their vote effectively in Scotland. Not even close in Edinburgh West. Likely to lose Orkney, Fife not a chance, ditto Dunbartonshire East.
Also Clegg is without a hope in this model. 81% chance Labour gain. Labour 97% to win Bermondsey.
It has them winning Ceredigion (just), Westmorland and I don't know where else.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Cameron's victories in 2010 and 2015 were bigger than Thatcher's in 1979 and 1983, albeit from a lower base.
Conservatives should be thanking Cameron, not deriding him. The 2010 result was brilliant, and only occurred because he continued the task Howard started of turning the party around.
I doubt any of the other Conservative front benchers - and yes, including Davis - could have done it.
how could the victories be bigger when he had fewer MPs ?
learn to count JJ
Starting from a lower baseline, obviously. The increase in seats speak for themselves.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Ed Miliband, the second worst leader Labour has ever had, is a country mile ahead of Corbyn.
so how come Jezza is getting better polling than Ed ?
even the pessimistic view says he'll do no worse
The return to a two-party system.
That said, one important lesson that Corbyn has taught the entire Labour party is not to be timid in talking about redistributive policies. Don't worry about what the Tory press will say, because it will always attack. EdM - as well as the opponents that Corbyn faced in 2015 - were far too cautious because they feared giving hostages to fortune. Corbyn has show that does not need to be a problem. But in the end he just has too much baggage. You can't say and do the things he has done over a 40 year period and hope to become PM.
As I pointed out this morning, the spread betting markets followed the polls and predicted a Hung Parliament last time. The Tories promptly secured a small majority and defeated Labour by a margin of over 100 seats.
Under the present circumstances, Labour could make it past 35% - but 40% is well beyond them.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Cameron's victories in 2010 and 2015 were bigger than Thatcher's in 1979 and 1983, albeit from a lower base.
Conservatives should be thanking Cameron, not deriding him. The 2010 result was brilliant, and only occurred because he continued the task Howard started of turning the party around.
I doubt any of the other Conservative front benchers - and yes, including Davis - could have done it.
how could the victories be bigger when he had fewer MPs ?
learn to count JJ
Starting from a lower baseline, obviously. The increase in seats speak for themselves.
And I can count very well, thanks.
Shouldn't the par score be % of available seats won? That probably favours Cameron as he had more traditionally Tory friendly seats in sight, but forgetting that, 75 gains for May would equal his 2010 performance
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
No -- Labour should have attacked the Tories on defence and security: army cuts and police cuts. Corbyn did slip in the 20,000 fewer police line into one of the debates but it should have been a major theme from day one. Get the debate off hypothetical nuclear wars and back to planet Earth where the Tories are vulnerable.
With Corbyn in charge, Labour could not attack on those issues. No-one seriously believes that Corbyn would be more effective than May on national security issues.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
If May wins a majority
June 9th - Amber Rudd COE
And that is her successor
Yes. Probably.
Three women leaders to Labour's and the LibDems' none, and not an all-women shortlist in sight. Makes you think...or it should.
May has not impressed.
Perhaps PB Tories should consider ability over genitalia when selecting leaders.
Isn't that the whole point of all-women shortlists?
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Cameron's victories in 2010 and 2015 were bigger than Thatcher's in 1979 and 1983, albeit from a lower base.
Conservatives should be thanking Cameron, not deriding him. The 2010 result was brilliant, and only occurred because he continued the task Howard started of turning the party around.
I doubt any of the other Conservative front benchers - and yes, including Davis - could have done it.
how could the victories be bigger when he had fewer MPs ?
learn to count JJ
I always find the sort of logic fail that JJ is demonstrating to be particularly annoying. It is neigh on impossible to get through to them why it is a failure even though it should be blindingly obvious. The 24 seats Cameron won in 2015 are miles more impressive than the 97 he won in 2010. The 38 that Maggie won in 1983 are outstanding.
As I pointed out this morning, the spread betting markets followed the polls and predicted a Hung Parliament last time. The Tories promptly secured a small majority and defeated Labour by a margin of over 100 seats.
Under the present circumstances, Labour could make it past 35% - but 40% is well beyond them.
I believe you, but most thought they wouldn't get to 35% even in the polls!
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
Brown had Scotland.
England and Wales are returning to two party politics after a 25 year break. Cameron would have benefited from that just as much as May.
he didnt the last time, he scraped through in 2015
Cameron's victories in 2010 and 2015 were bigger than Thatcher's in 1979 and 1983, albeit from a lower base.
Conservatives should be thanking Cameron, not deriding him. The 2010 result was brilliant, and only occurred because he continued the task Howard started of turning the party around.
I doubt any of the other Conservative front benchers - and yes, including Davis - could have done it.
how could the victories be bigger when he had fewer MPs ?
learn to count JJ
Starting from a lower baseline, obviously. The increase in seats speak for themselves.
And I can count very well, thanks.
yes - he started from alower baseline so ramping the movement doesnt tell us much, the end result does and in 2010 he was short
Indeed if this campaign reminds me of anything irs 2010. Tories with high hopesagisnt a weak and wounded Labour party watching a large lead slip away. The dynamics of campaign 2010 arent that much different to this one.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
No -- Labour should have attacked the Tories on defence and security: army cuts and police cuts. Corbyn did slip in the 20,000 fewer police line into one of the debates but it should have been a major theme from day one. Get the debate off hypothetical nuclear wars and back to planet Earth where the Tories are vulnerable.
With Corbyn in charge, Labour could not attack on those issues. No-one seriously believes that Corbyn would be more effective than May on national security issues.
Exactly. The kind of people that the Saturday's terrorists flew ISIS flags in Regents Park with were probably at the events Corbyn spoke at.
They would have plenty of mutual facebook friends/linkedin connections.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
So how come May will have more MPs than Cameron and Osborne
do tell
They never were up against Jeremy Corbyn.
If you're happy, I'll bet you that Mrs May doesn't beat the 108 seat increase Cameron achieved at his first general election as leader?
Chortle - Cameron was up against Brown and a shagged out Labour govt and still couldnt win
He couldnt whack EIC either
You dont think it might have been becasue he pissed off so many of his own supporters that they stopped voting blue ?
May's majority is what Cameron should have got in 2015
So that's a no then?
lol why would I accept a rigged bet ?
I will bet you that she gets more MPs than Cameron in 2015 - similar circumstances
If you think Corbyn is similar to Ed Miliband then I'm shocked to learn you're a stoner.
The 20,000 fewer police issue is going to really hurt the Conservatives in the last couple of days of this campaign . They will poll lower than the 43% in this poll and deserve to.
Even when the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that the 20k figure was focussing on the wrong issue when it comes to helping prevent terrorism?
The detail will he lost. The average voter sadly has the attention span of a goldfish
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
If May wins a majority
June 9th - Amber Rudd COE
And that is her successor
Yes. Probably.
Three women leaders to Labour's and the LibDems' none, and not an all-women shortlist in sight. Makes you think...or it should.
May has not impressed.
Perhaps PB Tories should consider ability over genitalia when selecting leaders.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
If May wins a majority
June 9th - Amber Rudd COE
And that is her successor
Yes. Probably.
Three women leaders to Labour's and the LibDems' none, and not an all-women shortlist in sight. Makes you think...or it should.
May has not impressed.
Perhaps PB Tories should consider ability over genitalia when selecting leaders.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
No -- Labour should have attacked the Tories on defence and security: army cuts and police cuts. Corbyn did slip in the 20,000 fewer police line into one of the debates but it should have been a major theme from day one. Get the debate off hypothetical nuclear wars and back to planet Earth where the Tories are vulnerable.
With Corbyn in charge, Labour could not attack on those issues. No-one seriously believes that Corbyn would be more effective than May on national security issues.
You'd be surprised, quite a few Corbyn supporters have been arguing so on here recently.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
If May wins a majority
June 9th - Amber Rudd COE
And that is her successor
Yes. Probably.
Three women leaders to Labour's and the LibDems' none, and not an all-women shortlist in sight. Makes you think...or it should.
May has not impressed.
Perhaps PB Tories should consider ability over genitalia when selecting leaders.
To be fair TM only became leader because she was the last person standing after Gove and Boris destroyed each other...
Well Lord Ashcroft final estimate gives Lib Dems 39% chance of winning Ceredigion- 28% Lib Dems 22% Plaid 22% Consrvatives 22% Labour
and lord ashcroft estimate for Carmarthen East & dinefwr 31% Cons 31% Lab 30% Plaid
whill still have 16/1 on labour.....i reckon its between plaid & labour myself
My understanding is that Carmarthen East & Dinefwr is likely to hold - deep into the Welsh Language Belt and rural, it's not natural Labour territory. A quick look at the history of the seat reveals that Labour took it in the first Blair landslide, but lost in 2001 and it's been held reasonably comfortably by Plaid ever since.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Conservatives beat Labour into third place, but you wouldn't have thought they had enough in the tank in that part of the world to catch Plaid, either.
The 20,000 fewer police issue is going to really hurt the Conservatives in the last couple of days of this campaign . They will poll lower than the 43% in this poll and deserve to.
Even when the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that the 20k figure was focussing on the wrong issue when it comes to helping prevent terrorism?
The detail will he lost. The average voter sadly has the attention span of a goldfish
The real kicker would be if we did put more money into the police at the detriment of the security services.
Ashcroft model has Con 47, LD 26/27 in Oxford West & Abingdon. Nope.
Why do you think otherwise?
Methodologically, I think Ashcroft has underestimated hardcore Remain areas like Oxford and Cambridge. On the ground, the Lib Dems are still pouring activists into it, and if their internal polling were showing 47/27 they would have diverted resources to defending other seats by now. Finally, Lib Dems actually took seats off the Conservatives here in the locals - a very rare occurrence in the shires.
Fair enough. I was just interested to know. Do you think the Lib Dems will win Oxford West & Abingdon?
Not the OP, but we’ve been receiving an average of two pieces of LibDem election literature per day for the last week here in OxWaAb. It’s getting a bit wearing to be honest!
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
No -- Labour should have attacked the Tories on defence and security: army cuts and police cuts. Corbyn did slip in the 20,000 fewer police line into one of the debates but it should have been a major theme from day one. Get the debate off hypothetical nuclear wars and back to planet Earth where the Tories are vulnerable.
With Corbyn in charge, Labour could not attack on those issues. No-one seriously believes that Corbyn would be more effective than May on national security issues.
They could believe Labour would not have hacked the army to bits or cut 20,000 coppers. Look, I'm no Corbynite and in fact I'm going against the prevailing view that Corbyn has had a good war. Sure, it's not been the catastrophe many expected but let's not be fooled because Ukip, the LibDems and even the Prime Minister herself have gone AWOL.
Labour have the problem that absolutely irrespective of the scale of defeat on Thursday (if defeat it is) Corbyn personally has had a stupendously good campaign and looks set to stay in post
I was bemused in 1987 at the way Labour applauded itself for its fabulous campaign having cataclysmically lost. They duly left Kinnock in charge and sure enough he fought the next election the same way and he lost that one as well.
Inputs versus outputs.
Nobody who went into a campaign with 20-point poll leads held onto them. Blair managed a 13-point win in 1997 but nobody said he'd blown it.
But it's expected that there will be swingback to the government, not to the opposition. That's what's terrible here.
Ashcroft model has Con 47, LD 26/27 in Oxford West & Abingdon. Nope.
Why do you think otherwise?
Methodologically, I think Ashcroft has underestimated hardcore Remain areas like Oxford and Cambridge. On the ground, the Lib Dems are still pouring activists into it, and if their internal polling were showing 47/27 they would have diverted resources to defending other seats by now. Finally, Lib Dems actually took seats off the Conservatives here in the locals - a very rare occurrence in the shires.
Fair enough. I was just interested to know. Do you think the Lib Dems will win Oxford West & Abingdon?
Not the OP, but we’ve been receiving an average of two pieces of LibDem election literature per day for the last week here in OxWaAb. It’s getting a bit wearing to be honest!
Welcome to PB, Phil. I hope you are doing your bit for the environment.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
No -- Labour should have attacked the Tories on defence and security: army cuts and police cuts. Corbyn did slip in the 20,000 fewer police line into one of the debates but it should have been a major theme from day one. Get the debate off hypothetical nuclear wars and back to planet Earth where the Tories are vulnerable.
With Corbyn in charge, Labour could not attack on those issues. No-one seriously believes that Corbyn would be more effective than May on national security issues.
Exactly. The kind of people that the Saturday's terrorists flew ISIS flags in Regents Park with were probably at the events Corbyn spoke at.
They would have plenty of mutual facebook friends/linkedin connections.
But equally May did nothing about in 6 years at the Home Office.
Incidentally, bloody Romanians coming here and attacking our jihadi's:
Labour Party members will have breathed a sigh of relief today when Diane Abbott announced she was pulling out of a planned appearance on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour. This follows her latest excruciating TV appearance – and there have been many – yesterday. During a discussion with Sky News presenter Dermot Murnaghan on a key counter-terrorism review from last year, Abbott claimed to have read it but was unable to comment on any specifics. When prompted by Murnaghan to talk about putting up security barriers, Abbott merely looked bewildered before saying, ‘Yes, we are now putting up barriers on, erm, bridges…’.
Abbott has been a tour de force in this General Election, clocking up by far the most car-crash interviews. In an interview last week on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, she compared changing her political views on the IRA to changing her hairstyle. Reports later emerged suggesting Abbott had ‘gone rogue’ and directly defied Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell by going on the show.
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
No -- Labour should have attacked the Tories on defence and security: army cuts and police cuts. Corbyn did slip in the 20,000 fewer police line into one of the debates but it should have been a major theme from day one. Get the debate off hypothetical nuclear wars and back to planet Earth where the Tories are vulnerable.
With Corbyn in charge, Labour could not attack on those issues. No-one seriously believes that Corbyn would be more effective than May on national security issues.
Exactly. The kind of people that the Saturday's terrorists flew ISIS flags in Regents Park with were probably at the events Corbyn spoke at.
They would have plenty of mutual facebook friends/linkedin connections.
But equally May did nothing about in 6 years at the Home Office.
Incidentally, bloody Romanians coming here and attacking our jihadi's:
Well Lord Ashcroft final estimate gives Lib Dems 39% chance of winning Ceredigion- 28% Lib Dems 22% Plaid 22% Consrvatives 22% Labour
and lord ashcroft estimate for Carmarthen East & dinefwr 31% Cons 31% Lab 30% Plaid
whill still have 16/1 on labour.....i reckon its between plaid & labour myself
My understanding is that Carmarthen East & Dinefwr is likely to hold - deep into the Welsh Language Belt and rural, it's not natural Labour territory. A quick look at the history of the seat reveals that Labour took it in the first Blair landslide, but lost in 2001 and it's been held reasonably comfortably by Plaid ever since.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Conservatives beat Labour into third place, but you wouldn't have thought they had enough in the tank in that part of the world to catch Plaid, either.
I agree. Very few Plaid->Tory switchers, so if Plaid lose, then they lose to Labour. But if Plaid hold on to most of their votes, then the Tories will probably come 2nd.
Ashcroft model has Con 47, LD 26/27 in Oxford West & Abingdon. Nope.
Why do you think otherwise?
Methodologically, I think Ashcroft has underestimated hardcore Remain areas like Oxford and Cambridge. On the ground, the Lib Dems are still pouring activists into it, and if their internal polling were showing 47/27 they would have diverted resources to defending other seats by now. Finally, Lib Dems actually took seats off the Conservatives here in the locals - a very rare occurrence in the shires.
Fair enough. I was just interested to know. Do you think the Lib Dems will win Oxford West & Abingdon?
Not the OP, but we’ve been receiving an average of two pieces of LibDem election literature per day for the last week here in OxWaAb. It’s getting a bit wearing to be honest!
Welcome to PB, Phil. I hope you are doing your bit for the environment.
(Long time reader, first time poster & all that.)
Thanks - The recycling bin is overflowing!
I can tell you that my Labour friends appear to be all planning to vote LibDem & there are quite a few "X voter giving my vote to the LibDems" (where X is Green or Labour) up outside various local houses. No idea whether there’s enough tactical voting on the ground to push the Libs over the top, but it seems to be more of a thing here than it was in 2015.
That Opinium survey still looks quite optimistic for Labour, and at least a point or two too low for the Tories. And if my theories about the implications of a return to two-party politics south of the Tweed are anywhere near accurate, the difference in terms of seat count between a 7% and a 9% lead could be very significant.
At this stage, I remain more convinced by the non-polling data suggesting a good night for the Tories. I just don't see, beyond (perhaps) Brighton Kemptown and one or two seats in London, where Labour is meant to make any gains from the Conservatives; the Conservatives, on the other hand, have a great many opportunities available.
Labour's second-best prospect from the Tories in London is Hendon with a 7.5% majority.
Too Jewish. Con hold.
This is the UK in 2017, and those four words are factual and credible. How appalling is that?
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
Amber Rudd.
A steady medium pacer. Would beat Corbyn. But who wouldn't?
The assumption seems to be Labour would have someone good? Who?! They will have far fewer MP's and none of the current mob are good enough to beat Corbyn or Ed Miliband
You don't need someone good to beat May, you need someone who is as credible as she is on defence and security.
No -- Labour should have attacked the Tories on defence and security: army cuts and police cuts. Corbyn did slip in the 20,000 fewer police line into one of the debates but it should have been a major theme from day one. Get the debate off hypothetical nuclear wars and back to planet Earth where the Tories are vulnerable.
With Corbyn in charge, Labour could not attack on those issues. No-one seriously believes that Corbyn would be more effective than May on national security issues.
You'd be surprised, quite a few Corbyn supporters have been arguing so on here recently.
Ashcroft model has Con 47, LD 26/27 in Oxford West & Abingdon. Nope.
Why do you think otherwise?
Methodologically, I think Ashcroft has underestimated hardcore Remain areas like Oxford and Cambridge. On the ground, the Lib Dems are still pouring activists into it, and if their internal polling were showing 47/27 they would have diverted resources to defending other seats by now. Finally, Lib Dems actually took seats off the Conservatives here in the locals - a very rare occurrence in the shires.
Fair enough. I was just interested to know. Do you think the Lib Dems will win Oxford West & Abingdon?
Not the OP, but we’ve been receiving an average of two pieces of LibDem election literature per day for the last week here in OxWaAb. It’s getting a bit wearing to be honest!
Three weeks ago I was on the M6 toll on the way to Heathrow when my crown fell out. I got an emergency dental appointment in Wheatley (excellent practice) and it was festooned with lib dem posters. Indeed I have not seen as many posters collectively since then in total
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
If May wins a majority
June 9th - Amber Rudd COE
And that is her successor
Yes. Probably.
Three women leaders to Labour's and the LibDems' none, and not an all-women shortlist in sight. Makes you think...or it should.
May has not impressed.
Perhaps PB Tories should consider ability over genitalia when selecting leaders.
To be fair Labour and Lib Dems both elected a pair of Pr!cks so it kind of evens it out.
What i would like to see-and i think we are more likely to get is a proper contest rather than a "coronation". That said it is always harder for a Governing Party to have a meaningful leadership campaign whilst in office.
That Opinium survey still looks quite optimistic for Labour, and at least a point or two too low for the Tories. And if my theories about the implications of a return to two-party politics south of the Tweed are anywhere near accurate, the difference in terms of seat count between a 7% and a 9% lead could be very significant.
At this stage, I remain more convinced by the non-polling data suggesting a good night for the Tories. I just don't see, beyond (perhaps) Brighton Kemptown and one or two seats in London, where Labour is meant to make any gains from the Conservatives; the Conservatives, on the other hand, have a great many opportunities available.
Labour's second-best prospect from the Tories in London is Hendon with a 7.5% majority.
Too Jewish. Con hold.
This is the UK in 2017, and those four words are factual and credible. How appalling is that?
We were warned
"Powell had spent much of the 1940s in India, and had seen the communal violence which had swept the country around the date of its independence. The deep divisions between individual groups within the country had led to social discord, and eventually violence. In the year before India’s independence on August 15th, 1947, over half a million people lost their lives as a result of civil strife. It was this fear of communalism that spurred Powell into action.
Powell’s contention, based upon his experience in India, was that a failure to integrate foreign communities into the social fabric of a nation would lead to them forming their own separate social groups, and that this being the case, in times particularly of economic strife, violence would emerge as the cleavages between the interests of the local community and that of the newcomers became increasingly apparent and caused inter-ethnic friction"
That said, one important lesson that Corbyn has taught the entire Labour party is not to be timid in talking about redistributive policies.
Even if it loses the election?
Labour's policies are far more popular than its leader, according to all the polls. He is a drag on the Labour vote. I am not a fan - as people on here know - but I do think he has taught a valuable lesson about having he courage of your convictions. Say what you truly believe, do not try to second guess how your words will be reported.
Find any Europhile Tory Minister and they'd tell you that independent of the state of play. Out of context this tells us nothing. Assuming the anonymous quote is even real.
Stop being an idiot, Sam Coates is a top journalist.
Even Tory Leavers on here have been criticising the campaign.
Truly, it has been dreadful. If we win it's because Jim Messina is so good at his job and Jez is so toxic.
That Opinium survey still looks quite optimistic for Labour, and at least a point or two too low for the Tories. And if my theories about the implications of a return to two-party politics south of the Tweed are anywhere near accurate, the difference in terms of seat count between a 7% and a 9% lead could be very significant.
At this stage, I remain more convinced by the non-polling data suggesting a good night for the Tories. I just don't see, beyond (perhaps) Brighton Kemptown and one or two seats in London, where Labour is meant to make any gains from the Conservatives; the Conservatives, on the other hand, have a great many opportunities available.
Labour's second-best prospect from the Tories in London is Hendon with a 7.5% majority.
Too Jewish. Con hold.
This is the UK in 2017, and those four words are factual and credible. How appalling is that?
We were warned
"Powell had spent much of the 1940s in India, and had seen the communal violence which had swept the country around the date of its independence. The deep divisions between individual groups within the country had led to social discord, and eventually violence. In the year before India’s independence on August 15th, 1947, over half a million people lost their lives as a result of civil strife. It was this fear of communalism that spurred Powell into action.
Powell’s contention, based upon his experience in India, was that a failure to integrate foreign communities into the social fabric of a nation would lead to them forming their own separate social groups, and that this being the case, in times particularly of economic strife, violence would emerge as the cleavages between the interests of the local community and that of the newcomers became increasingly apparent and caused inter-ethnic friction"
On the contrary, I don't remotely believe the Jews of Hendon have failed to integrate in UK society - my problem is that they have to make a judgment between the two main parties as to which is less anti-semitic.
What memes(think that's the right word) is the average voter picking up? From my remote perspective
I don't want jimmy krankie running the country They are all incompetent in corbyns team Even the garden tax has gained traction I'm labour through and through bot I want that tw** removed so I can vote for them again
I'm young and care Corbyn can do no wrong It's all MSM lies We're going to win
The memes are important that is unfortunatley how people make their mind up you pay your money and make you're choice
It has been a terrible campaign... But in the end winning is all that counts... And Theresa is increasingly looking like a winner - So ultimately who care what the campaign was like?
The 1987 Con campaign was terrible as well but people only remember the Thatcher landslide victory,,,
She was gone three years later. That will be May's fate, I'd have thought. The Tory challenge is to find a Major. The cupboard looks pretty bare right now.
If May wins a majority
June 9th - Amber Rudd COE
And that is her successor
Yes. Probably.
Three women leaders to Labour's and the LibDems' none, and not an all-women shortlist in sight. Makes you think...or it should.
May has not impressed.
Perhaps PB Tories should consider ability over genitalia when selecting leaders.
To be fair TM only became leader because she was the last person standing after Gove and Boris destroyed each other...
True and May was way better than Leadsom - admittedly not saying much.
What interests the Labour membership most is the redistributive economics that Corbyn talks about, not his views on policing and anti-terrorism.
I'm afraid that you're right. The problem, however, with radical redistribution is that it won't work - and especially not in the British context.
First you go after the rich, who run away and/or hide their money abroad. Then you've no choice but to soak the middle classes, and that's when the problems really begin - because the UK can't support Scandinavian levels of welfare provision based on high personal taxation. Our chronically overpriced housing market means that the cost of living for most people with expensive mortgages or steep rents to pay is too high to make "progressive" taxation bearable. And even if you could attempt to use policy levers to engineer a house price crash, that would simply cripple the banking system and bankrupt a not-insignificant portion of the electorate.
In point of fact, things probably wouldn't turn out that well. The first thing an incoming socialist Government would do would be to tax the crap out of businesses, leading in pretty short order to a spiralling vortex of low investment, high unemployment, high taxation for those still in jobs, and substantially higher inflation, interest rates and Government debt as well.
I still think that May will get a healthy majority, but the chances of the above coming to pass after GE2022 are significant. Personally, I'm going to be trying to put away plenty of money in the next five years, and also considering how to hedge against inflation and protect at least some of it from the taxman.
That Opinium survey still looks quite optimistic for Labour, and at least a point or two too low for the Tories. And if my theories about the implications of a return to two-party politics south of the Tweed are anywhere near accurate, the difference in terms of seat count between a 7% and a 9% lead could be very significant.
At this stage, I remain more convinced by the non-polling data suggesting a good night for the Tories. I just don't see, beyond (perhaps) Brighton Kemptown and one or two seats in London, where Labour is meant to make any gains from the Conservatives; the Conservatives, on the other hand, have a great many opportunities available.
Labour's second-best prospect from the Tories in London is Hendon with a 7.5% majority.
Too Jewish. Con hold.
This is the UK in 2017, and those four words are factual and credible. How appalling is that?
We were warned
"Powell had spent much of the 1940s in India, and had seen the communal violence which had swept the country around the date of its independence. The deep divisions between individual groups within the country had led to social discord, and eventually violence. In the year before India’s independence on August 15th, 1947, over half a million people lost their lives as a result of civil strife. It was this fear of communalism that spurred Powell into action.
Powell’s contention, based upon his experience in India, was that a failure to integrate foreign communities into the social fabric of a nation would lead to them forming their own separate social groups, and that this being the case, in times particularly of economic strife, violence would emerge as the cleavages between the interests of the local community and that of the newcomers became increasingly apparent and caused inter-ethnic friction"
On the contrary, I don't remotely believe the Jews of Hendon have failed to integrate in UK society - my problem is that they have to make a judgment between the two main parties as to which is less anti-semitic.
Are you saying Jews cannot vote on things like the NHS, the economy, education etc. ?
That Opinium survey still looks quite optimistic for Labour, and at least a point or two too low for the Tories. And if my theories about the implications of a return to two-party politics south of the Tweed are anywhere near accurate, the difference in terms of seat count between a 7% and a 9% lead could be very significant.
At this stage, I remain more convinced by the non-polling data suggesting a good night for the Tories. I just don't see, beyond (perhaps) Brighton Kemptown and one or two seats in London, where Labour is meant to make any gains from the Conservatives; the Conservatives, on the other hand, have a great many opportunities available.
Labour's second-best prospect from the Tories in London is Hendon with a 7.5% majority.
Too Jewish. Con hold.
This is the UK in 2017, and those four words are factual and credible. How appalling is that?
We were warned
"Powell had spent much of the 1940s in India, and had seen the communal violence which had swept the country around the date of its independence. The deep divisions between individual groups within the country had led to social discord, and eventually violence. In the year before India’s independence on August 15th, 1947, over half a million people lost their lives as a result of civil strife. It was this fear of communalism that spurred Powell into action.
Powell’s contention, based upon his experience in India, was that a failure to integrate foreign communities into the social fabric of a nation would lead to them forming their own separate social groups, and that this being the case, in times particularly of economic strife, violence would emerge as the cleavages between the interests of the local community and that of the newcomers became increasingly apparent and caused inter-ethnic friction"
On the contrary, I don't remotely believe the Jews of Hendon have failed to integrate in UK society - my problem is that they have to make a judgment between the two main parties as to which is less anti-semitic.
The fact they have to deal with a party that takes the side of one religion over another is the problem
They could believe Labour would not have hacked the army to bits or cut 20,000 coppers.
I suppose in theory they could. But given that Corbyn's Shadow Home Secretary called for the closure of the Security Service and (this is especially unfortunate given your first metaphor) he and Macdonnell both supported the IRA at the time they were blowing British soldiers to bits, I suggest that such a position would strain the credulity of even a Sir Mortimer Chris.
An unconvincing article. Says white men have been subject to ridicule before but that a 'queasy feeling persists, all the same' that it's unfair on Abbott. It makes the true point there are other weak points in the shadow cabinet and implies sinister focus on Abbott, when fact is she has had multiple terrible interviews which are also significantly worse than most other examples of poor interviews. It cries racism as a distraction - despite a figleaf that it is 'some, but not all' of those who are being racist - and it says no one is obliged to give her an easy ride, but then implicitly suggests people should give her an easy ride because they need 'to be conscious of exactly why the audience is clapping, and scrupulous about not playing to certain galleries'.
Comments
1983: +38
1987: -21
1992: -40
1997: -178
2001: +1
2005: +33
2010: +97 (from 210)
2015: +24
Cameron's victories in 2010 and 2015 were bigger than Thatcher's in 1979 and 1983, albeit from a lower base.
Conservatives should be thanking Cameron, not deriding him. The 2010 result was brilliant, and only occurred because he continued the task Howard started of turning the party around.
I doubt any of the other Conservative front benchers - and yes, including Davis - could have done it.
It damn well ought to look good in O&S.
Did you watch that Tony Benn interview? His leadership bid was based on a platform amazingly similar to what Corbyn is trying
Like me, his model does not seem confident for Caroline Lucas.
Three women leaders to Labour's and the LibDems' none, and not an all-women shortlist in sight. Makes you think...or it should.
However, given this election result will not be close and there is not much Labour can usefully do once it is known, there is no need to hurry Corbyn's departure. It is clear that in Brexit Britain an anti-austerity message can get a hearing, but the person delivering it has to be someone without the baggage the Corbyn and his mates bring. There is room for compromise on how to move forward from here for Labour. We'll see what happens. But one thing is certain: the party's existential crisis is no longer an issue. We have returned to two party politics in England and wales, and Labour is the second party.
learn to count JJ
Inputs versus outputs.
Nobody who went into a campaign with 20-point poll leads held onto them. Blair managed a 13-point win in 1997 but nobody said he'd blown it.
We will see what choices the Labour electorate get when it comes time to choose a new leader. What is noticeable is that Corbyn has felt the need to pretend he has changed his mind on all the security-related issues he had spent 40 years decrying. What interests the Labour membership most is the redistributive economics that Corbyn talks about, not his views on policing and anti-terrorism.
Perhaps PB Tories should consider ability over genitalia when selecting leaders.
Also Clegg is without a hope in this model. 81% chance Labour gain. Labour 97% to win Bermondsey.
It has them winning Ceredigion (just), Westmorland and I don't know where else.
And I can count very well, thanks.
That said, one important lesson that Corbyn has taught the entire Labour party is not to be timid in talking about redistributive policies. Don't worry about what the Tory press will say, because it will always attack. EdM - as well as the opponents that Corbyn faced in 2015 - were far too cautious because they feared giving hostages to fortune. Corbyn has show that does not need to be a problem. But in the end he just has too much baggage. You can't say and do the things he has done over a 40 year period and hope to become PM.
Under the present circumstances, Labour could make it past 35% - but 40% is well beyond them.
31% Cons
31% Lab
30% Plaid
whill still have 16/1 on labour.....i reckon its between plaid & labour myself
Indeed if this campaign reminds me of anything irs 2010. Tories with high hopesagisnt a weak and wounded Labour party watching a large lead slip away. The dynamics of campaign 2010 arent that much different to this one.
They would have plenty of mutual facebook friends/linkedin connections.
"Jeremy's had a brilliant campaign"
"So he'll own the result?"
"But! But! But! Reasons......
Hard to vet properly when bounced into an early election. This is true for all parties.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Conservatives beat Labour into third place, but you wouldn't have thought they had enough in the tank in that part of the world to catch Plaid, either.
Incidentally, bloody Romanians coming here and attacking our jihadi's:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40149836
Abbott has been a tour de force in this General Election, clocking up by far the most car-crash interviews. In an interview last week on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, she compared changing her political views on the IRA to changing her hairstyle. Reports later emerged suggesting Abbott had ‘gone rogue’ and directly defied Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell by going on the show.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-everyone-hates-diane-abbott/19928
racist!!
Spoke good English that Romanian didn't he?! Foreigners attacking foreigners, all so unecessary
But if Plaid hold on to most of their votes, then the Tories will probably come 2nd.
Thanks - The recycling bin is overflowing!
I can tell you that my Labour friends appear to be all planning to vote LibDem & there are quite a few "X voter giving my vote to the LibDems" (where X is Green or Labour) up outside various local houses. No idea whether there’s enough tactical voting on the ground to push the Libs over the top, but it seems to be more of a thing here than it was in 2015.
What i would like to see-and i think we are more likely to get is a proper contest rather than a "coronation". That said it is always harder for a Governing Party to have a meaningful leadership campaign whilst in office.
"Powell had spent much of the 1940s in India, and had seen the communal violence which had swept the country around the date of its independence. The deep divisions between individual groups within the country had led to social discord, and eventually violence. In the year before India’s independence on August 15th, 1947, over half a million people lost their lives as a result of civil strife. It was this fear of communalism that spurred Powell into action.
Powell’s contention, based upon his experience in India, was that a failure to integrate foreign communities into the social fabric of a nation would lead to them forming their own separate social groups, and that this being the case, in times particularly of economic strife, violence would emerge as the cleavages between the interests of the local community and that of the newcomers became increasingly apparent and caused inter-ethnic friction"
http://amsterdamlawforum.org/article/view/50/65
https://twitter.com/KateMaltby/status/872143106254278656
From my remote perspective
I don't want jimmy krankie running the country
They are all incompetent in corbyns team
Even the garden tax has gained traction
I'm labour through and through bot I want that tw** removed so I can vote for them again
I'm young and care Corbyn can do no wrong
It's all MSM lies
We're going to win
The memes are important that is unfortunatley how people make their mind up you pay your money and make you're choice
First you go after the rich, who run away and/or hide their money abroad. Then you've no choice but to soak the middle classes, and that's when the problems really begin - because the UK can't support Scandinavian levels of welfare provision based on high personal taxation. Our chronically overpriced housing market means that the cost of living for most people with expensive mortgages or steep rents to pay is too high to make "progressive" taxation bearable. And even if you could attempt to use policy levers to engineer a house price crash, that would simply cripple the banking system and bankrupt a not-insignificant portion of the electorate.
In point of fact, things probably wouldn't turn out that well. The first thing an incoming socialist Government would do would be to tax the crap out of businesses, leading in pretty short order to a spiralling vortex of low investment, high unemployment, high taxation for those still in jobs, and substantially higher inflation, interest rates and Government debt as well.
I still think that May will get a healthy majority, but the chances of the above coming to pass after GE2022 are significant. Personally, I'm going to be trying to put away plenty of money in the next five years, and also considering how to hedge against inflation and protect at least some of it from the taxman.