So Kipper votes count for less than other votes do they?
I just find it difficult to understand why you're evening bothering to argue against total numbers of votes implying popularity.
To your first point, no I didn't say that. I simply said that TMay gaining extra votes was down to Kippers coming back because UKIP had no purpose anymore since Leave won.
To your second point, because in this case, they don't - we have a number of indicators - TMay's declining personal ratings, her losing the majority - which indicate this.
GE votes are formally votes for your local candidate, not the PM. Of course we are becoming more presidential, but the fact remains that votes for a party don't necessarily imply popularity of the leader. A fair few Labour MPs actively campaigned against their leader.
It really isn't. Because the only means by which individuals can express their preference is with their own individual cast ballot. Millions more voted for May and Corbyn. They were both way more popular than Cameron and Miliband.
It is.
While Corbyn was more popular than Miliband, TMay was not, in the end, more popular than Cameron. Her own personal ratings declined substantially during the campaign to the point that she is now where Jeremy Corbyn was a few months ago in the eyes of the public. It was the decline in May's personal ratings during the campaign, which followed the trajectory of a decreasing Tory lead, and thus subsequently the turning of the position of a Conservative majority at the start of the campaign to a situation of the Tories losing their majority on June 8th.
You're mixing relative popularity up with electoral popularity.
And opinion polls with reality...
In a GE relative popularity is the same thing as electoral popularity.
One opinion poll - Survation and also The YouGov Model turned out to match with reality come the GE.
Gah. Then how do you explain the millions more votes May received over Cameron?
Voters returned to her from UKIP because she hadn't told them they were little Englanders. It isn't hard to comprehend.
I'm not saying she was great, I'm not saying she performed better relatively than cameron. But the total numbers of total votes don't lie.
To your first point - I literally adressed that several posts ago. Kippers came back home. And in addressing your second point, this had nothing to do with how great TMay was or because 'she hadn't told them they were little Englanders.' They came back because of Brexit. Once that happened, there was very little reason to vote UKIP for many people. TMay owes her extra votes to Cameron's (ill-judged error) in holding an EUref more than anything else.
The total number of votes don't necessarily symbolise what you may think they do. Otherwise, TMay's ratings wouldn't be in the dustbin right now....
UKIP voters voted for May because she would deliver them the Brexit Cameron could not and would not do, albeit some UKIP voters also voted for Corbyn because he promises to deliver the Brexit Ed Miliband refused to do too
So Kipper votes count for less than other votes do they?
I just find it difficult to understand why you're evening bothering to argue against total numbers of votes implying popularity.
To your first point, no I didn't say that. I simply said that TMay gaining extra votes was down to Kippers coming back because UKIP had no purpose anymore since Leave won.
To your second point, because in this case, they don't - we have a number of indicators - TMay's declining personal ratings, her losing the majority - which indicate this.
GE votes are formally votes for your local candidate, not the PM. Of course we are becoming more presidential, but the fact remains that votes for a party don't necessarily imply popularity of the leader. A fair few Labour MPs actively campaigned against their leader.
Austerity (or whatever you choose to call it) has led many councils to reduce their building control staff and hire in private firms as and when needed. And it is much more likely nowadays that the developer is a housing association or arms length housing management organisation, rather than the Council itself. And still more likely, given the culture of local government, that the council's own inspector would give the council's developing department more of a hard time than would some private firm hired for the same purpose. The former has some degree of job security whereas the latter could be replaced by another firm very easily.
Come off it - 'austerity' was to blame in 2005 when Camden Council clad their towers? That's 2005 when Gordon Brown was spending money like water and dosh was pouring into government coffers from the City at a rate never seen before or since (and likely never to be seen again)?
I know that confirmation bias is an extraordinary thing, but you really have to be completely purblind to blame 'austerity' for this failure.
It really isn't. Because the only means by which individuals can express their preference is with their own individual cast ballot. Millions more voted for May and Corbyn. They were both way more popular than Cameron and Miliband.
It is.
While Corbyn was more popular than Miliband, TMay was not, in the end, more popular than Cameron. Her own personal ratings declined substantially during the campaign to the point that she is now where Jeremy Corbyn was a few months ago in the eyes of the public. It was the decline in May's personal ratings during the campaign, which followed the trajectory of a decreasing Tory lead, and thus subsequently the turning of the position of a Conservative majority at the start of the campaign to a situation of the Tories losing their majority on June 8th.
You're mixing relative popularity up with electoral popularity.
And opinion polls with reality...
In a GE relative popularity is the same thing as electoral popularity.
One opinion poll - Survation and also The YouGov Model turned out to match with reality come the GE.
Gah. Then how do you explain the millions more votes May received over Cameron?
Voters returned to her from UKIP because she hadn't told them they were little Englanders. It isn't hard to comprehend.
I'm not saying she was great, I'm not saying she performed better relatively than cameron. But the total numbers of total votes don't lie.
To your first point - I literally adressed that several posts ago. Kippers came back home. And in addressing your second point, this had nothing to do with how great TMay was or because 'she hadn't told them they were little Englanders.' They came back because of Brexit. Once that happened, there was very little reason to vote UKIP for many people. TMay owes her extra votes to Cameron's (ill-judged error) in holding an EUref more than anything else.
The total number of votes don't necessarily symbolise what you may think they do. Otherwise, TMay's ratings wouldn't be in the dustbin right now....
So Kipper votes count for less than other votes do they?
I just find it difficult to understand why you're evening bothering to argue against total numbers of votes implying popularity.
Votes for PPCs and parties do not equate to personal popularity of leaders. Safer to say a party is popular. At least the party is on the ballot.
But then you also need to take into account turnout.
Austerity (or whatever you choose to call it) has led many councils to reduce their building control staff and hire in private firms as and when needed. And it is much more likely nowadays that the developer is a housing association or arms length housing management organisation, rather than the Council itself. And still more likely, given the culture of local government, that the council's own inspector would give the council's developing department more of a hard time than would some private firm hired for the same purpose. The former has some degree of job security whereas the latter could be replaced by another firm very easily.
Come off it - 'austerity' was to blame in 2005 when Camden Council clad their towers? That's 2005 when Gordon Brown was spending money like water and dosh was pouring into government coffers from the City at a rate never seen before or since (and likely never to be seen again)?
I know that confirmation bias is an extraordinary thing, but you really have to be completely purblind to blame 'austerity' for this failure.
You seemed quite happy to blame Labour for the credit crunch. Labour was no more responsible for iron clad AAA CDOs than the government was responsible for clad tower blocks.
Makes little difference to the politics. When it happens on your watch, you are responsible.
But lost Dave's majority to Corbyn, to JEREMY CORBYN, Mrs May failed to win a majority against the terrorist sympathising, economically illiterate, turn us into Venezuela, and make Diane Abbott Home Secretary Trot.
If you think that's a success then I can't help you.
Tbf...this is true as well Mortimer.
Although Osborne is politically toxic, May has not proven to be much better either. She should really be winning a comfortable majority at the very least against Jeremy Corbyn. Cameron, I think would have done better in Tory Remainey areas in London at the very the least. Though the disaffection with the neo-liberal economic status quo would have likely have affected him too. It would have definitely affected Osborne.
I know a Tory leaver who hates Osborne who had the grace to admit Osborne would have won a majority against Corbyn, Osborne would have hammered Corbyn on the economy and his economic plans.
Mrs May hardly mentioned the economy.
Osborne may well have lost to Corbyn, Corbyn's anti austerity message would have been even stronger against him than May and Osborne would not have won the former UKIP voters May did. Cameron was a better leader than May on the campaign trail, Osborne would have been worse, he is a strategist not a leader
Austerity (or whatever you choose to call it) has led many councils to reduce their building control staff and hire in private firms as and when needed. And it is much more likely nowadays that the developer is a housing association or arms length housing management organisation, rather than the Council itself. And still more likely, given the culture of local government, that the council's own inspector would give the council's developing department more of a hard time than would some private firm hired for the same purpose. The former has some degree of job security whereas the latter could be replaced by another firm very easily.
Come off it - 'austerity' was to blame in 2005 when Camden Council clad their towers? That's 2005 when Gordon Brown was spending money like water and dosh was pouring into government coffers from the City at a rate never seen before or since (and likely never to be seen again)?
I know that confirmation bias is an extraordinary thing, but you really have to be completely purblind to blame 'austerity' for this failure.
There was some moron on the radio today blaming Osborne for "doubling the National Debt".. Memories are short and all sorts of lies used to justify what you want to say. Truth is the casualty and Jeremy Vine didn't bother to take the guy to task over this "factual" statement and the truth behind it.. Pathetic
Austerity (or whatever you choose to call it) has led many councils to reduce their building control staff and hire in private firms as and when needed. And it is much more likely nowadays that the developer is a housing association or arms length housing management organisation, rather than the Council itself. And still more likely, given the culture of local government, that the council's own inspector would give the council's developing department more of a hard time than would some private firm hired for the same purpose. The former has some degree of job security whereas the latter could be replaced by another firm very easily.
Come off it - 'austerity' was to blame in 2005 when Camden Council clad their towers? That's 2005 when Gordon Brown was spending money like water and dosh was pouring into government coffers from the City at a rate never seen before or since (and likely never to be seen again)?
I know that confirmation bias is an extraordinary thing, but you really have to be completely purblind to blame 'austerity' for this failure.
I wasn't blaming austerity for the failure. It is nevertheless the case that funding reductions (which for local government started well before 2010, whatever Labour might now pretend) have reduced councils' in-house building control teams and increased the use of private firms. I cannot speak for the Camden situation as I haven't lived in Camden for thirty years and have no knowledge of what they did or didn't do in 2005.
@HYUFD Kippers also voted for Corbyn....a man who tried to be as ambiguous about his Brexit policy as possible and distinguish himself from May's position while being a Hard Brexiteer just like her deep down. Kippers simply moved away from UKIP because they saw that UKIP's job was done. They already started moving away from them shortly after GE 2015 when it was clear we were having an EUref.
Also, I sincerely doubt that Ed Miliband was in many voters minds when casting their ballot at the GE.
But lost Dave's majority to Corbyn, to JEREMY CORBYN, Mrs May failed to win a majority against the terrorist sympathising, economically illiterate, turn us into Venezuela, and make Diane Abbott Home Secretary Trot.
If you think that's a success then I can't help you.
Tbf...this is true as well Mortimer.
Although Osborne is politically toxic, May has not proven to be much better either. She should really be winning a comfortable majority at the very least against Jeremy Corbyn. Cameron, I think would have done better in Tory Remainey areas in London at the very the least. Though the disaffection with the neo-liberal economic status quo would have likely have affected him too. It would have definitely affected Osborne.
I know a Tory leaver who hates Osborne who had the grace to admit Osborne would have won a majority against Corbyn, Osborne would have hammered Corbyn on the economy and his economic plans.
Mrs May hardly mentioned the economy.
Osborne may well have lost to Corbyn, Corbyn's anti austerity message would have been even stronger against him than May and Osborne would not have won the former UKIP voters May did. Cameron was a better leader than May on the campaign trail, Osborne would have been worse, he is a strategist not a leader
Osborne would have seen how damaging the social care and WFA stuff was and binned it. The Tories would have won easily imho.
Austerity (or whatever you choose to call it) has led many councils to reduce their building control staff and hire in private firms as and when needed. And it is much more likely nowadays that the developer is a housing association or arms length housing management organisation, rather than the Council itself. And still more likely, given the culture of local government, that the council's own inspector would give the council's developing department more of a hard time than would some private firm hired for the same purpose. The former has some degree of job security whereas the latter could be replaced by another firm very easily.
Come off it - 'austerity' was to blame in 2005 when Camden Council clad their towers? That's 2005 when Gordon Brown was spending money like water and dosh was pouring into government coffers from the City at a rate never seen before or since (and likely never to be seen again)?
I know that confirmation bias is an extraordinary thing, but you really have to be completely purblind to blame 'austerity' for this failure.
I wasn't blaming austerity for the failure. It is nevertheless the case that funding reductions (which for local government started well before 2010, whatever Labour might now pretend) have reduced councils' in-house building control teams and increased the use of private firms. I cannot speak for the Camden situation as I haven't lived in Camden for thirty years and have no knowledge of what they did or didn't do in 2005.
Not sure if you have worked in the industry but normally council funded projects tend to use their own building control for cost reasons. Whenever ai have used a building control inspector from a private practice this has mainly been so that they can be included in the design process. It means that a designer can propose something and then work out how to achieve whatever they want and achieve compliance for building regs, without the delays of submitting to a local authority and then being refused, or being asked for more information. It is a much better system, as you pay more for a more involved role. But don't let that stop you blaming austerity.
Gah. Then how do you explain the millions more votes May received over Cameron?
Voters returned to her from UKIP because she hadn't told them they were little Englanders. It isn't hard to comprehend.
I'm not saying she was great, I'm not saying she performed better relatively than cameron. But the total numbers of total votes don't lie.
I'm not buying this. UKIP collapsed because they had achieved their mission on referendum day, their key electoral asset wandered off to pursue the big bucks on the US speaker circuit, and their remaining leading figures were either Walter Mitty figures, or resorted to punching each other. Indeed, many fewer people even had the chance to vote UKIP this time, as they were well short of the full slate. Voters either returned to the Tories or (which was less widely predicted) Labour.
By your logic, Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a stronger candidate than Bill Clinton in 1992 because he picked up a higher vote percentage (albeit slightly fewer votes on a lower turnout and smaller electorate). But it's wholly accounted for by a strong third party challenge from Perot.
Additionally, you need to take into account the identity of the main opponent. Corbyn had and has pros and cons. But it seems most likely that his big pro is galvanising the left, while his con is abandoning the mushy middle. It did rather look as if May was shooting at an open goal there, and missed.
Again, failing to take into account the opponent would suggest Hilary Clinton in 2016 was a stronger candidate than Barack Obama in 2012. She picked up more votes and a higher percentage... but he did it against a credible and capable former Governor who (for all his flaws) ran a fairly tight ship, whereas she lost to a man who's final days in the campaign were spent explaining away being taped bragging about carrying out sexual assaults.
Now you can argue with any of that. Maybe Dukakis was hugely underrated. Maybe the breadth as well as depth of Corbyn's appeal is. All I'm saying is that the comparing absolute vote percentages or totals across elections is fraught with difficulty, and narrowly winning one you ought to win easily may well not be as good as narrowly losing one where the fundamentals point to your being put to the sword.
@HYUFD Kippers also voted for Corbyn....a man who tried to be as ambiguous about his Brexit policy as possible and distinguish himself from May's position while being a Hard Brexiteer just like her deep down. Kippers simply moved away from UKIP because they saw that UKIP's job was done. They already started moving away from them shortly after GE 2015 when it was clear we were having an EUref.
Also, I sincerely doubt that Ed Miliband was in many voters minds when casting their ballot at the GE.
You are misremembering re UKIP shortly after the 2015 GE, they were generally polling higher than their GE score in 2016, and in the week of the referendum polled 18 & 19%
Austerity (or whatever you choose to call it) has led many councils to reduce their building control staff and hire in private firms as and when needed. And it is much more likely nowadays that the developer is a housing association or arms length housing management organisation, rather than the Council itself. And still more likely, given the culture of local government, that the council's own inspector would give the council's developing department more of a hard time than would some private firm hired for the same purpose. The former has some degree of job security whereas the latter could be replaced by another firm very easily.
Come off it - 'austerity' was to blame in 2005 when Camden Council clad their towers? That's 2005 when Gordon Brown was spending money like water and dosh was pouring into government coffers from the City at a rate never seen before or since (and likely never to be seen again)?
I know that confirmation bias is an extraordinary thing, but you really have to be completely purblind to blame 'austerity' for this failure.
There was some moron on the radio today blaming Osborne for "doubling the National Debt".. Memories are short and all sorts of lies used to justify what you want to say. Truth is the casualty and Jeremy Vine didn't bother to take the guy to task over this "factual" statement and the truth behind it.. Pathetic
I didn't hear the interview but there's a perfectly sound argument that says the national debt doubled while Osborne was chancellor and he should task some responsibility. The national debt was supposed to peak at 70% of GDP in 2013-14 and be reducing by 2015. Instead it now stands at close to 90% GDP and is still rising.
Osborne pinned his hopes on austerity which stifled growth, and hence tax receipts. Wrong approach and we're paying the price. He should have studied Roosevelt's New Deal and stimulated growth.
Austerity (or whatever you choose to call it) has led many councils to reduce their building control staff and hire in private firms as and when needed. And it is much more likely nowadays that the developer is a housing association or arms length housing management organisation, rather than the Council itself. And still more likely, given the culture of local government, that the council's own inspector would give the council's developing department more of a hard time than would some private firm hired for the same purpose. The former has some degree of job security whereas the latter could be replaced by another firm very easily.
Come off it - 'austerity' was to blame in 2005 when Camden Council clad their towers? That's 2005 when Gordon Brown was spending money like water and dosh was pouring into government coffers from the City at a rate never seen before or since (and likely never to be seen again)?
I know that confirmation bias is an extraordinary thing, but you really have to be completely purblind to blame 'austerity' for this failure.
I wasn't blaming austerity for the failure. It is nevertheless the case that funding reductions (which for local government started well before 2010, whatever Labour might now pretend) have reduced councils' in-house building control teams and increased the use of private firms. I cannot speak for the Camden situation as I haven't lived in Camden for thirty years and have no knowledge of what they did or didn't do in 2005.
Not sure if you have worked in the industry but normally council funded projects tend to use their own building control for cost reasons. Whenever ai have used a building control inspector from a private practice this has mainly been so that they can be included in the design process. It means that a designer can propose something and then work out how to achieve whatever they want and achieve compliance for building regs, without the delays of submitting to a local authority and then being refused, or being asked for more information. It is a much better system, as you pay more for a more involved role. But don't let that stop you blaming austerity.
I wasn't blaming austerity, as I have said already.
My Council is as described, and my intelligence is that others are also. But clearly there are others who still do everything in-house.
@HYUFD Kippers also voted for Corbyn....a man who tried to be as ambiguous about his Brexit policy as possible and distinguish himself from May's position while being a Hard Brexiteer just like her deep down. Kippers simply moved away from UKIP because they saw that UKIP's job was done. They already started moving away from them shortly after GE 2015 when it was clear we were having an EUref.
Also, I sincerely doubt that Ed Miliband was in many voters minds when casting their ballot at the GE.
You are misremembering re UKIP shortly after the 2015 GE, they were generally polling higher than their GE score, and in the week of the referendum polled 18 & 19%
My reference was to by-elections like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_West_and_Royton_by-election_2015 where UKIP, who had previously done well in by-elections in 2014 didn't make the kind of inroads into the Labour vote that was expected. Although, tbf Dec 2015 isn't really shortly after the GE, but I'm not good at remembering by election dates. Also re polls: around both of those (GE 2015 and EUref) the polls were all wrong (at least one got it right this time round). That's why many after GE 2015 weren't paying attention to them.
Gah. Then how do you explain the millions more votes May received over Cameron?
Voters returned to her from UKIP because she hadn't told them they were little Englanders. It isn't hard to comprehend.
I'm not saying she was great, I'm not saying she performed better relatively than cameron. But the total numbers of total votes don't lie.
I'm not buying this. UKIP collapsed because they had achieved their mission on referendum day, their key electoral asset wandered off to pursue the big bucks on the US speaker circuit, and their remaining leading figures were either Walter Mitty figures, or resorted to punching each other. Indeed, many fewer people even had the chance to vote UKIP this time, as they were well short of the full slate. Voters either returned to the Tories or (which was less widely predicted) Labour.
By your logic, Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a stronger candidate than Bill Clinton in 1992 because he picked up a higher vote percentage (albeit slightly fewer votes on a lower turnout and smaller electorate). But it's wholly accounted for by a strong third party challenge from Perot.
Additionally, you need to take into account the identity of the main opponent. Corbyn had and has pros and cons. But it seems most likely that his big pro is galvanising the left, while his con is abandoning the mushy middle. It did rather look as if May was shooting at an open goal there, and missed.
Again, failing to take into account the opponent would suggest Hilary Clinton in 2016 was a stronger candidate than Barack Obama in 2012. She picked up more votes and a higher percentage... but he did it against a credible and capable former Governor who (for all his flaws) ran a fairly tight ship, whereas she lost to a man who's final days in the campaign were spent explaining away being taped bragging about carrying out sexual assaults.
Now you can argue with any of that. Maybe Dukakis was hugely underrated. Maybe the breadth as well as depth of Corbyn's appeal is. All I'm saying is that the comparing absolute vote percentages or totals across elections is fraught with difficulty, and narrowly winning one you ought to win easily may well not be as good as narrowly losing one where the fundamentals point to your being put to the sword.
But lost Dave's majority to Corbyn, to JEREMY CORBYN, Mrs May failed to win a majority against the terrorist sympathising, economically illiterate, turn us into Venezuela, and make Diane Abbott Home Secretary Trot.
If you think that's a success then I can't help you.
Tbf...this is true as well Mortimer.
Although Osborne is politically toxic, May has not proven to be much better either. She should really be winning a comfortable majority at the very least against Jeremy Corbyn. Cameron, I think would have done better in Tory Remainey areas in London at the very the least. Though the disaffection with the neo-liberal economic status quo would have likely have affected him too. It would have definitely affected Osborne.
I know a Tory leaver who hates Osborne who had the grace to admit Osborne would have won a majority against Corbyn, Osborne would have hammered Corbyn on the economy and his economic plans.
Mrs May hardly mentioned the economy.
Osborne may well have lost to Corbyn, Corbyn's anti austerity message would have been even stronger against him than May and Osborne would not have won the former UKIP voters May did. Cameron was a better leader than May on the campaign trail, Osborne would have been worse, he is a strategist not a leader
Osborne would have seen how damaging the social care and WFA stuff was and binned it. The Tories would have won easily imho.
He would not have won the former UKIP voters to compensate for the votes Corbyn won on sn anti austerity ticket even though he may have reduced losses by avoiding the dementia tax
@HYUFD Kippers also voted for Corbyn....a man who tried to be as ambiguous about his Brexit policy as possible and distinguish himself from May's position while being a Hard Brexiteer just like her deep down. Kippers simply moved away from UKIP because they saw that UKIP's job was done. They already started moving away from them shortly after GE 2015 when it was clear we were having an EUref.
Also, I sincerely doubt that Ed Miliband was in many voters minds when casting their ballot at the GE.
You are misremembering re UKIP shortly after the 2015 GE, they were generally polling higher than their GE score, and in the week of the referendum polled 18 & 19%
My reference was to by-elections like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_West_and_Royton_by-election_2015 where UKIP, who had previously done well in by-elections in 2014 didn't make the kind of inroads into the Labour vote that was expected. Although, tbf Dec 2015 isn't really shortly after the GE, but I'm not good at remembering by election dates. Also re polls: around both of those (GE 2015 and EUref) the polls were all wrong (at least one got it right this time round). That's why many after GE 2015 weren't paying attention to them.
They increased their vote share in that by election though?!
And they polled above their GE result most of the way from the GE to the Ref. I don't see how either can be said to prove they lost support in that time, not that it really matters now.
@HYUFD Kippers also voted for Corbyn....a man who tried to be as ambiguous about his Brexit policy as possible and distinguish himself from May's position while being a Hard Brexiteer just like her deep down. Kippers simply moved away from UKIP because they saw that UKIP's job was done. They already started moving away from them shortly after GE 2015 when it was clear we were having an EUref.
Also, I sincerely doubt that Ed Miliband was in many voters minds when casting their ballot at the GE.
Corbyn won 2015 UKIP voters by neutralising the Brexit issue yes and focusing mainly on an anti austerity message
Austerity (or whatever you choose to call it) has led many councils to reduce their building control staff and hire in private firms as and when needed. And it is much more likely nowadays that the developer is a housing association or arms length housing management organisation, rather than the Council itself. And still more likely, given the culture of local government, that the council's own inspector would give the council's developing department more of a hard time than would some private firm hired for the same purpose. The former has some degree of job security whereas the latter could be replaced by another firm very easily.
Come off it - 'austerity' was to blame in 2005 when Camden Council clad their towers? That's 2005 when Gordon Brown was spending money like water and dosh was pouring into government coffers from the City at a rate never seen before or since (and likely never to be seen again)?
I know that confirmation bias is an extraordinary thing, but you really have to be completely purblind to blame 'austerity' for this failure.
There was some moron on the radio today blaming Osborne for "doubling the National Debt".. Memories are short and all sorts of lies used to justify what you want to say. Truth is the casualty and Jeremy Vine didn't bother to take the guy to task over this "factual" statement and the truth behind it.. Pathetic
I didn't hear the interview but there's a perfectly sound argument that says the national debt doubled while Osborne was chancellor and he should task some responsibility. The national debt was supposed to peak at 70% of GDP in 2013-14 and be reducing by 2015. Instead it now stands at close to 90% GDP and is still rising.
Osborne pinned his hopes on austerity which stifled growth, and hence tax receipts. Wrong approach and we're paying the price. He should have studied Roosevelt's New Deal and stimulated growth.
To be fair to Osborne spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen from the 48% Brown left in 2010 to about 41% now and the deficit has fallen with it
@HYUFD Kippers also voted for Corbyn....a man who tried to be as ambiguous about his Brexit policy as possible and distinguish himself from May's position while being a Hard Brexiteer just like her deep down. Kippers simply moved away from UKIP because they saw that UKIP's job was done. They already started moving away from them shortly after GE 2015 when it was clear we were having an EUref.
Also, I sincerely doubt that Ed Miliband was in many voters minds when casting their ballot at the GE.
You are misremembering re UKIP shortly after the 2015 GE, they were generally polling higher than their GE score, and in the week of the referendum polled 18 & 19%
My reference was to by-elections like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_West_and_Royton_by-election_2015 where UKIP, who had previously done well in by-elections in 2014 didn't make the kind of inroads into the Labour vote that was expected. Although, tbf Dec 2015 isn't really shortly after the GE, but I'm not good at remembering by election dates. Also re polls: around both of those (GE 2015 and EUref) the polls were all wrong (at least one got it right this time round). That's why many after GE 2015 weren't paying attention to them.
They increased their vote share in that by election though?!
And they polled above their GE result most of the way from the GE to the Ref. I don't see how either can be said to prove they lost support in that time, not that it really matters now.
I called "peak kipper" post the 2014 Euro elections.
They increased their vote share in that by election though?!
Their % increase was so small it could be down to turnout variation - it was down quite signifcantly. The actual swing was in Labour's favour, although that was pretty small it has be said.
As the article says:
The result was considered by commentators as surprisingly good for Labour, who had been expected to be more closely challenged by UKIP,[21] and was reported as a boost for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the party.[22][23]
On the morning after the by-election, UKIP leader Nigel Farage and some other party sources claimed that there had been voting fraud particularly around ethnic minority voters and around postal votes,[24][25][26] with Farage claiming the vote was "bent" and that in constituencies with large numbers of ethnic minority voters who do not speak English "effectively the electoral process is now dead".[26][27] Paul Nuttall, UKIP's deputy leader, said to journalists: "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"[28] However, others in UKIP downplayed the allegations,[29] with deputy chairman Suzanne Evans saying the party risks sounding like "bad losers".[28] Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, dismissed the complaints as "sour grapes".[27]
Farage stated that he was planning to make a formal complaint about the allegations.[26][22] Deputy leader Paul Nuttall wrote an open letter to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, raising concerns about postal voting processes.[30]
@HYUFD Kippers also voted for Corbyn....a man who tried to be as ambiguous about his Brexit policy as possible and distinguish himself from May's position while being a Hard Brexiteer just like her deep down. Kippers simply moved away from UKIP because they saw that UKIP's job was done. They already started moving away from them shortly after GE 2015 when it was clear we were having an EUref.
Also, I sincerely doubt that Ed Miliband was in many voters minds when casting their ballot at the GE.
You are misremembering re UKIP shortly after the 2015 GE, they were generally polling higher than their GE score, and in the week of the referendum polled 18 & 19%
My reference was to by-elections like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_West_and_Royton_by-election_2015 where UKIP, who had previously done well in by-elections in 2014 didn't make the kind of inroads into the Labour vote that was expected. Although, tbf Dec 2015 isn't really shortly after the GE, but I'm not good at remembering by election dates. Also re polls: around both of those (GE 2015 and EUref) the polls were all wrong (at least one got it right this time round). That's why many after GE 2015 weren't paying attention to them.
They increased their vote share in that by election though?!
And they polled above their GE result most of the way from the GE to the Ref. I don't see how either can be said to prove they lost support in that time, not that it really matters now.
I called "peak kipper" post the 2014 Euro elections.
They increased their vote share in that by election though?!
Their % increase was so small it could be down to turnout variation - it was down quite signifcantly. The actual swing was in Labour's favour, although that was pretty small it has be said.
As the article says:
The result was considered by commentators as surprisingly good for Labour, who had been expected to be more closely challenged by UKIP,[21] and was reported as a boost for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the party.[22][23]
On the morning after the by-election, UKIP leader Nigel Farage and some other party sources claimed that there had been voting fraud particularly around ethnic minority voters and around postal votes,[24][25][26] with Farage claiming the vote was "bent" and that in constituencies with large numbers of ethnic minority voters who do not speak English "effectively the electoral process is now dead".[26][27] Paul Nuttall, UKIP's deputy leader, said to journalists: "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"[28] However, others in UKIP downplayed the allegations,[29] with deputy chairman Suzanne Evans saying the party risks sounding like "bad losers".[28] Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, dismissed the complaints as "sour grapes".[27]
Farage stated that he was planning to make a formal complaint about the allegations.[26][22] Deputy leader Paul Nuttall wrote an open letter to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, raising concerns about postal voting processes.[30]
Sorry, I dont want to argue the toss. You were wrong to say UKIP support went down after the 2015 GE. They were pretty much finished after the EU referendum, that is for sure. Lets just accept that and move on.
With the benefit of hindsight it is pretty obvious that the fact so many were willing to vote UKIP, even for such a non event as the European Parliament meant that leave were in with a good chance. I mean you would have to be royally pissed off with Europe to do that wouldn't you?
They increased their vote share in that by election though?!
Their % increase was so small it could be down to turnout variation - it was down quite signifcantly. The actual swing was in Labour's favour, although that was pretty small it has be said.
As the article says:
The result was considered by commentators as surprisingly good for Labour, who had been expected to be more closely challenged by UKIP,[21] and was reported as a boost for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the party.[22][23]
On the morning after the by-election, UKIP leader Nigel Farage and some other party sources claimed that there had been voting fraud particularly around ethnic minority voters and around postal votes,[24][25][26] with Farage claiming the vote was "bent" and that in constituencies with large numbers of ethnic minority voters who do not speak English "effectively the electoral process is now dead".[26][27] Paul Nuttall, UKIP's deputy leader, said to journalists: "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"[28] However, others in UKIP downplayed the allegations,[29] with deputy chairman Suzanne Evans saying the party risks sounding like "bad losers".[28] Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, dismissed the complaints as "sour grapes".[27]
Farage stated that he was planning to make a formal complaint about the allegations.[26][22] Deputy leader Paul Nuttall wrote an open letter to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, raising concerns about postal voting processes.[30]
Sorry, I dont want to argue the toss. You were wrong to say UKIP support went down after the 2015 GE. They were pretty much finished after the EU referendum, that is for sure. Lets just accept that and move on.
Not just the referendum result per se, but the Tories' decision to own absolutely the outcome (not that they really had much choice). The Tories are, with only a handful of outlying exceptions, the Brexit party now, and their fate for a generation will depend on the outcome. The EU-obsessed UKIp folk could, in those circumstances, happily vote Tory, and those who used ukip as an anti-establishment protest could happily vote Corbyn.
With the benefit of hindsight it is pretty obvious that the fact so many were willing to vote UKIP, even for such a non event as the European Parliament meant that leave were in with a good chance. I mean you would have to be royally pissed off with Europe to do that wouldn't you?
Just being royally pissed off would have been enough for many; Europe only came into it for some of them.
They increased their vote share in that by election though?!
Their % increase was so small it could be down to turnout variation - it was down quite signifcantly. The actual swing was in Labour's favour, although that was pretty small it has be said.
As the article says:
The result was considered by commentators as surprisingly good for Labour, who had been expected to be more closely challenged by UKIP,[21] and was reported as a boost for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the party.[22][23]
On the morning after the by-election, UKIP leader Nigel Farage and some other party sources claimed that there had been voting fraud particularly around ethnic minority voters and around postal votes,[24][25][26] with Farage claiming the vote was "bent" and that in constituencies with large numbers of ethnic minority voters who do not speak English "effectively the electoral process is now dead".[26][27] Paul Nuttall, UKIP's deputy leader, said to journalists: "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"[28] However, others in UKIP downplayed the allegations,[29] with deputy chairman Suzanne Evans saying the party risks sounding like "bad losers".[28] Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, dismissed the complaints as "sour grapes".[27]
Farage stated that he was planning to make a formal complaint about the allegations.[26][22] Deputy leader Paul Nuttall wrote an open letter to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, raising concerns about postal voting processes.[30]
Sorry, I dont want to argue the toss. You were wrong to say UKIP support went down after the 2015 GE. They were pretty much finished after the EU referendum, that is for sure. Lets just accept that and move on.
Not just the referendum result per se, but the Tories' decision to own absolutely the outcome (not that they really had much choice). The Tories are, with only a handful of outlying exceptions, the Brexit party now, and their fate for a generation will depend on the outcome. The EU-obsessed UKIp folk could, in those circumstances, happily vote Tory, and those who used ukip as an anti-establishment protest could happily vote Corbyn.
Yes it seems unarguable now that UKIP's job was done as soon as the Government accepted the Referendum result and Parliament voted through A50. Farage was very astute to resign as leader when he did. Sold at the top!
Changing the subject completely, anyone else seen Baby Driver? I loved it but my favourite film of the year so far is Their Finest, lovely film.
Looking forward to seeing Dunkirk in a couple of weeks.
Very excited about Dunkirk and crossing fingers it is as good as it looks.
It looks amazing.
I can't wait.
Me too, I thought Churchill was a little disappointing but Brian Cox was brilliant, Dunkirk looks like a real stand out film.
My grandfather came home from Dunkirk with 1 trouser leg, the other having been blown off him by a German shell but leaving him unharmed. Weird. Didn't do him much good though, killed at Alamein.
Changing the subject completely, anyone else seen Baby Driver? I loved it but my favourite film of the year so far is Their Finest, lovely film.
Looking forward to seeing Dunkirk in a couple of weeks.
Very excited about Dunkirk and crossing fingers it is as good as it looks.
It looks amazing.
I can't wait.
Me too, I thought Churchill was a little disappointing but Brian Cox was brilliant, Dunkirk looks like a real stand out film.
My grandfather came home from Dunkirk with 1 trouser leg, the other having been blown off him by a German shell but leaving him unharmed. Weird. Didn't do him much good though, killed at Alamein.
@HYUFD Tbf May neutralised that issue when she decided not to make it the main theme of the GE.
I only knew of the Dunkirk movie (I found out several months ago) because Harry Styles is in it.
Certainly moving from the Brexit election to the Dementia Tax election was a mistake on her part but Corbyn's support for Brexit had already enabled him to move onto an anti austerity theme
Austerity (or whatever you choose to call it) has led many councils to reduce their building control staff and hire in private firms as and when needed. And it is much more likely nowadays that the developer is a housing association or arms length housing management organisation, rather than the Council itself. And still more likely, given the culture of local government, that the council's own inspector would give the council's developing department more of a hard time than would some private firm hired for the same purpose. The former has some degree of job security whereas the latter could be replaced by another firm very easily.
Come off it - 'austerity' was to blame in 2005 when Camden Council clad their towers? That's 2005 when Gordon Brown was spending money like water and dosh was pouring into government coffers from the City at a rate never seen before or since (and likely never to be seen again)?
I know that confirmation bias is an extraordinary thing, but you really have to be completely purblind to blame 'austerity' for this failure.
There was some moron on the radio today blaming Osborne for "doubling the National Debt".. Memories are short and all sorts of lies used to justify what you want to say. Truth is the casualty and Jeremy Vine didn't bother to take the guy to task over this "factual" statement and the truth behind it.. Pathetic
U.K. National debt in 2010: £0.75trn UK National debt in 2015: £1.6trn
UK chancellor 2010-2015: G. Osborne.
Whilst these figures should certainly be seen in the context of the deficit, it's inappropriate to put factual in inverted commas as if it were a lie.
They increased their vote share in that by election though?!
Their % increase was so small it could be down to turnout variation - it was down quite signifcantly. The actual swing was in Labour's favour, although that was pretty small it has be said.
As the article says:
The result was considered by commentators as surprisingly good for Labour, who had been expected to be more closely challenged by UKIP,[21] and was reported as a boost for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the party.[22][23]
On the morning after the by-election, UKIP leader Nigel Farage and some other party sources claimed that there had been voting fraud particularly around ethnic minority voters and around postal votes,[24][25][26] with Farage claiming the vote was "bent" and that in constituencies with large numbers of ethnic minority voters who do not speak English "effectively the electoral process is now dead".[26][27] Paul Nuttall, UKIP's deputy leader, said to journalists: "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"[28] However, others in UKIP downplayed the allegations,[29] with deputy chairman Suzanne Evans saying the party risks sounding like "bad losers".[28] Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, dismissed the complaints as "sour grapes".[27]
Farage stated that he was planning to make a formal complaint about the allegations.[26][22] Deputy leader Paul Nuttall wrote an open letter to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, raising concerns about postal voting processes.[30]
Sorry, I dont want to argue the toss. You were wrong to say UKIP support went down after the 2015 GE. They were pretty much finished after the EU referendum, that is for sure. Lets just accept that and move on.
Not just the referendum result per se, but the Tories' decision to own absolutely the outcome (not that they really had much choice). The Tories are, with only a handful of outlying exceptions, the Brexit party now, and their fate for a generation will depend on the outcome. The EU-obsessed UKIp folk could, in those circumstances, happily vote Tory, and those who used ukip as an anti-establishment protest could happily vote Corbyn.
Yes it seems unarguable now that UKIP's job was done as soon as the Government accepted the Referendum result and Parliament voted through A50. Farage was very astute to resign as leader when he did. Sold at the top!
They increased their vote share in that by election though?!
Their % increase was so small it could be down to turnout variation - it was down quite signifcantly. The actual swing was in Labour's favour, although that was pretty small it has be said.
As the article says:
The result was considered by commentators as surprisingly good for Labour, who had been expected to be more closely challenged by UKIP,[21] and was reported as a boost for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the party.[22][23]
On the morning after the by-election, UKIP leader Nigel Farage and some other party sources claimed that there had been voting fraud particularly around ethnic minority voters and around postal votes,[24][25][26] with Farage claiming the vote was "bent" and that in constituencies with large numbers of ethnic minority voters who do not speak English "effectively the electoral process is now dead".[26][27] Paul Nuttall, UKIP's deputy leader, said to journalists: "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"[28] However, others in UKIP downplayed the allegations,[29] with deputy chairman Suzanne Evans saying the party risks sounding like "bad losers".[28] Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, dismissed the complaints as "sour grapes".[27]
Farage stated that he was planning to make a formal complaint about the allegations.[26][22] Deputy leader Paul Nuttall wrote an open letter to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, raising concerns about postal voting processes.[30]
Sorry, I dont want to argue the toss. You were wrong to say UKIP support went down after the 2015 GE. They were pretty much finished after the EU referendum, that is for sure. Lets just accept that and move on.
Not just the referendum result per se, but the Tories' decision to own absolutely the outcome (not that they really had much choice). The Tories are, with only a handful of outlying exceptions, the Brexit party now, and their fate for a generation will depend on the outcome. The EU-obsessed UKIp folk could, in those circumstances, happily vote Tory, and those who used ukip as an anti-establishment protest could happily vote Corbyn.
Yes it seems unarguable now that UKIP's job was done as soon as the Government accepted the Referendum result and Parliament voted through A50. Farage was very astute to resign as leader when he did. Sold at the top!
he should join the LDs
it's their best chance :-)
The Guardian seem to like him now! Apparently he is an "economic libertarian" as opposed to the nasty Islamaphobes that want to take over the Kippers
@HYUFD Tbf May neutralised that issue when she decided not to make it the main theme of the GE.
I only knew of the Dunkirk movie (I found out several months ago) because Harry Styles is in it.
Certainly moving from the Brexit election to the Dementia Tax election was a mistake on her part but Corbyn's support for Brexit had already enabled him to move onto an anti austerity theme
Corbyn was a bit ambigious in regard to his Brexit policy though. He was a Hard Brexiteer but tried to create an illusion that he was for a different Brexit to TMay.
Corbyn's anti-austerity theme didn't really work until TMay messed with the Dementia Tax.
Not my type of bet at all but I know that some on here like short odds and don't mind tying their money up for some time, if so this is the bet for you:
Everton to finish in the Top 10 at 1.25 with Unibet.
They finished 7th last year, 15 points clear of the team in 8th place. They will probably lose Lukaku but have signed some very good players in Pickford, Keane and Klaessen and another today in Sandro. They have some very good young players and I rate Koeman very highly.
Personally I will be looking to buy their points total when Spin finally put it up, they got 61 last year and I will buy at anything close to that, however after Stoke at home on the opening day they face City & Chelsea away in the next two, so I may actually wait until then.
25% return on your money after less than eleven months if anyone is interested.
They increased their vote share in that by election though?!
Their % increase was so small it could be down to turnout variation - it was down quite signifcantly. The actual swing was in Labour's favour, although that was pretty small it has be said.
As the article says:
The result was considered by commentators as surprisingly good for Labour, who had been expected to be more closely challenged by UKIP,[21] and was reported as a boost for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the party.[22][23]
On the morning after the by-election, UKIP leader Nigel Farage and some other party sources claimed that there had been voting fraud particularly around ethnic minority voters and around postal votes,[24][25][26] with Farage claiming the vote was "bent" and that in constituencies with large numbers of ethnic minority voters who do not speak English "effectively the electoral process is now dead".[26][27] Paul Nuttall, UKIP's deputy leader, said to journalists: "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"[28] However, others in UKIP downplayed the allegations,[29] with deputy chairman Suzanne Evans saying the party risks sounding like "bad losers".[28] Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, dismissed the complaints as "sour grapes".[27]
Farage stated that he was planning to make a formal complaint about the allegations.[26][22] Deputy leader Paul Nuttall wrote an open letter to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, raising concerns about postal voting processes.[30]
Sorry, I dont want to argue the toss. You were happily vote Corbyn.
Yes it seems unarguable now that UKIP's job was done as soon as the Government accepted the Referendum result and Parliament voted through A50. Farage was very astute to resign as leader when he did. Sold at the top!
he should join the LDs
it's their best chance :-)
The Guardian seem to like him now! Apparently he is an "economic libertarian" as opposed to the nasty Islamaphobes that want to take over the Kippers
Yes it seems unarguable now that UKIP's job was done as soon as the Government accepted the Referendum result and Parliament voted through A50. Farage was very astute to resign as leader when he did. Sold at the top!
What happened to Farage's plans to become a roving Brexit campaigner around the continent? Presumably his astute political brain has told him that no-one is going to be leaving the EU now.
Changing the subject completely, anyone else seen Baby Driver? I loved it but my favourite film of the year so far is Their Finest, lovely film.
Looking forward to seeing Dunkirk in a couple of weeks.
Very excited about Dunkirk and crossing fingers it is as good as it looks.
I remember on the 70th anniversary of Dunkirk seeing a patient in my clinic. It turned out to be 70 years to the day that he was taken off the beach. He had me and the students spell bound as he told how his 25 Pounder crew fired their last shells, before breaking up their guns and dumping the essental bits in the sea to rust. He was a lovely gentle man. I got a very nice card from his daughter when he died a few years later.
Mind you, even more dramatic was a tale I heard from a Tankie, who landed at Calais with the Royal Tank Regiment as Dunkirk was surrounded, They went into action to try to break the encirclement without time to properly unload their ammo, in a brave but doomed counter attack on the panzers. Arguably this siege of Calais action gave time for the Dunkirk evacuation to be planned. He got away, in time to be sent to Greece as the Germans invaded. He gave me a very nice RTR mug, and some rather good poems.
Just the other day I saw an old retired accountant, who was on his way to Japan in 1945 in the Fleet Air Arm as a carrier pilot when the Atom bombs were dropped. I doubt he would have lasted the year but for that.
Old people have some amazing stories if you listen to them. Not many of us reach such an age without at least a few tales to tell. There are not many of these veterans left.
The men in grey suits will have a very different opinion. Boris is already angling for the future leadership contest with his stance on the public sector pay cap.
The men in grey suits will have a very different opinion. Boris is already angling for the future leadership contest with his stance on the public sector pay cap.
Perhaps she's alarmed that she hasn't been removed yet and is trying to provoke a coup before it's too late.
The men in grey suits will have a very different opinion. Boris is already angling for the future leadership contest with his stance on the public sector pay cap.
The men in grey suits will have a very different opinion. Boris is already angling for the future leadership contest with his stance on the public sector pay cap.
Perhaps she's alarmed that she hasn't been removed yet and is trying to provoke a coup before it's too late.
@HYUFD Tbf May neutralised that issue when she decided not to make it the main theme of the GE.
I only knew of the Dunkirk movie (I found out several months ago) because Harry Styles is in it.
Certainly moving from the Brexit election to the Dementia Tax election was a mistake on her part but Corbyn's support for Brexit had already enabled him to move onto an anti austerity theme
Corbyn was a bit ambigious in regard to his Brexit policy though. He was a Hard Brexiteer but tried to create an illusion that he was for a different Brexit to TMay.
Corbyn's anti-austerity theme didn't really work until TMay messed with the Dementia Tax.
Corbyn successfully managed to win UKIP voters and some Tory Remainers and Labour was already rising in the polls after its manifesto even before the Dementia Tax
She has to say that even if 2019 is the likely departure date, as Blair discovered in 2004 as soon as a PM sets their own departure date their authority begins to wane rapidly and with Brexit talks underway that is not an option for the UK PM. Though the fact the Tories have a poll lead again with Survation and early leadership polling shows neither Boris, Davis or Hammond would do much better than May will have boosted her claim a little
Not my type of bet at all but I know that some on here like short odds and don't mind tying their money up for some time, if so this is the bet for you:
Everton to finish in the Top 10 at 1.25 with Unibet.
They finished 7th last year, 15 points clear of the team in 8th place. They will probably lose Lukaku but have signed some very good players in Pickford, Keane and Klaessen and another today in Sandro. They have some very good young players and I rate Koeman very highly.
Personally I will be looking to buy their points total when Spin finally put it up, they got 61 last year and I will buy at anything close to that, however after Stoke at home on the opening day they face City & Chelsea away in the next two, so I may actually wait until then.
25% return on your money after less than eleven months if anyone is interested.
Lukaku will be a massive hole. My fear with Everton is they don't have anybody remotely close to as good as him upfront.
Sandro is a totally different type of forward, and small Spanish strikers in the premier league haven't always done very well....cough cough Soldado.
Not my type of bet at all but I know that some on here like short odds and don't mind tying their money up for some time, if so this is the bet for you:
Everton to finish in the Top 10 at 1.25 with Unibet.
They finished 7th last year, 15 points clear of the team in 8th place. They will probably lose Lukaku but have signed some very good players in Pickford, Keane and Klaessen and another today in Sandro. They have some very good young players and I rate Koeman very highly.
Personally I will be looking to buy their points total when Spin finally put it up, they got 61 last year and I will buy at anything close to that, however after Stoke at home on the opening day they face City & Chelsea away in the next two, so I may actually wait until then.
25% return on your money after less than eleven months if anyone is interested.
I think that's probably a good bet. To play devil's advocate I would suggest that the Europa League - for which they have to play two qualifying rounds to reach the group stage - could be their undoing. If they are still in it after Christmas and not in touch with the Top 4, I could definitely see Koeman chucking everything at it to try to get into the Champions League.
At the other end of the scale I see Burnley are 12-1. They were 5 points off 10th last season and I think they are just as likely to have a decent season as many of the other mid tables teams.
She has to say that even if 2019 is the likely departure date, as Blair discovered in 2004 as soon as a PM sets their own departure date their authority begins to same rapidly and with Brexit talks underway that is not an option for the UK PM
As we have seen over the last few years, politics can change very rapidly. I simply don't buy Theresa May is "toxic" as many left-wingers or pro-Europeans claim. Right now there are questions about whether she is compassionate and how competent she is. Those things could change with a program of social justice measures and a well-handled government over the next few years.
Those that work closely with her say she both cares a lot about working people and she is very good at what she does. It may be a case that she never manages to break through the current narrative being set by her opponents, in which case she should stand down in a few years. But it may be the case that people realised they judged too early, or that Corbyn makes mistakes and she surges back up in the polls, in which case the current media storm will look silly in hindsight. This is why the left and Remainers are desperate to take her out right now. She should stay strong.
Yes it seems unarguable now that UKIP's job was done as soon as the Government accepted the Referendum result and Parliament voted through A50. Farage was very astute to resign as leader when he did. Sold at the top!
What happened to Farage's plans to become a roving Brexit campaigner around the continent? Presumably his astute political brain has told him that no-one is going to be leaving the EU now.
She has to say that even if 2019 is the likely departure date, as Blair discovered in 2004 as soon as a PM sets their own departure date their authority begins to same rapidly and with Brexit talks underway that is not an option for the UK PM
As we have seen over the last few years, politics can change very rapidly. I simply don't buy Theresa May is "toxic" as many left-wingers or pro-Europeans claim. Right now there are questions about whether she is compassionate and how competent she is. Those things could change with a program of social justice measures and a well-handled government over the next few years.
Those that work closely with her say she both cares a lot about working people and she is very good at what she does. It may be a case that she never manages to break through the current narrative being set by her opponents, in which case she should stand down in a few years. But it may be the case that people realised they judged too early, or that Corbyn makes mistakes and she surges back up in the polls, in which case the current media storm will look silly in hindsight. This is why the left and Remainers are desperate to take her out right now. She should stay strong.
Indeed, other than Blair in 1997 no UK PM since Thatcher had won the 42% she got
Comments
I know that confirmation bias is an extraordinary thing, but you really have to be completely purblind to blame 'austerity' for this failure.
But then you also need to take into account turnout.
No parties are actually popular IMO.
Makes little difference to the politics. When it happens on your watch, you are responsible.
https://twitter.com/AronFTaylor/status/881535452255334400
https://twitter.com/suzanneevans1/status/881554223858634752
Also, I sincerely doubt that Ed Miliband was in many voters minds when casting their ballot at the GE.
By your logic, Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a stronger candidate than Bill Clinton in 1992 because he picked up a higher vote percentage (albeit slightly fewer votes on a lower turnout and smaller electorate). But it's wholly accounted for by a strong third party challenge from Perot.
Additionally, you need to take into account the identity of the main opponent. Corbyn had and has pros and cons. But it seems most likely that his big pro is galvanising the left, while his con is abandoning the mushy middle. It did rather look as if May was shooting at an open goal there, and missed.
Again, failing to take into account the opponent would suggest Hilary Clinton in 2016 was a stronger candidate than Barack Obama in 2012. She picked up more votes and a higher percentage... but he did it against a credible and capable former Governor who (for all his flaws) ran a fairly tight ship, whereas she lost to a man who's final days in the campaign were spent explaining away being taped bragging about carrying out sexual assaults.
Now you can argue with any of that. Maybe Dukakis was hugely underrated. Maybe the breadth as well as depth of Corbyn's appeal is. All I'm saying is that the comparing absolute vote percentages or totals across elections is fraught with difficulty, and narrowly winning one you ought to win easily may well not be as good as narrowly losing one where the fundamentals point to your being put to the sword.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017
The important thing is to not resist it or cry for the ref. Just get on with leading the effort to fix this quickly.
Speed is everything.
Osborne pinned his hopes on austerity which stifled growth, and hence tax receipts. Wrong approach and we're paying the price. He should have studied Roosevelt's New Deal and stimulated growth.
My Council is as described, and my intelligence is that others are also. But clearly there are others who still do everything in-house.
https://twitter.com/momentumtrumpt1/status/881943287518695428
And they polled above their GE result most of the way from the GE to the Ref. I don't see how either can be said to prove they lost support in that time, not that it really matters now.
Looking forward to seeing Dunkirk in a couple of weeks.
Cal me Foxydamus....
As the article says:
The result was considered by commentators as surprisingly good for Labour, who had been expected to be more closely challenged by UKIP,[21] and was reported as a boost for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the party.[22][23]
On the morning after the by-election, UKIP leader Nigel Farage and some other party sources claimed that there had been voting fraud particularly around ethnic minority voters and around postal votes,[24][25][26] with Farage claiming the vote was "bent" and that in constituencies with large numbers of ethnic minority voters who do not speak English "effectively the electoral process is now dead".[26][27] Paul Nuttall, UKIP's deputy leader, said to journalists: "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"[28] However, others in UKIP downplayed the allegations,[29] with deputy chairman Suzanne Evans saying the party risks sounding like "bad losers".[28] Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, dismissed the complaints as "sour grapes".[27]
Farage stated that he was planning to make a formal complaint about the allegations.[26][22] Deputy leader Paul Nuttall wrote an open letter to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, raising concerns about postal voting processes.[30]
I only knew of the Dunkirk movie (I found out several months ago) because Harry Styles is in it.
I can't wait.
a sapper got the mine wrong
Don't get your last comment, though.
UK National debt in 2015: £1.6trn
UK chancellor 2010-2015: G. Osborne.
Whilst these figures should certainly be seen in the context of the deficit, it's inappropriate to put factual in inverted commas as if it were a lie.
it's their best chance :-)
Corbyn's anti-austerity theme didn't really work until TMay messed with the Dementia Tax.
Everton to finish in the Top 10 at 1.25 with Unibet.
They finished 7th last year, 15 points clear of the team in 8th place. They will probably lose Lukaku but have signed some very good players in Pickford, Keane and Klaessen and another today in Sandro. They have some very good young players and I rate Koeman very highly.
Personally I will be looking to buy their points total when Spin finally put it up, they got 61 last year and I will buy at anything close to that, however after Stoke at home on the opening day they face City & Chelsea away in the next two, so I may actually wait until then.
25% return on your money after less than eleven months if anyone is interested.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/881944905790218240
http://www.politico.eu/article/ukip-plans-invasion-of-the-continent-nigel-farage-arron-banks-right-wing-populism/
Mind you, even more dramatic was a tale I heard from a Tankie, who landed at Calais with the Royal Tank Regiment as Dunkirk was surrounded, They went into action to try to break the encirclement without time to properly unload their ammo, in a brave but doomed counter attack on the panzers. Arguably this siege of Calais action gave time for the Dunkirk evacuation to be planned. He got away, in time to be sent to Greece as the Germans invaded. He gave me a very nice RTR mug, and some rather good poems.
Just the other day I saw an old retired accountant, who was on his way to Japan in 1945 in the Fleet Air Arm as a carrier pilot when the Atom bombs were dropped. I doubt he would have lasted the year but for that.
Old people have some amazing stories if you listen to them. Not many of us reach such an age without at least a few tales to tell. There are not many of these veterans left.
The men in grey suits will have a very different opinion. Boris is already angling for the future leadership contest with his stance on the public sector pay cap. Corbyn seems to be a fan judging by that high five on GE night....
Ominous for Mrs May.
I'm not sure about that.
Judging by my Facebook this guy has the leadership in the bag:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40432921
Sandro is a totally different type of forward, and small Spanish strikers in the premier league haven't always done very well....cough cough Soldado.
Also Bolasie will be out for half the season.
At the other end of the scale I see Burnley are 12-1. They were 5 points off 10th last season and I think they are just as likely to have a decent season as many of the other mid tables teams.
NEW THREAD
Those that work closely with her say she both cares a lot about working people and she is very good at what she does. It may be a case that she never manages to break through the current narrative being set by her opponents, in which case she should stand down in a few years. But it may be the case that people realised they judged too early, or that Corbyn makes mistakes and she surges back up in the polls, in which case the current media storm will look silly in hindsight. This is why the left and Remainers are desperate to take her out right now. She should stay strong.