Trying telling kids about dial-up internet, or even the dark days before the internet and mobile phones (when as a student you had to take your 10p's to the pay phone).....the puzzled look on their little faces is a joy to behold.
10p?
I can remember when you could make a call for 2p!
EDIT: or, failing that, you could ask the operator to reverse the charges, if you were prepared to face the storm of parental wrath that would greet you when the call was connected...
Remember the phone cards for BT public phones? That was only twenty years ago or so.
I see the BBC are bleating about the idea of illegal immigrants being deported.
Am I missing something? What is wrong with removing people who are here illegally exactly? It's mental.
It's being suggested that having the targets encouraged Home Office officials to be unfair when considering the merits of claims by possibly legal immigrants - like Windrushers. Perhaps if they weren't being pushed to deport a certain number of people they wouldn't have deported a bunch of British citizens, is the argument.
Targets mean something isn't done properly?
If that's been argued successfully then all government targets should be abolished immediately. If not then the complaint is nonsense.
Mr. rkrkrk, so the 'pretend' self-employed jump ship and become employed. And actual, as it were, self-employed people are left worse off. I don't think that's right or fair.
Here is the way I see it:
In terms of income, the structure above oneself should not matter in terms of revenue that is owed to the state for any given amount. As for any large 'one off' payments should also come into this system, however there ought to be a form of 'tax planning' available to everyone (And openly promoted) that such one off payments can be rolled into one's general pension pot with the normal rules applying thereafter.
Wembley to be sold off, and potentially the Jacksonville Jaguars will shortly be the London Jaguars.
Is it April 1st?
No, the last time I headed down to the big smoke was to watch Saints-Dolphins actually...
I can see the attraction for Khan / NFL, I just can't see how the FA can accept it.
Selling Wembley, surely that is a total no go in the eyes of the vast majority of English football fans and the reason they rebuilt Wembley at a ridiculous cost, rather than go to the midlands in the first place.
Tory candidate suspended over 'sweating like a Jew in an attic’ tweet
Presumably the BOD will be organising an Anti Tory rally immediately
What a stupid and crass comment, and sadly the expected reaction from you. If you had not noticed, the Conservatives reacted quickly when it was brought to their attention. The issue with Corbyn and Labour is that they don't react, and instead go into hiding. At least if you're of the 'correct' side of Labour politics ...
Your fervent fanboism for Jezza is hilarious, but also rather dark.
Wembley to be sold off, and potentially the Jacksonville Jaguars will shortly be the London Jaguars.
Is it April 1st?
No, the last time I headed down to the big smoke was to watch Saints-Dolphins actually...
I can see the attraction for Khan / NFL, I just can't see how the FA can accept it.
Selling Wembley, surely that is a total no go in the eyes of the vast majority of English football fans and the reason they rebuilt Wembley at a ridiculous cost, rather than go to the midlands in the first place.
I'm basing my assumption on the fact that Enfield and Redbridge have shown huge swings to Labour since 2010, which have not been matched in Barnet or Harrow East (a seat which is similar to Hendon).
Interesting, and I wouldn't rule that out. We'll see, of course.
I see the BBC are bleating about the idea of illegal immigrants being deported.
Am I missing something? What is wrong with removing people who are here illegally exactly? It's mental.
It's being suggested that having the targets encouraged Home Office officials to be unfair when considering the merits of claims by possibly legal immigrants - like Windrushers. Perhaps if they weren't being pushed to deport a certain number of people they wouldn't have deported a bunch of British citizens, is the argument.
Targets mean something isn't done properly?
If that's been argued successfully then all government targets should be abolished immediately. If not then the complaint is nonsense.
Targets put pressure on people to focus on certain things. Is it not possible that some pressure is good but other pressure is destructive? That's certainly my experience of the workplace.
Wembley to be sold off, and potentially the Jacksonville Jaguars will shortly be the London Jaguars.
Is it April 1st?
No, the last time I headed down to the big smoke was to watch Saints-Dolphins actually...
I can see the attraction for Khan / NFL, I just can't see how the FA can accept it. Selling Wembley, surely that is a total no go in the eyes of the vast majority of English football fans (and the reason they rebuilt Wembley rather than go to the midlands in the first place).
It makes huge financial sense for Khan given the Jags are one of three Florida franchises at the moment, and also competing with for the 'southern' states fanship with the Saints and the Falcons.. whereas in London they basically become the UK's team and probably become much more relatively valuable in terms of the overall franchise net worths.
Wembley to be sold off, and potentially the Jacksonville Jaguars will shortly be the London Jaguars.
Is it April 1st?
No, the last time I headed down to the big smoke was to watch Saints-Dolphins actually...
I can see the attraction for Khan / NFL, I just can't see how the FA can accept it. Selling Wembley, surely that is a total no go in the eyes of the vast majority of English football fans (and the reason they rebuilt Wembley rather than go to the midlands in the first place).
It makes huge financial sense for Khan given the Jags are one of three Florida franchises at the moment, and also competing with for the 'southern' states fanship with the Saints and the Falcons.. whereas in London they basically become the UK's team and probably become much more relatively valuable in terms of the overall franchise net worths.
It will be interesting if they could turn London from a yearly one off event for most people (yes I know they are up to 3 games now), to a franchise playing a full set of games.
I go most years for one of the games, but I am not sure I would pay up for a whole season. It is a big undertaking both in terms of time and money, when there is lots of other competition for my weekend with football and rugby.
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The Jewish vote is key in Barnet, it has the highest Jewish population in the UK
Roughly 3-4% of Barnet are Jewish Labour voters, and they are concentrated in safe Tory wards. Their impact is being wildly overstated.
Indeed. HY keeps banging this drum, but the Jewish population is falling fast in Barnet, as elsewhere in London, and it is arguable how much of it is non-Tory in the first place.
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The Jewish vote is key in Barnet, it has the highest Jewish population in the UK
Roughly 3-4% of Barnet are Jewish Labour voters, and they are concentrated in safe Tory wards. Their impact is being wildly overstated.
Indeed. HY keeps banging this drum, but the Jewish population is falling fast in Barnet, as elsewhere in London, and it is arguable how much of it is non-Tory in the first place.
One prediction I'm very confident about: IF Labour fail to take Barnet, which could certainly happen though I like Labour at 1/2, the post-mortem will wrongly focus on Jewish voters instead of Lab-Con switchers and Lab-Green switchers. The latter two groups both will easily swamp the effect of Jewish Labour voters leaving the party if Labour do this right, and if Labour lose it will be those groups which cost it for them.
@FrancisUrquhart - Wonder what actually constitutes 'Wembley'... if he is getting the freehold to the car parks included then the 0.156km^2 land he is buying at a value of £5,500 a metre is worth ~ £850 million alone (And hell if you're building flats there you can multilevel that land value !). If he gets this for less than a billion he won't be able to believe his luck ! I'd say a 999 yr lease for the stadium alone should probably be a billion or so.
Owen Jones has a point, but it's certainly not a bad poll for Labour. Labour could expect big seat gains from the Conservatives in Redbridge, Enfield, Croydon, Ealing, and Merton on these numbers. However, they could not expect to pick up many additional boroughs.
Hence even if the Tories lose all their councillors in Ealing and almost all of them in Enfield and Redbridge the media focus on Wandsworth and Westminster means if they cling on there ministers can do a Kenneth Baker 1990 on election night and say they held the crown jewels
The Conservative position in both Enfield and Redbridge has collapsed, notwithstanding that both boroughs were close to 50/50 in the Brexit Referendum. I know that levels of owner occupation have plummeted in Enfield North, and suspect that is true elsewhere.
Yep. In my ward in western Redbridge (c. 5000 homes total), between the last two censuses one home went from owner occupied to private rented on average every three or four days.
The media really are living upto their left wing metropolitan elite reputation in spades today and I cannot believe their obsession with painting targets for reducing illegal immigration as evil is in touch with the vast majority.
They are using Windrush as an excuse to attack the control of immigration
Not that I believe Amber Rudd fills me with confidence but when Abbott is the alternative she makes Rudd look good
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The Jewish vote is key in Barnet, it has the highest Jewish population in the UK
Roughly 3-4% of Barnet are Jewish Labour voters, and they are concentrated in safe Tory wards. Their impact is being wildly overstated.
Indeed. HY keeps banging this drum, but the Jewish population is falling fast in Barnet, as elsewhere in London, and it is arguable how much of it is non-Tory in the first place.
One prediction I'm very confident about: IF Labour fail to take Barnet, which could certainly happen though I like Labour at 1/2, the post-mortem will wrongly focus on Jewish voters instead of Lab-Con switchers and Lab-Green switchers. The latter two groups both will easily swamp the effect of Jewish Labour voters leaving the party if Labour do this right, and if Labour lose it will be those groups which cost it for them.
Those 3-4% aren't living in ghettos. They have friends and neighbours who may wish to show them solidarity.
I don't know what the result will be and I'm not disparaging your tip at all. But Ladbrokes have clearly taken a fair bit on it and quite a lot of that will be relatively informed.
This fall coincides with concerted Momentum canvassing in both Westminster and Wandsworth.
More relevant I think is that it coincides with Labour focussing all their attention on 'Windrush', rather than austerity.
The sad truth is that the British public doesn't really care about anything that doesn't affect them personally (or that they perceive to affect them personally / fear will affect them personally in future). Most people don't fear they themselves are in danger of being deported, so they don't change their votes on the basis of it.
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The answer is this. The Conservatives led by 2% in Barnet last year, when Labour led by 22% across London. Labour now lead by 22% in this poll.
The Tories led by 2% in a general election vote in Barnet last year. That's an apples and oranges comparison.
Tory lead in 2014 Locals: 2% Tory lead in 2015 General: 11% Tory lead in 2017 General: 2% Tory lead in 2018 Locals: ???
I'm not saying it is certain, but unless the dynamics of local elections have changed significantly in Barnet in the last 5 years (and given Labour remain in opposition and the Tories remain in power, I don't see why they would) the Tory position last year is in line with a Labour majority in Barnet this year.
Labour led most national polls before the 2014 Locals, that is not the case now
As we now know, polls in the leadup to 2015 were overstating Labour significantly. Labour are now polling neck and neck, they were in reality not doing that well in 2014.
2010 Locals (Barnet): 11% Tory lead 2010 General (Barnet): 14% Tory lead
Obviously we can't be certain, since polls can be wrong and voter behaviours change over time. But every poll and election available suggests Barnet voters are more Labour-leaning in locals than generals - and that the current position should be enough for Labour to take the borough. I'm not saying they should be 1/10, but they aren't even 1/2 now! When polling and previous elections point to a Labour gain they should be solid favourites.
The swing in Outer London on these numbers, since 2014, is 3%, which would give Labour a small majority in Barnet, if repeated there. But, I'm expecting the swing to Labour to be much greater than 3% in some Outer London boroughs, like Enfield and Redbridge, but far less in others, like Barnet.
Why? Genuinely curious, I have no particular reason to believe it will be uniform. My only personal assumption to deviate from the polls is that Labour have become much more popular in London since 2015 compared to the country nationally, though this is basically baked into my assumption on how much Labour are likely to outperform their GE figures.
The two principle drivers are demographic (more ethnic minority and younger voters) and housing tenure change (rented replacing owned). I would be surprised if Barnet is completely immune from these trends.
@FrancisUrquhart - Wonder what actually constitutes 'Wembley'... if he is getting the freehold to the car parks included then the 0.156km^2 land he is buying at a value of £5,500 a metre is worth ~ £850 million alone (And hell if you're building flats there you can multilevel that land value !). If he gets this for less than a billion he won't be able to believe his luck ! I'd say a 999 yr lease for the stadium alone should probably be a billion or so.
The FA will ensure it isn't bulldozed for flats, the ppsf for a football stadium alas I do not know
Can we now all get back to talking about more important things such as the all out election following boundary changes at South Lakes District Council?
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The Jewish vote is key in Barnet, it has the highest Jewish population in the UK
Roughly 3-4% of Barnet are Jewish Labour voters, and they are concentrated in safe Tory wards. Their impact is being wildly overstated.
Indeed. HY keeps banging this drum, but the Jewish population is falling fast in Barnet, as elsewhere in London, and it is arguable how much of it is non-Tory in the first place.
One prediction I'm very confident about: IF Labour fail to take Barnet, which could certainly happen though I like Labour at 1/2, the post-mortem will wrongly focus on Jewish voters instead of Lab-Con switchers and Lab-Green switchers. The latter two groups both will easily swamp the effect of Jewish Labour voters leaving the party if Labour do this right, and if Labour lose it will be those groups which cost it for them.
Those 3-4% aren't living in ghettos. They have friends and neighbours who may wish to show them solidarity.
I don't know what the result will be and I'm not disparaging your tip at all. But Ladbrokes have clearly taken a fair bit on it and quite a lot of that will be relatively informed.
True, though in the reverse there will be Jewish Labour voters who don't vote on this issue (i.e. still vote Labour). I think the prospect of a Labour whitewash across London was overhyped when the prices first went up, and some movement towards the Tories has been correct. I just think that for Barnet in particular that's now gone to far, and I think part of that is too much stock being put in the impact of the antisemitism row.
Of course, the great thing about politics is we find out the answers soon enough. We'll never know exactly why Barnet votes however it does, but we will at least know how it votes next week.
These still look like very good figures for Labour in London. As I have said before Labour really should outperform in these elections in the same way that the Tories did in 2017 when the elections were on their turf. As the country becomes ever more divided each should do better than overall in their target areas and these elections are mainly in Corbyn central.
I still think if the Tories keep Labour down to under 200 net gains they will have done very well. Given the UKIP position they may hope to keep their losses to about 100 but that may prove optimistic.
What % of votes for these elections is cast by post? It must be higher than for a GE.
In my patch the proportion of voters with PVs has risen to around 15%-20%. Turnout of PVs at a local election tends to be about 75% compared to 50% for everyone else. Therefore roughly 25% of a local election's votes could be expected to be postal. In a GE the postal turnout tends to be around 80% but the non-postal rises to around two thirds, hence the proportion of votes cast that are postal is lower.
These still look like very good figures for Labour in London. As I have said before Labour really should outperform in these elections in the same way that the Tories did in 2017 when the elections were on their turf. As the country becomes ever more divided each should do better than overall in their target areas and these elections are mainly in Corbyn central.
I still think if the Tories keep Labour down to under 200 net gains they will have done very well. Given the UKIP position they may hope to keep their losses to about 100 but that may prove optimistic.
Why should the Tories expect losses when they are better placed in the polls versus Labour than in 2014 and the Kipper collapse will free up seats for all other parties?
What do we predict for the "estimated national voteshare" for the local elections?
I've been thinking a Labour lead of about 3%, but admittedly I'm starting to wobble on that now.
I reckon 2% lead for the Tories.
The Labour lead tends to be a couple of points higher (or lag smaller) in local than national elections, because the financial responsibility/irresponsibility issue weights more heavily in GEs. So we'd really expect Labour to be a nose ahead on estimated national vote share, unless they really have fallen back over the last few weeks.
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The Jewish vote is key in Barnet, it has the highest Jewish population in the UK
Roughly 3-4% of Barnet are Jewish Labour voters, and they are concentrated in safe Tory wards. Their impact is being wildly overstated.
Indeed. HY keeps banging this drum, but the Jewish population is falling fast in Barnet, as elsewhere in London, and it is arguable how much of it is non-Tory in the first place.
I think the anti-Jewish image that Labour are sadly displaying offends a number of non-Jewish voters. It is revealing that so many Corbyn supporters cannot see this.
Can we now all get back to talking about more important things such as the all out election following boundary changes at South Lakes District Council?
possible libdem bright spot?
Theyll be hoping. But very close to a rude awakening in 2017 Farron was nearly sent packing.
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The Jewish vote is key in Barnet, it has the highest Jewish population in the UK
Roughly 3-4% of Barnet are Jewish Labour voters, and they are concentrated in safe Tory wards. Their impact is being wildly overstated.
Indeed. HY keeps banging this drum, but the Jewish population is falling fast in Barnet, as elsewhere in London, and it is arguable how much of it is non-Tory in the first place.
One prediction I'm very confident about: IF Labour fail to take Barnet, which could certainly happen though I like Labour at 1/2, the post-mortem will wrongly focus on Jewish voters instead of Lab-Con switchers and Lab-Green switchers. The latter two groups both will easily swamp the effect of Jewish Labour voters leaving the party if Labour do this right, and if Labour lose it will be those groups which cost it for them.
I agree with that. If LAB fail to take Barnet it will be the narrative on the night and LAB/Corbyn's equivocation over AS will be part of the narrative.
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The Jewish vote is key in Barnet, it has the highest Jewish population in the UK
Roughly 3-4% of Barnet are Jewish Labour voters, and they are concentrated in safe Tory wards. Their impact is being wildly overstated.
Indeed. HY keeps banging this drum, but the Jewish population is falling fast in Barnet, as elsewhere in London, and it is arguable how much of it is non-Tory in the first place.
I think the anti-Jewish image that Labour are sadly displaying offends a number of non-Jewish voters. It is revealing that so many Corbyn supporters cannot see this.
True, and that is probably a key part of Labour apparently slipping back somewhat in the polls recently. And of course it makes the party look divided as MPs bicker about the matter.
But this would affect them everywhere rather than have a hyper-local effect. If they don't take Barnet, IMO this will be part of a general Labour under-performance (against the more optimistic expectations).
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The Jewish vote is key in Barnet, it has the highest Jewish population in the UK
Roughly 3-4% of Barnet are Jewish Labour voters, and they are concentrated in safe Tory wards. Their impact is being wildly overstated.
Indeed. HY keeps banging this drum, but the Jewish population is falling fast in Barnet, as elsewhere in London, and it is arguable how much of it is non-Tory in the first place.
One prediction I'm very confident about: IF Labour fail to take Barnet, which could certainly happen though I like Labour at 1/2, the post-mortem will wrongly focus on Jewish voters instead of Lab-Con switchers and Lab-Green switchers. The latter two groups both will easily swamp the effect of Jewish Labour voters leaving the party if Labour do this right, and if Labour lose it will be those groups which cost it for them.
What do we predict for the "estimated national voteshare" for the local elections?
I've been thinking a Labour lead of about 3%, but admittedly I'm starting to wobble on that now.
I reckon 2% lead for the Tories.
The Labour lead tends to be a couple of points higher (or lag smaller) in local than national elections, because the financial responsibility/irresponsibility issue weights more heavily in GEs. So we'd really expect Labour to be a nose ahead on estimated national vote share, unless they really have fallen back over the last few weeks.
Also - ANECDOTE ALERT - we got quite a lot of Tory voters on the doorsteps last year agreeing with our arguments on government cuts and the economy in general, but at the same time thinking Theresa May would be a better PM than Corbyn, and that the Tories would be better at "sorting" Brexit. Since local elections don't have any impact on the PM or Brexit questions, I'd expect atleast some of those people to vote Labour this time to protest about the cuts.
Weighed against that, though, are the demographics of the two parties' support; I can't see the rush of 20-something Labour support from last year bothering with the locals. It might turn out a bit like the Democrats' problems in midterms, where a lot of their voters only bother turning out for the Big Thing.
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The Jewish vote is key in Barnet, it has the highest Jewish population in the UK
Roughly 3-4% of Barnet are Jewish Labour voters, and they are concentrated in safe Tory wards. Their impact is being wildly overstated.
Indeed. HY keeps banging this drum, but the Jewish population is falling fast in Barnet, as elsewhere in London, and it is arguable how much of it is non-Tory in the first place.
I think the anti-Jewish image that Labour are sadly displaying offends a number of non-Jewish voters. It is revealing that so many Corbyn supporters cannot see this.
True, and that is probably a key part of Labour apparently slipping back somewhat in the polls recently. And of course it makes the party look divided as MPs bicker about the matter.
But this would affect them everywhere rather than have a hyper-local effect. If they don't take Barnet, IMO this will be part of a general Labour under-performance (against the more optimistic expectations).
I think the effect may be greater in areas with a large Jewish community.
Can we now all get back to talking about more important things such as the all out election following boundary changes at South Lakes District Council?
possible libdem bright spot?
Theyll be hoping. But very close to a rude awakening in 2017 Farron was nearly sent packing.
Potential boundary changes would finish him off. Wonder if the whole 'ability to amend the final bill' is being done to appease Tory backbenchers on that particular vote, which the public won't give two hoots about but is critical re the next GE.
The media really are living upto their left wing metropolitan elite reputation in spades today and I cannot believe their obsession with painting targets for reducing illegal immigration as evil is in touch with the vast majority.
They are using Windrush as an excuse to attack the control of immigration
Not that I believe Amber Rudd fills me with confidence but when Abbott is the alternative she makes Rudd look good
Even labour supporters on here must admit Abbott would be a even bigger disaster if she ever became home Secretary or any department she had any influence on.
Frenchman, 20, brandishing a shotgun bursts into a Jewish museum with Mein Kampf in his backpack in bid to take workers hostage before being overpowered by guards
If labour underperform expectations I would attribute it to the following
Attitude to the Salisbury attack and perceived pro Kremlin line
Same for the allies Syria attack
The anti semitic perception that Corbyn and his cohorts do not care
A return to their pro immigration stance as demonstrated by their conflation of Windrush with illegal immigration
*Labour* might've lost votes because of the Windrush scandal?! Have you been hacked by Tory central office?
It's not so much that Labour will lose votes on the issue - most people agree that the 'Windrush' people should be allowed to stay, but at the same time I don't think Joe Public cares about it that much (because it doesn't affect them personally), and the problem is Labour are letting it crowd out the issues that Joe Public DOES care about and would potentially switch votes to Labour on the basis of (NHS, police cuts, tuition fees, rents, etcetc.)
The former head of South Yorkshire Police has said never in his "wildest dreams" did he imagine that the BBC would cover the force's inquiry into Sir Cliff Richard, in the way it did.
The former head of South Yorkshire Police has said never in his "wildest dreams" did he imagine that the BBC would cover the force's inquiry into Sir Cliff Richard, in the way it did.
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The Jewish vote is key in Barnet, it has the highest Jewish population in the UK
Roughly 3-4% of Barnet are Jewish Labour voters, and they are concentrated in safe Tory wards. Their impact is being wildly overstated.
Indeed. HY keeps banging this drum, but the Jewish population is falling fast in Barnet, as elsewhere in London, and it is arguable how much of it is non-Tory in the first place.
Barnet's Jewish population rose by 6,000 between the last two censuses. The Jewish populations of Ilford, Southgate and Kenton are in sharp decline, though.
These still look like very good figures for Labour in London. As I have said before Labour really should outperform in these elections in the same way that the Tories did in 2017 when the elections were on their turf. As the country becomes ever more divided each should do better than overall in their target areas and these elections are mainly in Corbyn central.
I still think if the Tories keep Labour down to under 200 net gains they will have done very well. Given the UKIP position they may hope to keep their losses to about 100 but that may prove optimistic.
Some of the urban wards being contested are in areas where the Conservatives saw big increases in their vote share last years, such as the West Midlands, South Yorkshire, and Tyneside.
These still look like very good figures for Labour in London. As I have said before Labour really should outperform in these elections in the same way that the Tories did in 2017 when the elections were on their turf. As the country becomes ever more divided each should do better than overall in their target areas and these elections are mainly in Corbyn central.
I still think if the Tories keep Labour down to under 200 net gains they will have done very well. Given the UKIP position they may hope to keep their losses to about 100 but that may prove optimistic.
Some of the urban wards being contested are in areas where the Conservatives saw big increases in their vote share last years, such as the West Midlands, South Yorkshire, and Tyneside.
Although, in places like South Yorkshire and Tyneside, those extra Tory votes are "wasted" because it's not enough to actually overcome the Labour vote.
If labour underperform expectations I would attribute it to the following
Attitude to the Salisbury attack and perceived pro Kremlin line
Same for the allies Syria attack
The anti semitic perception that Corbyn and his cohorts do not care
A return to their pro immigration stance as demonstrated by their conflation of Windrush with illegal immigration
*Labour* might've lost votes because of the Windrush scandal?! Have you been hacked by Tory central office?
It's not so much that Labour will lose votes on the issue - most people agree that the 'Windrush' people should be allowed to stay, but at the same time I don't think Joe Public cares about it that much (because it doesn't affect them personally), and the problem is Labour are letting it crowd out the issues that Joe Public DOES care about and would potentially switch votes to Labour on the basis of (NHS, police cuts, tuition fees, rents, etcetc.)
Police cuts and rents have been lost in the conversation over the Salisbury and Syria attacks and anti Semitic issues
Tom Newton Dunn Verified account @tnewtondunn 43m43 minutes ago
Amber Rudd admits she’s fighting for her political career now. Asked if she wants to be Tory leader one day: “I’m just thinking about staying in the game” #pressgallery
The media really are living upto their left wing metropolitan elite reputation in spades today and I cannot believe their obsession with painting targets for reducing illegal immigration as evil is in touch with the vast majority...
The targets in question were for number of deportations.
I don't think anyone is arguing that targets per se are evil, but you seem to be assuming that there is some bright line between all illegal immigrants and all those with a right to remain in the UK. All the evidence of the last few years suggest that isn't the case.
Given the consequences for individuals subject to the deportation process - which are very bit as destructive for the individual as a prison sentence - having targets ought to be treated with a similar caution which would apply to formulating targets (for example) for the percentage of convictions in rape cases...
Given that in the current case, both civil servants and the Home Secretary herself appeared unaware of the existence of particular targets, let alone any risk assessment for unintended consequence, I have no problem at all with the way the media has "painted" them.
Tom Newton Dunn Verified account @tnewtondunn 43m43 minutes ago
Amber Rudd admits she’s fighting for her political career now. Asked if she wants to be Tory leader one day: “I’m just thinking about staying in the game” #pressgallery
Tom Newton Dunn Verified account @tnewtondunn 43m43 minutes ago
Amber Rudd admits she’s fighting for her political career now. Asked if she wants to be Tory leader one day: “I’m just thinking about staying in the game” #pressgallery
It would terrible optics if Amber went but Theresa stayed. Theresa would appear ruthless and cruel, happy to dispatch her underlings with a swish of her cape. Especially since it was Theresa's actions that caused it.
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
The Jewish vote is key in Barnet, it has the highest Jewish population in the UK
Roughly 3-4% of Barnet are Jewish Labour voters, and they are concentrated in safe Tory wards. Their impact is being wildly overstated.
Indeed. HY keeps banging this drum, but the Jewish population is falling fast in Barnet, as elsewhere in London, and it is arguable how much of it is non-Tory in the first place.
I think the anti-Jewish image that Labour are sadly displaying offends a number of non-Jewish voters. It is revealing that so many Corbyn supporters cannot see this.
True, and that is probably a key part of Labour apparently slipping back somewhat in the polls recently. And of course it makes the party look divided as MPs bicker about the matter.
But this would affect them everywhere rather than have a hyper-local effect. If they don't take Barnet, IMO this will be part of a general Labour under-performance (against the more optimistic expectations).
I think the effect may be greater in areas with a large Jewish community.
The key for me is how representative the panel of interviewees is in relation to antisemtism. If the most politically active also happen to be on the Jewdas end of the spectrum and also most likely to be identified by Yougov then I think Barnet is a finger in the air. Methodology and success of panel identification are things I would need to be confident in to back no overall control.
Interesting comment on Barnet and NOC. It's tightened quite a bit, was 15 nine days ago.
As someone pointed out down below, with 63 councillors you need at least one other to stop either side getting 32. [And you need the generic knife-edge on top of that]. This may come down to the size of Jack Cohen's personal vote in Childs Hill. Has he been an assiduous councillor? A bit too niche even for pb, perhaps?!
These still look like very good figures for Labour in London. As I have said before Labour really should outperform in these elections in the same way that the Tories did in 2017 when the elections were on their turf. As the country becomes ever more divided each should do better than overall in their target areas and these elections are mainly in Corbyn central.
I still think if the Tories keep Labour down to under 200 net gains they will have done very well. Given the UKIP position they may hope to keep their losses to about 100 but that may prove optimistic.
Why should the Tories expect losses when they are better placed in the polls versus Labour than in 2014 and the Kipper collapse will free up seats for all other parties?
Because Labour's vote is now more concentrated in these areas. A swing of 4.5% in London is more than balanced out by their increased strength in the Shires and the Midlands but the number of seats up for grabs in London will swamp everything else.
Tom Newton Dunn Verified account @tnewtondunn 43m43 minutes ago
Amber Rudd admits she’s fighting for her political career now. Asked if she wants to be Tory leader one day: “I’m just thinking about staying in the game” #pressgallery
It would terrible optics if Amber went but Theresa stayed. Theresa would appear ruthless and cruel, happy to dispatch her underlings with a swish of her cape. Especially since it was Theresa's actions that caused it.
If labour underperform expectations I would attribute it to the following
Attitude to the Salisbury attack and perceived pro Kremlin line
Same for the allies Syria attack
The anti semitic perception that Corbyn and his cohorts do not care
A return to their pro immigration stance as demonstrated by their conflation of Windrush with illegal immigration
*Labour* might've lost votes because of the Windrush scandal?! Have you been hacked by Tory central office?
It's not so much that Labour will lose votes on the issue - most people agree that the 'Windrush' people should be allowed to stay, but at the same time I don't think Joe Public cares about it that much (because it doesn't affect them personally), and the problem is Labour are letting it crowd out the issues that Joe Public DOES care about and would potentially switch votes to Labour on the basis of (NHS, police cuts, tuition fees, rents, etcetc.)
Police cuts and rents have been lost in the conversation over the Salisbury and Syria attacks and anti Semitic issues
From the comments I have seen the current labour leadership seem to think they have carte Blanche to criticise the labour record as they were not in control of the party. Personally I don't think reminding people that Labour have a poor record on immigration, one of the most important issues to people. People have rightly been unhappy with the revelation, but in this case the Government has acted, and Theresa May apologised at the dispatch box, and compensation is being arranged. I think that strikes people as fair. Labour now seem to want to overwork the issue by suggesting that the home office not have targets for their work streams. I mean if you have a national target then surely this is broken down by each regional office, and appropriate numbers of staff allocated accordingly. How is that an issue that is either controversial, or something the the Secretary of State should be involved in?
Tom Newton Dunn Verified account @tnewtondunn 43m43 minutes ago
Amber Rudd admits she’s fighting for her political career now. Asked if she wants to be Tory leader one day: “I’m just thinking about staying in the game” #pressgallery
It would terrible optics if Amber went but Theresa stayed. Theresa would appear ruthless and cruel, happy to dispatch her underlings with a swish of her cape. Especially since it was Theresa's actions that caused it.
Rudd does appear to be pretty hapless though.
I for one wouldn't want her driving me home after a party...
The former head of South Yorkshire Police has said never in his "wildest dreams" did he imagine that the BBC would cover the force's inquiry into Sir Cliff Richard, in the way it did.
Very arrogant to say that "the government is yet to decide". It is for Parliament to decide.
I don't think it is, actually. The executive will negotiate a deal, as with all matters of diplomacy, and if the legislature rejects it we will fall back on the arrangements under Article 50, as invoked with the full (overwhelming!) consent of the legislature.
The former head of South Yorkshire Police has said never in his "wildest dreams" did he imagine that the BBC would cover the force's inquiry into Sir Cliff Richard, in the way it did.
"Asked at a LUNCH with journalists whether it was more or less likely that the UK would stay in a customs union, Ms Rudd said: “I’m afraid I’m not going to be drawn on that.”
She then added, with a hint of sarcasm: “We still have a few discussions to be had, in a really positive, consensual, easy way, among some of my cabinet colleagues, in order to arrive at a final position.”
Comments
Apparently people used to collect them:
http://www.telephonecardcollector.com/bt-phonecard-current-value.htm
In terms of income, the structure above oneself should not matter in terms of revenue that is owed to the state for any given amount.
As for any large 'one off' payments should also come into this system, however there ought to be a form of 'tax planning' available to everyone (And openly promoted) that such one off payments can be rolled into one's general pension pot with the normal rules applying thereafter.
Selling Wembley, surely that is a total no go in the eyes of the vast majority of English football fans and the reason they rebuilt Wembley at a ridiculous cost, rather than go to the midlands in the first place.
Your fervent fanboism for Jezza is hilarious, but also rather dark.
I go most years for one of the games, but I am not sure I would pay up for a whole season. It is a big undertaking both in terms of time and money, when there is lots of other competition for my weekend with football and rugby.
If he gets this for less than a billion he won't be able to believe his luck !
I'd say a 999 yr lease for the stadium alone should probably be a billion or so.
They are using Windrush as an excuse to attack the control of immigration
Not that I believe Amber Rudd fills me with confidence but when Abbott is the alternative she makes Rudd look good
I don't know what the result will be and I'm not disparaging your tip at all. But Ladbrokes have clearly taken a fair bit on it and quite a lot of that will be relatively informed.
The sad truth is that the British public doesn't really care about anything that doesn't affect them personally (or that they perceive to affect them personally / fear will affect them personally in future). Most people don't fear they themselves are in danger of being deported, so they don't change their votes on the basis of it.
Of course, the great thing about politics is we find out the answers soon enough. We'll never know exactly why Barnet votes however it does, but we will at least know how it votes next week.
I still think if the Tories keep Labour down to under 200 net gains they will have done very well. Given the UKIP position they may hope to keep their losses to about 100 but that may prove optimistic.
I've been thinking a Labour lead of about 3%, but admittedly I'm starting to wobble on that now.
Oh, sorry - its real!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/26/bbc-withdraws-human-planet-series-whale-hunt-scenes-exposed/
But this would affect them everywhere rather than have a hyper-local effect. If they don't take Barnet, IMO this will be part of a general Labour under-performance (against the more optimistic expectations).
Weighed against that, though, are the demographics of the two parties' support; I can't see the rush of 20-something Labour support from last year bothering with the locals. It might turn out a bit like the Democrats' problems in midterms, where a lot of their voters only bother turning out for the Big Thing.
I blame the Russians.
Attitude to the Salisbury attack and perceived pro Kremlin line
Same for the allies Syria attack
The anti semitic perception that Corbyn and his cohorts do not care
A return to their pro immigration stance as demonstrated by their conflation of Windrush with illegal immigration
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5659711/Frenchman-20-brandishing-shotgun-Mein-Kampf-burst-Jewish-museum-hostages.html
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/americans-startled-by-spectacle-of-president-who-can-speak-english?mbid=nl_Borowitz 042518&CNDID=23335673&spMailingID=13384830&spUserID=MTMzMTgwODIxODQ0S0&spJobID=1382218759&spReportId=MTM4MjIxODc1OQS2
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43904968
Chris Leslie and Chris Williamson clashed over compulsory re-selections and anti-semitism.
https://order-order.com/2018/04/26/red-red-leslie-vs-williamson/
Verified account @tnewtondunn
43m43 minutes ago
Amber Rudd admits she’s fighting for her political career now. Asked if she wants to be Tory leader one day: “I’m just thinking about staying in the game” #pressgallery
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/989492665560567810
I don't think anyone is arguing that targets per se are evil, but you seem to be assuming that there is some bright line between all illegal immigrants and all those with a right to remain in the UK. All the evidence of the last few years suggest that isn't the case.
Given the consequences for individuals subject to the deportation process - which are very bit as destructive for the individual as a prison sentence - having targets ought to be treated with a similar caution which would apply to formulating targets (for example) for the percentage of convictions in rape cases...
Given that in the current case, both civil servants and the Home Secretary herself appeared unaware of the existence of particular targets, let alone any risk assessment for unintended consequence, I have no problem at all with the way the media has "painted" them.
Interesting comment on Barnet and NOC. It's tightened quite a bit, was 15 nine days ago.
"The US and European space agencies are edging towards a joint mission to bring back rock and soil samples from Mars."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43907326
I can't say the price makes much appeal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnet_London_Borough_Council_election,_2014#Childs_Hill
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/989503462613442561
Yep, she's been on the Gin!