I’m no fan of Corbyn, but I don’t get the sense that this scandal has ‘turned on him’ re media narratives and public pressure. I think it’s wishful thinking from those who want him to go back to being as ‘unpopular’ as he was pre GE.
Give it time - the story about him promoting a known harasser has yet to fully permeate into the public consciousness.
Giving your pervy mate a job isn't a good look for any politician. Even worse when you have allowed your halo to be polished so much by your supporters.
A few days ago the Bex Bailey story - a story that looked pretty bad for Labour - led on the evening news as one of the main stories. So I don’t agree that is halo, and in the end it did not prevent him from gaining support.
Right now, I don't think that either the Conservatives or Labour have been especially damaged by this. That might reflect that people no longer expect very much of politicians, or that the allegations that have so far been proven against named people are not that serious, or that politics is very tribal.
Agreed that I don’t think it’s really damaged either party. I think it’s because of two things: most voters probably see it as a overall issue in politics itself as opposed to an issue with one party, and the tribal nature of politics as you say.
Take Trump. He should have been sunk, but 35-40% stick by him. That's a minority, but a big minority. His supporters may take the view he's a sonofabitch but at least he's our sonofabitch.
Even Barry Goldwater got 38% in 1964 and George McGovern got 37% in 1972 and George HW Bush also got 37% in 1992.
Any president with an approval rating under 40% is in trouble.
It depends what people think of their opponent. Trump was always unpopular, but his opponent was more so, in swing States. You don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than the other person, when the bear is chasing the pair of you.
Well currently he trails Sanders by 11% and Sanders is clearly more appealing in the rustbelt swing states than Hillary was.
Come 2020, Trump may very well eke out a win in such States. Look at the heavy weather that the Democrats are making of holding the Virginia governorship, which should a walk in the park in such a State in mid-term. That points to a party that is not popular.
I've been a bit busy recently and not had internet access, but is it really true that our elected MPs, grown men on at least 75 grand a year plus expenses, some of them Knights of the Realm need a goddamn Code Of Conduct to guide them on how to behave around females? Why are we paying them to act like Sixth Formers out on the lash? The Houses of Parliament need to have those bars closed immediately, and any MP found drinking alcohol on the taxpayers clock should be disciplined just like the rest of us. I don't know anyone who is allowed to booze during working hours. Westminster needs to be dragged into the 21st Century.
MP's are surely entitled to drink at lunch and dinner. I do.
That's between you and your employer, if it's fine by them that's grand. I'm paying those feckers out of my tax, and I don't want them boozing on my time. I don't know why Westminster has to have bars on site. I can't have a drink at work. I don't know anybody else who is encouraged to drink whilst on the firm's quid. If MPs want a drink, surely they could nip out of work to a pub around the corner? I'd also expect them to be subject to the same workplace discipline as the rest of us Public Servants, upto and including drink and drug testing.
The thing is, there aren't many pubs round the corner. The Red Lion, St. Stephens, and the Marquis of Granby is about it.
Well that's tough luck for the poor little dears! Just because there ain't any decent boozers near their place of employment, it doesn't mean we have to supply them with eight!
Surely the one causes the other?
How many more pubs would there be if eg the 10k Parliamentary Staff on their doorsteps plus the 1000 ex-MPs who have lifetime access suddenly had to pay the full price on the Parliamentary Estate, or most of the bars there were closed or became teetotalitarian?
I can't imagine the SNP drinking sarsaparilla and black at lunchtime!
I’m no fan of Corbyn, but I don’t get the sense that this sca.
Give it time - the story about him promoting a known harasser has yet to fully permeate into the public consciousness.
Giving your pervy mate a job isn't a good look for any politician. Even worse when you have allowed your halo to be polished so much by your supporters.
A few days ago the gaining support.
Right now, I don't tribal.
Agreed that I don’t think it’s really you say.
Take .
Even Barry Goldwater got 38% in 1964 and George McGovern got 37% in 1972 and George HW Bush also got 37% in 1992.
Any president with an approval rating under 40% is in trouble.
It depends what people think of their opponent. Trump was always unpopular, but his opponent was more so, in swing States. You don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than the other person, when the bear is chasing the pair of you.
Well currently he trails Sanders by 11% and Sanders is clearly more appealing in the rustbelt swing states than Hillary was.
Come 2020, Trump may very well eke out a win in such States. Look at the heavy weather that the Democrats are making of holding the Virginia governorship, which should a walk in the park in such a State in mid-term. That points to a party that is not popular.
He may, he may not. I would expect Sanders to do better in the Electoral College than Hillary but worse in the popular vote all other things being equal, he is a rustbelt candidate rather than a coastal candidate.
On the Virginia governorship that is actually historically not correct.
Normally the governorship races in the year after the election of a new President see 1 won by a landslide, the other close.
In 2009 for example the GOP won Virginia by 17% but New Jersey by only 4%.
In 2001 the Democrats won New Jersey by 14% but Virginia by only 5%.
In 1993 the GOP won Virginia by 17% again but New Jersey by only 1%.
In 1989 the Democrats won New Jersey by 24% but Virginia by less than 1% etc.
So the current polling showing a big Democratic lead in New Jersey and a close race in Virginia is entirely in accordance with historical precedent at this stage.
I’m no fan of Corbyn, but I don’t get the sense that this sca.
Give it time - the story about him promoting a known harasser has yet to fully permeate into the public consciousness.
Giving your pervy mate a job isn't a good look for any politician. Even worse when you have allowed your halo to be polished so much by your supporters.
A few days ago the gaining support.
Right now, I don't tribal.
Agreed that I don’t think it’s really you say.
Take .
Even Barry Goldwater got 38% in 1964 and George McGovern got 37% in 1972 and George HW Bush also got 37% in 1992.
Any president with an approval rating under 40% is in trouble.
It depends what people think of their opponent. Trump was always unpopular, but his opponent was more so, in swing States. You don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than the other person, when the bear is chasing the pair of you.
Well currently he trails Sanders by 11% and Sanders is clearly more appealing in the rustbelt swing states than Hillary was.
Come 2020, Trump may very well eke out a win in such States. Look at the heavy weather that the Democrats are making of holding the Virginia governorship, which should a walk in the park in such a State in mid-term. That points to a party that is not popular.
He may, he may not. I would expect Sanders to do better in the Electoral College than Hillary but worse in the popular vote all other things being equal, he is a rustbelt candidate rather than a coastal candidate.
On the Virginia governorship that is actually historically not correct.
Normally the governorship races in the year after the election of a new President see 1 won by a landslide, the other very close.
In 2009 for example the GOP won Virginia by 17% but New Jersey by only 4%.
In 2001 the Democrats won New Jersey by 14% but Virginia by only 5%.
In 1993 the GOP won Virginia by 17% again but New Jersey by only 1%.
In 1989 the Democrats won New Jersey by 24% but Virginia by less than 1%.
So the current polling showing a big Democratic lead in New Jersey and a close race in Virginia is entirely in accordance with historical precedent at this stage.
Different Democrats, then. This is much more a right v left contest.
I’m no fan of Corbyn, but I don’t get the sense that this sca.
Give it time - the story about him promoting a known harasser has yet to fully permeate into the public consciousness.
Giving your pervy mate a job isn't a good look for any politician. Even worse when you have allowed your halo to be polished so much by your supporters.
A few days ago the gaining support.
Right now, I don't tribal.
Agreed that I don’t think it’s really you say.
Take .
Even Barry Goldwater got 38% in 1964 and George McGovern got 37% in 1972 and George HW Bush also got 37% in 1992.
Any president with an approval rating under 40% is in trouble.
It .
Well currently he trails Sanders by 11% and Sanders is clearly more appealing in the rustbelt swing states than Hillary was.
Come.
He may, he may not. I would expect Sanders to do better in the Electoral College than Hillary but worse in the popular vote all other things being equal, he is a rustbelt candidate rather than a coastal candidate.
On the Virginia governorship that is actually historically not correct.
Normally the governorship races in the year after the election of a new President see 1 won by a landslide, the other very close.
In 2009 for example the GOP won Virginia by 17% but New Jersey by only 4%.
In 2001 the Democrats won New Jersey by 14% but Virginia by only 5%.
In 1993 the GOP won Virginia by 17% again but New Jersey by only 1%.
In 1989 the Democrats won New Jersey by 24% but Virginia by less than 1%.
So the current polling showing a big Democratic lead in New Jersey and a close race in Virginia is entirely in accordance with historical precedent at this stage.
Different Democrats, then. This is much more a right v left contest.
What do you mean different Democrats? This is still the Democratic party of Clinton and Kerry and Dukakis and Obama.
The point is the current governorship polling is exactly what you would expect a year into a new Presidency for the Democrats ie they have a big lead in New Jersey but will face a close race to win Virginia (for the GOP it is the reverse, they normally have a big lead in Virginia but face a close race to win New Jersey).
Even Barry Goldwater got 38% in 1964 and George McGovern got 37% in 1972 and George HW Bush also got 37% in 1992.
Any president with an approval rating under 40% is in trouble.
It depends what people think of their opponent. Trump was always unpopular, but his opponent was more so, in swing States. You don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than the other person, when the bear is chasing the pair of you.
Well currently he trails Sanders by 11% and Sanders is clearly more appealing in the rustbelt swing states than Hillary was.
Come 2020, Trump may very well eke out a win in such States. Look at the heavy weather that the Democrats are making of holding the Virginia governorship, which should a walk in the park in such a State in mid-term. That points to a party that is not popular.
He may, he may not. I would expect Sanders to do better in the Electoral College than Hillary but worse in the popular vote all other things being equal, he is a rustbelt candidate rather than a coastal candidate.
On the Virginia governorship that is actually historically not correct.
Normally the governorship races in the year after the election of a new President see 1 won by a landslide, the other close.
In 2009 for example the GOP won Virginia by 17% but New Jersey by only 4%.
In 2001 the Democrats won New Jersey by 14% but Virginia by only 5%.
In 1993 the GOP won Virginia by 17% again but New Jersey by only 1%.
In 1989 the Democrats won New Jersey by 24% but Virginia by less than 1% etc.
So the current polling showing a big Democratic lead in New Jersey and a close race in Virginia is entirely in accordance with historical precedent at this stage.
An interesting possible bellwether campaign is where I live: Westchester County, NY. This is a traditionally solidly Democratic county, full of rich, suburban liberals. However, high property taxes led to a fairly right-wing Republican, Rob Astorino, winning the County Executive office in 2009 in something of a shock win, ousting the Democratic incumbent. Astorino was easily re-elected in 2013 with pretty much exactly the same vote-share.
This time he's facing a strong challenge from a liberal Democrat, and it seems he's in trouble. There's been a lot of TV ads from both sides, for a suburban county council leader's role! In terms of garden posters, the Dem, George Latimer seems to be doing way better in my neighbourhood than Astorino, who pretty much was the only one to have posters last time around.
I think Latimer will win. The interesting question is going to be by how much.
Even Barry Goldwater got 38% in 1964 and George McGovern got 37% in 1972 and George HW Bush also got 37% in 1992.
Any president with an approval rating under 40% is in trouble.
It depends what people think of their opponent. Trump was always unpopular, but his opponent was more so, in swing States. You don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than the other person, when the bear is chasing the pair of you.
Well currently he trails Sanders by 11% and Sanders is clearly more appealing in the rustbelt swing states than Hillary was.
Come 2020, Trump may very well eke out a win in such States. Look at the heavy weather that the Democrats are making of holding the Virginia governorship, which should a walk in the park in such a State in mid-term. That points to a party that is not popular.
He may, he may not. I would expect Sanders to do better in the Electoral College than Hillary but worse in the popular vote all other things being equal, he is a rustbelt candidate rather than a coastal candidate.
On the Virginia governorship that is actually historically not correct.
Normally the governorship races in the year after the election of a new President see 1 won by a landslide, the other close.
In 2009 for example the GOP won Virginia by 17% but New Jersey by only 4%.
In 2001 the Democrats won New Jersey by 14% but Virginia by only 5%.
In 1993 the GOP won Virginia by 17% again but New Jersey by only 1%.
In 1989 the Democrats won New Jersey by 24% but Virginia by less than 1% etc.
So the current polling showing a big Democratic lead in New Jersey and a close race in Virginia is entirely in accordance with historical precedent at this stage.
An interesting possible bellwether campaign is where I live: Westchester County, NY. This is a traditionally solidly Democratic county, full of rich, suburban liberals. However, high property taxes led to a fairly right-wing Republican, Rob Astorino, winning the County Executive office in 2009 in something of a shock win, ousting the Democratic incumbent. Astorino was easily re-elected in 2013 with pretty much exactly the same vote-share.
This time he's facing a strong challenge from a liberal Democrat, and it seems he's in trouble. There's been a lot of TV ads from both sides, for a suburban county council leader's role! In terms of garden posters, the Dem, George Latimer seems to be doing way better in my neighbourhood than Astorino, who pretty much was the only one to have posters last time around.
I think Latimer will win. The interesting question is going to be by how much.
On a lighter note how long before the whips lose their title in this atmosphere
I wonder what totally vanilla culturally appropriate transgender friendly title they could be given instead?
Commons positive voter engagement outreach support staff?
Worse than that! I think the term Whip comes from fox hunting as "whipper in", the assistant to the huntsman who keeps the hounds as a pack, and rounds up straying dogs.
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
That is fairly easy , as on here PB 95% are anti Corbyn , whatever he says or does. So that in their eyes is enough However taking that the voters agree with you for granted and repeating your mantras to the already converted in an echo chamber is a risky strategy.Especially when so many are excluded from owning property.
Taking your mantras to the already converted? Oh the irony.
Comments
How many more pubs would there be if eg the 10k Parliamentary Staff on their doorsteps plus the 1000 ex-MPs who have lifetime access suddenly had to pay the full price on the Parliamentary Estate, or most of the bars there were closed or became teetotalitarian?
I can't imagine the SNP drinking sarsaparilla and black at lunchtime!
On the Virginia governorship that is actually historically not correct.
Normally the governorship races in the year after the election of a new President see 1 won by a landslide, the other close.
In 2009 for example the GOP won Virginia by 17% but New Jersey by only 4%.
In 2001 the Democrats won New Jersey by 14% but Virginia by only 5%.
In 1993 the GOP won Virginia by 17% again but New Jersey by only 1%.
In 1989 the Democrats won New Jersey by 24% but Virginia by less than 1% etc.
So the current polling showing a big Democratic lead in New Jersey and a close race in Virginia is entirely in accordance with historical precedent at this stage.
https://order-order.com/2017/11/03/clive-lewis-accused-groping-woman-conference/
Commons positive voter engagement outreach support staff?
The point is the current governorship polling is exactly what you would expect a year into a new Presidency for the Democrats ie they have a big lead in New Jersey but will face a close race to win Virginia (for the GOP it is the reverse, they normally have a big lead in Virginia but face a close race to win New Jersey).
This time he's facing a strong challenge from a liberal Democrat, and it seems he's in trouble. There's been a lot of TV ads from both sides, for a suburban county council leader's role! In terms of garden posters, the Dem, George Latimer seems to be doing way better in my neighbourhood than Astorino, who pretty much was the only one to have posters last time around.
I think Latimer will win. The interesting question is going to be by how much.
Seems inconsistent.
The thing is that unless there are witnesses, nobody can prove anything.
If say MI5 wanted to now remove Corbyn from Lab leadership they could just get say two women to say he did something inappropriate to them.
Anybody could be falsely accused and lose their job.
http://www.huntingact.org/hunting/who-does-what/#The_Whipper-In
Whitehall farce. All it needs now is Brian Rix and some missing trousers.
https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/926555969009659904
https://order-order.com/2017/11/03/tories-suspend-whip-charlie-elphicke/
referred to plod.
new thread