They could believe Labour would not have hacked the army to bits or cut 20,000 coppers.
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 of even a Sir Mortimer Chris.
And yet people do believe Labour would do better on security with those two under Corbyn.
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.
I believe the Lib Dem OxWAb campaign manager previously did the Witney by-election and that was notorious for the paper mountain!
I genuinely can't call it either way but I'd say a Lib Dem gain is still possible. It does seem to be one of the few places where the notion of a "progressive alliance" genuinely has taken root.
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?
Yes, exactly there. Given the number of London activists that came to Witney (and Witney is a longer journey than OxWAb) it would be no surprise at all.
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
Wheatley has a lot of Oxford Brookes students I think - it’s one of their out of town campuses. I guess the students are generally pro-LD this time around ?
Ed Miliband was bullied near the end of the 2015 campaign. The truth is though sympathy is the worst of all political looks. Bullying Works in politics
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.
Which takes them a nanosecond. Cameron packed all his golf club anti-Semites off to UKIP and won without them, whereas Corbyn denies he even has any.
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.
In the actual polling booth doesn't Labour only win when the reverse is true?
Ed Miliband was bullied near the end of the 2015 campaign. The truth is though sympathy is the worst of all political looks. Bullying Works in politics
Miliband was bullied over his appearance, voice and way he ate (!)
Abbott has been criticised for being spectacularly incompetent. Thornberry is a woman and hasn't got stick, Chuka is black and hasn't got stick. I feel sorry for her because she has been humiliated, but she hasn't been bullied
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.
No logic fail, and if you actually read my post, you'll see I said ('albeit from a lower base'), hence addressing your point (and I also gave the original seat numbers pre Thatcher and Cameron).
I know your dislike of Cameron is almost as strong as your dislike of the EU, but the 2010 result was excellent, and I doubt anyone else (e.g. Davis) would have done as well. The Conservatives had a massive credibility deficit to bridge, and Cameron managed to do it. No, he wasn't perfect, but he did bloody well, sometimes despite the Europhobic fanatics within his party.
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.
The Labour membership is well to the left of me on economics, but I am a supporter of redistributive policies. They work, in my view and experience. I would vote for a Labour party led by someone to the left of me economically. I would not - will not - vote for a Labour party with someone who has the security and defence back story that Corbyn has. I think if Labour takes its time to understand just how important defence and security (and patriotism) are to most voters, they can and will find a leader who gives the membership the economic stuff it wants, while being able to reassure the electorate generally about having their protection as his/her number one priority.
"Flights grounded between Doha and Dubai as feud with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain deepens over country's alleged support for Iran and Islamist militants"
I bet that is down to the yuff surge. They don't want brexit, so Labour yeah, but no, but yeah, but no approach is the most realistic option on the table for them.
I have to say I did have to chuckle seeing some of Facebook people I know who would endless spam that Brexit would result in all these companies moving abroad, now posting that massively whacking up corporation tax won't have any effect because they companies can't just move.
Ed Miliband was bullied near the end of the 2015 campaign. The truth is though sympathy is the worst of all political looks. Bullying Works in politics
Could it be that Labour high command are very happy that Abbott is getting it in the neck (completely deserves it) as it has meant there's been little focus and attention on Corbyn and McDonnell disgraceful history and views? The Abbott attention has certainly helped them.
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.
The Labour membership is well to the left of me on economics, but I am a supporter of redistributive policies. They work, in my view and experience. I would vote for a Labour party led by someone to the left of me economically. I would not - will not - vote for a Labour party with someone who has the security and defence back story that Corbyn has. I think if Labour takes its time to understand just how important defence and security (and patriotism) are to most voters, they can and will find a leader who gives the membership the economic stuff it wants, while being able to reassure the electorate generally about having their protection as his/her number one priority.
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'.
I have never seen anyone of either sex or any race manage anything approaching the Ferrari or the Murnaghan debacle. Her race may be relevant in this way, that she has been promoted above her abilities as part of a kind of affirmative action deal, and we wouldn't have been laughing at a white woman in her position because a white woman would have got that high under her own steam and would therefore not screw up so dismally in interviews.
But whatever, I think she is genuinely unwell and I find the interviews simply painful and embarrassing to watch, so that's enough laughing for me.
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.
The Labour membership is well to the left of me on economics, but I am a supporter of redistributive policies. They work, in my view and experience. I would vote for a Labour party led by someone to the left of me economically. I would not - will not - vote for a Labour party with someone who has the security and defence back story that Corbyn has. I think if Labour takes its time to understand just how important defence and security (and patriotism) are to most voters, they can and will find a leader who gives the membership the economic stuff it wants, while being able to reassure the electorate generally about having their protection as his/her number one priority.
Chuka's the man for Labour
Empty suit...Labour would be stupid to go with him.
Ed Miliband was bullied near the end of the 2015 campaign. The truth is though sympathy is the worst of all political looks. Bullying Works in politics
Miliband was bullied over his appearance, voice and way he ate (!)
Abbott has been criticised for being spectacularly incompetent. Thornberry is a woman and hasn't got stick, Chuka is black and hasn't got stick. I feel sorry for her because she has been humiliated, but she hasn't been bullied
Yes. Politics can be brutal as hell, it can be unfair. Being mocked and criticised for demonstrable failings is not bullying.
"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"
There are those who would point out that by the late 1940s he was looking at the end result of 200 years of British rule on a subcontinent that in 1700 was estimated to have had 27% of the worlds GDP and by the 1940's was poverty stricken having had its wealth hoovered up back to Britain (the Americans then hoovered it all off us to pay for them to fight in two world wars), they might also tell you that the sub-continent had little history of inter-community violence in its pre-British history and that the development of inter-community 'cleavage' was an active component of British policy for 100 years post the mutiny to avoid any unified Indian uprising.
Ed Miliband was bullied near the end of the 2015 campaign. The truth is though sympathy is the worst of all political looks. Bullying Works in politics
As I mentioned earlier, I thought last night's SKY TV interview with Diane Abbott if not actually bullying was pretty bloody aggressive, and I speak as one who is about as far removed from being a fan of hers as could be imagined.
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.
The Labour membership is well to the left of me on economics, but I am a supporter of redistributive policies. They work, in my view and experience. I would vote for a Labour party led by someone to the left of me economically. I would not - will not - vote for a Labour party with someone who has the security and defence back story that Corbyn has. I think if Labour takes its time to understand just how important defence and security (and patriotism) are to most voters, they can and will find a leader who gives the membership the economic stuff it wants, while being able to reassure the electorate generally about having their protection as his/her number one priority.
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:
Ed Miliband was bullied near the end of the 2015 campaign. The truth is though sympathy is the worst of all political looks. Bullying Works in politics
Miliband was bullied over his appearance, voice and way he ate (!)
Abbott has been criticised for being spectacularly incompetent. Thornberry is a woman and hasn't got stick, Chuka is black and hasn't got stick. I feel sorry for her because she has been humiliated, but she hasn't been bullied
Female Guardian journalists can be a tad fickle, one is against perceived bullying by opponents, another claims it’s OK to spit at them. Simple fact is Abbott is truly awful in the studio and pointing that out is only fair.
"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"
There are those who would point out that by the late 1940s he was looking at the end result of 200 years of British rule on a subcontinent that in 1700 was estimated to have had 27% of the worlds GDP and by the 1940's was poverty stricken having had its wealth hoovered up back to Britain (the Americans then hoovered it all off us to pay for them to fight in two world wars), they might also tell you that the sub-continent had little history of inter-community violence in its pre-British history and that the development of inter-community 'cleavage' was an active component of British policy for 100 years post the mutiny to avoid any unified Indian uprising.
The roots of this stuff lie very deep
Sure, but if you know friction between communities causes trouble, why invent a communal atmosphere where none exists?
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.
The Labour membership is well to the left of me on economics, but I am a supporter of redistributive policies. They work, in my view and experience. I would vote for a Labour party led by someone to the left of me economically. I would not - will not - vote for a Labour party with someone who has the security and defence back story that Corbyn has. I think if Labour takes its time to understand just how important defence and security (and patriotism) are to most voters, they can and will find a leader who gives the membership the economic stuff it wants, while being able to reassure the electorate generally about having their protection as his/her number one priority.
I bet that is down to the yuff surge. They don't want brexit, so Labour yeah, but no, but yeah, but no approach is the most realistic option on the table for them.
I have to say I did have to chuckle seeing some of Facebook people I know who would endless spam that Brexit would result in all these companies moving abroad, now posting that massively whacking up corporation tax won't have any effect because they companies can't just move.
Whacking up corporation tax to...er mid-table amongst European nations.
Why? They've been hopeless. Their denial of the referendum result has gone down like a bucket of cold sick and left them looking even less grounded than usual. It really really hasn't worked for them.
I bet that is down to the yuff surge. They don't want brexit, so Labour yeah, but no, but yeah, but no approach is the most realistic option on the table for them.
I have to say I did have to chuckle seeing some of Facebook people I know who would endless spam that Brexit would result in all these companies moving abroad, now posting that massively whacking up corporation tax won't have any effect because they companies can't just move.
Whacking up corporation tax to...er mid-table amongst European nations.
The last thing we want to do is make EU countries more attractive places to do business.
Ed Miliband was bullied near the end of the 2015 campaign. The truth is though sympathy is the worst of all political looks. Bullying Works in politics
Miliband was bullied over his appearance, voice and way he ate (!)
Abbott has been criticised for being spectacularly incompetent. Thornberry is a woman and hasn't got stick, Chuka is black and hasn't got stick. I feel sorry for her because she has been humiliated, but she hasn't been bullied
Female Guardian journalists can be a tad fickle, one is against perceived bullying by opponents, another claims it’s OK to spit at them. Simple fact is Abbott is truly awful in the studio and pointing that out is only fair.
Zoe Williams doesn't like being reminded of her love of Labour activists spitting at Tory conference delegates
Strange question, like "preferred way of serving a steak - well done - medium - rare (amongst strict vegetarians)."
Not really. Even if Brexit is to be a disaster, plenty of remainers will have a view on who can mitigate the worst aspects of it as much as possible. They may not feel much can be done, or they may feel there are plenty of different options.
"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"
There are those who would point out that by the late 1940s he was looking at the end result of 200 years of British rule on a subcontinent that in 1700 was estimated to have had 27% of the worlds GDP and by the 1940's was poverty stricken having had its wealth hoovered up back to Britain (the Americans then hoovered it all off us to pay for them to fight in two world wars), they might also tell you that the sub-continent had little history of inter-community violence in its pre-British history and that the development of inter-community 'cleavage' was an active component of British policy for 100 years post the mutiny to avoid any unified Indian uprising.
The roots of this stuff lie very deep
Sure, but if you know friction between communities causes trouble, why invent a communal atmosphere where none exists?
Yep fair enough although I suppose France hasnt faired much better from trying much harder to take that approach
The problem on here is that you analyse things to death which is not what the voting population do. They make their minds up on one ore two issues which are important to them, if your lucky. The rest will vote on gut feel and be happy with their personal justification of their vote. If you want to make money try and put yourself into the skin of the average voter, think what they are going to do and bet accordingly. I've now had four bets lreading this thread, the best is 3/1. I will lose them all but it's only £30 but will make Friday more interesting.
Funnily enough five years ago is also about the time representatives of the Police Federation lied to try and destroy a politicians career.
In retrospective May's speech attacking the Police Federation has left a hostage to fortune, in a whole lot of coppers keen to speak out against her. It is not good to accumulate enemies wantonly.
Useful advice: Be nice to people on the way up, as you will meet them again on the way down.
Why? They've been hopeless. Their denial of the referendum result has gone down like a bucket of cold sick and left them looking even less grounded than usual. It really really hasn't worked for them.
Precisely, they have been hopeless. I meant they should have won them before the campaign started.
Ed Miliband was bullied near the end of the 2015 campaign. The truth is though sympathy is the worst of all political looks. Bullying Works in politics
Miliband was bullied over his appearance, voice and way he ate (!)
Abbott has been criticised for being spectacularly incompetent. Thornberry is a woman and hasn't got stick, Chuka is black and hasn't got stick. I feel sorry for her because she has been humiliated, but she hasn't been bullied
Yes. Politics can be brutal as hell, it can be unfair. Being mocked and criticised for demonstrable failings is not bullying.
That's the thing with Abbott. It's hardly as if she does not have a reasonably sharp mind - she held her own on this week although Andrew Neil was not necessarily in seek and destroy mode.
It is very disappointing that this gets made out to be a bullying thing. We expect our politicians to be well briefed on their area. This is the weakness of Corbyn his team does not reflect the best of labour, but the rump of willing to serve for him.
The one that gets me is Angela Rayner - I've heard her use ickle for little in a news interview. This is the person who wants to be responsible for education standards.
I bet that is down to the yuff surge. They don't want brexit, so Labour yeah, but no, but yeah, but no approach is the most realistic option on the table for them.
I have to say I did have to chuckle seeing some of Facebook people I know who would endless spam that Brexit would result in all these companies moving abroad, now posting that massively whacking up corporation tax won't have any effect because they companies can't just move.
Whacking up corporation tax to...er mid-table amongst European nations.
The last thing we want to do is make EU countries more attractive places to do business.
Yeah, let's sack a few more policemen and close some hospitals, that'll do it.
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.
The Labour membership is well to the left of me on economics, but I am a supporter of redistributive policies. They work, in my view and experience. I would vote for a Labour party led by someone to the left of me economically. I would not - will not - vote for a Labour party with someone who has the security and defence back story that Corbyn has. I think if Labour takes its time to understand just how important defence and security (and patriotism) are to most voters, they can and will find a leader who gives the membership the economic stuff it wants, while being able to reassure the electorate generally about having their protection as his/her number one priority.
Chuka's the man for Labour
Nah.
Who is?
Dunno. Far too early to say. Boris or Rudd to replace May?
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.
The Labour membership is well to the left of me on economics, but I am a supporter of redistributive policies. They work, in my view and experience. I would vote for a Labour party led by someone to the left of me economically. I would not - will not - vote for a Labour party with someone who has the security and defence back story that Corbyn has. I think if Labour takes its time to understand just how important defence and security (and patriotism) are to most voters, they can and will find a leader who gives the membership the economic stuff it wants, while being able to reassure the electorate generally about having their protection as his/her number one priority.
Chuka's the man for Labour
They need someone from outside their London comfort zone. The problem is you get the feeling that if, for example, they selected someone with a strong northern/midlands accent, a lot of their posh London supporters would start voting for the Greens instead.
I bet that is down to the yuff surge. They don't want brexit, so Labour yeah, but no, but yeah, but no approach is the most realistic option on the table for them.
I have to say I did have to chuckle seeing some of Facebook people I know who would endless spam that Brexit would result in all these companies moving abroad, now posting that massively whacking up corporation tax won't have any effect because they companies can't just move.
Whacking up corporation tax to...er mid-table amongst European nations.
The last thing we want to do is make EU countries more attractive places to do business.
Yeah, let's sack a few more policemen and close some hospitals, that'll do it.
Hasn't turned them off doing business in the UK in the past.
Why? They've been hopeless. Their denial of the referendum result has gone down like a bucket of cold sick and left them looking even less grounded than usual. It really really hasn't worked for them.
yup
the LDs and UKIP have been the losers in this election
Funnily enough five years ago is also about the time representatives of the Police Federation lied to try and destroy a politicians career.
In retrospective May's speech attacking the Police Federation has left a hostage to fortune, in a whole lot of coppers keen to speak out against her. It is not good to accumulate enemies wantonly.
Useful advice: Be nice to people on the way up, as you will meet them again on the way down.
"Flights grounded between Doha and Dubai as feud with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain deepens over country's alleged support for Iran and Islamist militants"
The Saudis trying to hide their own complicity in promoting terrorism both in the region and around the world. Pus trying to punish a country because t dared to try and establish normal relations with Saudi Arabia's arch enemy.
If May wins a big majority I'd keep Corbyn where he is for a year or two. Promote a range of talent to the shadow cabinet from across the party and see who has got it. Ie what Howard did.
Funnily enough five years ago is also about the time representatives of the Police Federation lied to try and destroy a politicians career.
. Useful advice: Be nice to people on the way up, as you will meet them again on the way down.
Very useful for the Lib Dems....
LDs will hold a similar share of the vote as last time, and with Greens and Kippers will be once again the third voice in England. I am optomistic for the long term future.
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.
The Labour membership is well to the left of me on economics, but I am a supporter of redistributive policies. They work, in my view and experience. I would vote for a Labour party led by someone to the left of me economically. I would not - will not - vote for a Labour party with someone who has the security and defence back story that Corbyn has. I think if Labour takes its time to understand just how important defence and security (and patriotism) are to most voters, they can and will find a leader who gives the membership the economic stuff it wants, while being able to reassure the electorate generally about having their protection as his/her number one priority.
Chuka's the man for Labour
They need someone from outside their London comfort zone. The problem is you get the feeling that if, for example, they selected someone with a strong northern/midlands accent, a lot of their posh London supporters would start voting for the Greens instead.
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.
No logic fail, and if you actually read my post, you'll see I said ('albeit from a lower base'), hence addressing your point (and I also gave the original seat numbers pre Thatcher and Cameron).
I know your dislike of Cameron is almost as strong as your dislike of the EU, but the 2010 result was excellent, and I doubt anyone else (e.g. Davis) would have done as well. The Conservatives had a massive credibility deficit to bridge, and Cameron managed to do it. No, he wasn't perfect, but he did bloody well, sometimes despite the Europhobic fanatics within his party.
Cameron threw away a lead that would have got him a large working majority and he did it through his own idiocy. Now it may well be that May does the same thing here but that in no way excuses Cameron. He was in the end a third rate politician unfit for high office.
Funnily enough five years ago is also about the time representatives of the Police Federation lied to try and destroy a politicians career.
In retrospective May's speech attacking the Police Federation has left a hostage to fortune, in a whole lot of coppers keen to speak out against her. It is not good to accumulate enemies wantonly.
Useful advice: Be nice to people on the way up, as you will meet them again on the way down.
May was looking for great headlines in the Mail etc for attacking the "police trade union". She got them, but -= as you say - at a considerable long-term cost. Against a more credible candidate than Corbyn, the videos of that speech and other sessions with the police would have cost her this election.
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!
You poor lamb.
Fancy in a general election being courted by a political party. What would our forebears think of this shocking and as you say "wearing" intrusion in the democratic process.
Have you considered emigrating to a country where such terrible impositions wouldn't test your sensibilities?
The Tories have dispatched Theresa May fairly consistently to the same sorts of seats since the campaign began: largely Labour-held seats which would require fairly big swings to take.
So either they don't believe the polls as they have changed, or they might but don't want to appear spooked.
It is, in particular, hard to make sense of Mr Corbyn's alternating visits to Tory-held marginals and then very safe Labour seats. I have written about this pattern before - but it is possible that Mr Corbyn keeps going to safe seats where he can hold big events, which look much better on television than Ms May's. And remember: local TV news matters.
Apparently it works - even on here people wow about the enthusiasm of Corbyn's crowds.
I will return to this later to see if this experiment has yielded useful information. Maybe the lesson will be that the parties know nothing
That's my bet. Particularly for the Tories their campaigning worked last time, and this time they are assuming it will again even as the fundamentals shift by so much it does seem more than just noise.
I see Jeremy Corbyn has refused to say Diane Abbott would be Home Secretary on Friday, whereas last week he said she would. Is this a U-TURN.
Whether Diane Abbott is ill or not, there is no doubt she is being found out. She is just totally incompetent and way out of her depth.
The interesting question is not only about Abbott specifically, but how willing both Corbyn and other more heavyweight Labour politicians would be to bury the hatchet. He could actually put together a decent cabinet if the will was there.
If May wins a big majority I'd keep Corbyn where he is for a year or two. Promote a range of talent to the shadow cabinet from across the party and see who has got it. Ie what Howard did.
Yep - no need for a quick change; assuming - that is - that Corbyn does not retreat back into his far left bunker. A revitalised shadow cabinet representing all parts of Labour would be a huge step up from what has been on offer over the last two years. It could be part of the coming together process that the party so clearly needs.
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.
The Labour membership is well to the left of me on economics, but I am a supporter of redistributive policies. They work, in my view and experience. I would vote for a Labour party led by someone to the left of me economically. I would not - will not - vote for a Labour party with someone who has the security and defence back story that Corbyn has. I think if Labour takes its time to understand just how important defence and security (and patriotism) are to most voters, they can and will find a leader who gives the membership the economic stuff it wants, while being able to reassure the electorate generally about having their protection as his/her number one priority.
Chuka's the man for Labour
I'd go for Lisa Nandy myself. Though I like Chuka, I think Labour needs a leader based a long way from London.
The Tories have dispatched Theresa May fairly consistently to the same sorts of seats since the campaign began: largely Labour-held seats which would require fairly big swings to take.
So either they don't believe the polls as they have changed, or they might but don't want to appear spooked.
It is, in particular, hard to make sense of Mr Corbyn's alternating visits to Tory-held marginals and then very safe Labour seats. I have written about this pattern before - but it is possible that Mr Corbyn keeps going to safe seats where he can hold big events, which look much better on television than Ms May's. And remember: local TV news matters.
Apparently it works - even on here people wow about the enthusiasm of Corbyn's crowds.
I will return to this later to see if this experiment has yielded useful information. Maybe the lesson will be that the parties know nothing
That's my bet. Particularly for the Tories their campaigning worked last time, and this time they are assuming it will again even as the fundamentals shift by so much it does seem more than just noise.
I would be flabbergasted if the Tories haven't got a scubby. Now they might not be winning anywhere near as many marginals as they hoped, but I just can't believe Messina is sitting there with his massive data and complex models with no clue where May should be going.
Also, they aren't repeating last time, Cameron was down in the south west all the time for instance. They are targeting quite different seats this time.
Corbyn is all about getting a Maomentum crowd. Remember in the early days of the campaign he went to some super safe Tory seat and got a decent crowd (albeit facing the wrong way when he tried to address them).
Funnily enough five years ago is also about the time representatives of the Police Federation lied to try and destroy a politicians career.
In retrospective May's speech attacking the Police Federation has left a hostage to fortune, in a whole lot of coppers keen to speak out against her. It is not good to accumulate enemies wantonly.
Useful advice: Be nice to people on the way up, as you will meet them again on the way down.
Contrariwise, May got her retaliation in first with the 2014 speech, all these ex-coppers having a go at her now have the look (fairly or unfairly) of someone with an axe to grind.
Why? They've been hopeless. Their denial of the referendum result has gone down like a bucket of cold sick and left them looking even less grounded than usual. It really really hasn't worked for them.
yup
the LDs and UKIP have been the losers in this election
Maybe, but the LDs will have laid the ground for the next election.
The Tories have dispatched Theresa May fairly consistently to the same sorts of seats since the campaign began: largely Labour-held seats which would require fairly big swings to take.
So either they don't believe the polls as they have changed, or they might but don't want to appear spooked.
It is, in particular, hard to make sense of Mr Corbyn's alternating visits to Tory-held marginals and then very safe Labour seats. I have written about this pattern before - but it is possible that Mr Corbyn keeps going to safe seats where he can hold big events, which look much better on television than Ms May's. And remember: local TV news matters.
Apparently it works - even on here people wow about the enthusiasm of Corbyn's crowds.
I will return to this later to see if this experiment has yielded useful information. Maybe the lesson will be that the parties know nothing
That's my bet. Particularly for the Tories their campaigning worked last time, and this time they are assuming it will again even as the fundamentals shift by so much it does seem more than just noise.
I thought that some commentators couldn't quite grasp why Cameron was spending so much time in The West during the last couple of days of the 2015 election. Then the results came in.
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.
The Labour membership is well to the left of me on economics, but I am a supporter of redistributive policies. They work, in my view and experience. I would vote for a Labour party led by someone to the left of me economically. I would not - will not - vote for a Labour party with someone who has the security and defence back story that Corbyn has. I think if Labour takes its time to understand just how important defence and security (and patriotism) are to most voters, they can and will find a leader who gives the membership the economic stuff it wants, while being able to reassure the electorate generally about having their protection as his/her number one priority.
Chuka's the man for Labour
Nah.
Chukka might be okay for Metropolitan London but "up North" he would be a disaster. Labour voters on council estates would not vote for this sharp suited (£1,000 per suit, I gather) fraud.
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.
No logic fail, and if you actually read my post, you'll see I said ('albeit from a lower base'), hence addressing your point (and I also gave the original seat numbers pre Thatcher and Cameron).
I know your dislike of Cameron is almost as strong as your dislike of the EU, but the 2010 result was excellent, and I doubt anyone else (e.g. Davis) would have done as well. The Conservatives had a massive credibility deficit to bridge, and Cameron managed to do it. No, he wasn't perfect, but he did bloody well, sometimes despite the Europhobic fanatics within his party.
Cameron threw away a lead that would have got him a large working majority and he did it through his own idiocy. Now it may well be that May does the same thing here but that in no way excuses Cameron. He was in the end a third rate politician unfit for high office.
LOL. No. I mean, 'third rate politician unfit for high office.'
Really? In that case Davis, Boris, Fox and Gove must be fiftieth-rate politicians unsuitable for a Janitor's office.
Why? They've been hopeless. Their denial of the referendum result has gone down like a bucket of cold sick and left them looking even less grounded than usual. It really really hasn't worked for them.
yup
the LDs and UKIP have been the losers in this election
Maybe, but the LDs will have laid the ground for the next election.
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.
The Labour membership is well to the left of me on economics, but I am a supporter of redistributive policies. They work, in my view and experience. I would vote for a Labour party led by someone to the left of me economically. I would not - will not - vote for a Labour party with someone who has the security and defence back story that Corbyn has. I think if Labour takes its time to understand just how important defence and security (and patriotism) are to most voters, they can and will find a leader who gives the membership the economic stuff it wants, while being able to reassure the electorate generally about having their protection as his/her number one priority.
Chuka's the man for Labour
I'd go for Lisa Nandy myself. Though I like Chuka, I think Labour needs a leader based a long way from London.
Funnily enough five years ago is also about the time representatives of the Police Federation lied to try and destroy a politicians career.
In retrospective May's speech attacking the Police Federation has left a hostage to fortune, in a whole lot of coppers keen to speak out against her. It is not good to accumulate enemies wantonly.
Useful advice: Be nice to people on the way up, as you will meet them again on the way down.
Contrariwise, May got her retaliation in first with the 2014 speech, all these ex-coppers having a go at her now have the look (fairly or unfairly) of someone with an axe to grind.
"Morale has never been lower...." "Haven't seen a pay rise since..." "The Government won't listen to us...." The eternal cries of the public sector workforce under the Tories.
Why? They've been hopeless. Their denial of the referendum result has gone down like a bucket of cold sick and left them looking even less grounded than usual. It really really hasn't worked for them.
yup
the LDs and UKIP have been the losers in this election
Maybe, but the LDs will have laid the ground for the next election.
you mean Farron is for the sack ?
Since they could be between 2-13 seats, and more likely closer to the bottom end, it hardly matters.
Funnily enough five years ago is also about the time representatives of the Police Federation lied to try and destroy a politicians career.
In retrospective May's speech attacking the Police Federation has left a hostage to fortune, in a whole lot of coppers keen to speak out against her. It is not good to accumulate enemies wantonly.
Useful advice: Be nice to people on the way up, as you will meet them again on the way down.
you'll never make a consultant
The Police Federation is a trade union, who have made Home Secretary's life (from all parties) hell. They are involved in a massive lobbying exercise at the moment.
The Tories have dispatched Theresa May fairly consistently to the same sorts of seats since the campaign began: largely Labour-held seats which would require fairly big swings to take.
So either they don't believe the polls as they have changed, or they might but don't want to appear spooked.
It is, in particular, hard to make sense of Mr Corbyn's alternating visits to Tory-held marginals and then very safe Labour seats. I have written about this pattern before - but it is possible that Mr Corbyn keeps going to safe seats where he can hold big events, which look much better on television than Ms May's. And remember: local TV news matters.
Apparently it works - even on here people wow about the enthusiasm of Corbyn's crowds.
I will return to this later to see if this experiment has yielded useful information. Maybe the lesson will be that the parties know nothing
That's my bet. Particularly for the Tories their campaigning worked last time, and this time they are assuming it will again even as the fundamentals shift by so much it does seem more than just noise.
I thought that some commentators couldn't quite grasp why Cameron was spending so much time in The West during the last couple of days of the 2015 election. Then the results came in.
And maybe they'll be proved right in their focus this time. Or they may be so buoyed by how well they did last time that they assume it is working even if it isn't - they started the campaign talking about 10000 labour majorities under pressure, but that's just laughable if the Labour surge is even half true, and given May's ratings drop as well, I doubt it is entirely imaginary.
The Tories have dispatched Theresa May fairly consistently to the same sorts of seats since the campaign began: largely Labour-held seats which would require fairly big swings to take.
So either they don't believe the polls as they have changed, or they might but don't want to appear spooked.
It is, in particular, hard to make sense of Mr Corbyn's alternating visits to Tory-held marginals and then very safe Labour seats. I have written about this pattern before - but it is possible that Mr Corbyn keeps going to safe seats where he can hold big events, which look much better on television than Ms May's. And remember: local TV news matters.
Apparently it works - even on here people wow about the enthusiasm of Corbyn's crowds.
I will return to this later to see if this experiment has yielded useful information. Maybe the lesson will be that the parties know nothing
That's my bet. Particularly for the Tories their campaigning worked last time, and this time they are assuming it will again even as the fundamentals shift by so much it does seem more than just noise.
I would be flabbergasted if the Tories haven't got a scubby. Now they might not be winning anywhere near as many marginals as they hoped, but I just can't believe Messina is sitting there with his massive data and complex models with no clue where May should be going.
Also, they aren't repeating last time, Cameron was down in the south west all the time for instance. They are targeting quite different seats this time.
Corbyn is all about getting a Maomentum crowd. Remember in the early days of the campaign he went to some super safe Tory seat and got a decent crowd (albeit facing the wrong way when he tried to address them).
Question is. Does sending May to a marginal help or hinder the Tory cause. Polls suggest maybe the latter.
Messina might be sending her where she can do least harm.
Funnily enough five years ago is also about the time representatives of the Police Federation lied to try and destroy a politicians career.
In retrospective May's speech attacking the Police Federation has left a hostage to fortune, in a whole lot of coppers keen to speak out against her. It is not good to accumulate enemies wantonly.
Useful advice: Be nice to people on the way up, as you will meet them again on the way down.
you'll never make a consultant
The Police Federation is a trade union, who have made Home Secretary's life (from all parties) hell. They are involved in a massive lobbying exercise at the moment.
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.
No logic fail, and if you actually read my post, you'll see I said ('albeit from a lower base'), hence addressing your point (and I also gave the original seat numbers pre Thatcher and Cameron).
I know your dislike of Cameron is almost as strong as your dislike of the EU, but the 2010 result was excellent, and I doubt anyone else (e.g. Davis) would have done as well. The Conservatives had a massive credibility deficit to bridge, and Cameron managed to do it. No, he wasn't perfect, but he did bloody well, sometimes despite the Europhobic fanatics within his party.
Cameron threw away a lead that would have got him a large working majority and he did it through his own idiocy. Now it may well be that May does the same thing here but that in no way excuses Cameron. He was in the end a third rate politician unfit for high office.
LOL. No. I mean, 'third rate politician unfit for high office.'
Really? In that case Davis, Boris, Fox and Gove must be fiftieth-rate politicians unsuitable for a Janitor's office.
Exactly...the man made his party electable again and then managed a majority in 2015 based almost entirely on his personal popularity which was miles ahead of that of the Tory party. And then got crapped on by the headbangers at the first available opportunity. Which is why, although I hope the Tories win, many people won't be able to resist a secret smile if the right wing got outcrazied by Corbyn.
Comments
I genuinely can't call it either way but I'd say a Lib Dem gain is still possible. It does seem to be one of the few places where the notion of a "progressive alliance" genuinely has taken root.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/06/3-big-strategic-mistakes-conservatives-made-election-campaign
doesnt that chart say no party has or has had the trust of the majority ?
Abbott has been criticised for being spectacularly incompetent. Thornberry is a woman and hasn't got stick, Chuka is black and hasn't got stick. I feel sorry for her because she has been humiliated, but she hasn't been bullied
I know your dislike of Cameron is almost as strong as your dislike of the EU, but the 2010 result was excellent, and I doubt anyone else (e.g. Davis) would have done as well. The Conservatives had a massive credibility deficit to bridge, and Cameron managed to do it. No, he wasn't perfect, but he did bloody well, sometimes despite the Europhobic fanatics within his party.
"Flights grounded between Doha and Dubai as feud with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain deepens over country's alleged support for Iran and Islamist militants"
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/qatar-airways-airspace-ban-flights-grounded-diplomatic-row-saudi-arabia-bahrain-egypt-uae-a7774636.html
I have to say I did have to chuckle seeing some of Facebook people I know who would endless spam that Brexit would result in all these companies moving abroad, now posting that massively whacking up corporation tax won't have any effect because they companies can't just move.
Except as it says 'Labour is now the most trusted party..."
But whatever, I think she is genuinely unwell and I find the interviews simply painful and embarrassing to watch, so that's enough laughing for me.
"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"
There are those who would point out that by the late 1940s he was looking at the end result of 200 years of British rule on a subcontinent that in 1700 was estimated to have had 27% of the worlds GDP and by the 1940's was poverty stricken having had its wealth hoovered up back to Britain (the Americans then hoovered it all off us to pay for them to fight in two world wars), they might also tell you that the sub-continent had little history of inter-community violence in its pre-British history and that the development of inter-community 'cleavage' was an active component of British policy for 100 years post the mutiny to avoid any unified Indian uprising.
The roots of this stuff lie very deep
I just spoke to a former Tory strategist, he reckons Khan will win the next general election if he tweets
'Dear Donald, fuck off'
He reckons Mrs May would win an extra fifty seats if she did the same.
But still lags Mayby 13 points
Useful advice: Be nice to people on the way up, as you will meet them again on the way down.
It is very disappointing that this gets made out to be a bullying thing. We expect our politicians to be well briefed on their area. This is the weakness of Corbyn his team does not reflect the best of labour, but the rump of willing to serve for him.
The one that gets me is Angela Rayner - I've heard her use ickle for little in a news interview. This is the person who wants to be responsible for education standards.
the LDs and UKIP have been the losers in this election
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40176539
Fancy in a general election being courted by a political party. What would our forebears think of this shocking and as you say "wearing" intrusion in the democratic process.
Have you considered emigrating to a country where such terrible impositions wouldn't test your sensibilities?
Tsk ....
So either they don't believe the polls as they have changed, or they might but don't want to appear spooked.
It is, in particular, hard to make sense of Mr Corbyn's alternating visits to Tory-held marginals and then very safe Labour seats. I have written about this pattern before - but it is possible that Mr Corbyn keeps going to safe seats where he can hold big events, which look much better on television than Ms May's. And remember: local TV news matters.
Apparently it works - even on here people wow about the enthusiasm of Corbyn's crowds.
I will return to this later to see if this experiment has yielded useful information. Maybe the lesson will be that the parties know nothing
That's my bet. Particularly for the Tories their campaigning worked last time, and this time they are assuming it will again even as the fundamentals shift by so much it does seem more than just noise.
Chloe Smith got stick -in some ways unfairly as IIRC correctly she got hung out by GO to a certain extent
But she got stick because she had a car crash interview.
Whether Diane Abbott is ill or not, there is no doubt she is being found out. She is just totally incompetent and way out of her depth.
Also, they aren't repeating last time, Cameron was down in the south west all the time for instance. They are targeting quite different seats this time.
Corbyn is all about getting a Maomentum crowd. Remember in the early days of the campaign he went to some super safe Tory seat and got a decent crowd (albeit facing the wrong way when he tried to address them).
https://twitter.com/davehill/status/872154668071301121
This considered the 2010 GE. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-effect-do-leader-visits-to-constituencies-have-on-a-partys-vote/
Really? In that case Davis, Boris, Fox and Gove must be fiftieth-rate politicians unsuitable for a Janitor's office.
I've had eight full responses from the 15. Sadly one is poorly and another on holiday !! ... so five to come.
Hoping to publish late tomorrow.
Neither PB nor UKPR are 'balanced' per se - this place leans right, and there it leans left.
Messina might be sending her where she can do least harm.