I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
Because the million best prospects have switched already.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
He didn't win over lots of Tory voters. The Conservatives started and finished the campaign on just over 40%, which was a huge increase on what they managed in 2015 (even taking the UKIP collapse into account). The real question for the Tories is how to make the Lib Dems and Greens run proper effective campaigns next time round.
Although that said, I do agree that it's wishful thinking that it's impossible for Labour to win next time.
But in early May 2017 the polls had the Tories in the 47% - 49% range. Any strenghening of the LibDem vote share is just as likely to come from ex-Tories - as happened in the Liberal surges of 1964 and February 1974.
I'm wondering if everyone isn't getting this while thing the wrong was around. CA is voting from right after Iowa, but they're not counting the votes until after Super Tuesday, which judging by how fast they normally do things means we don't get their results until somewhere around 2026. What that says to me is that it's Iowa or Bust. If you defeat your similar opponents in Iowa, and the voters start voting in serious numbers right after that, then even NH doesn't matter as much: Your opponents have already been found unviable. Iowa decides who's in the race, and if it doesn't pick you, it's too late to come back. And even the less tactical of Democrats will be aware that the Dems need the mid-west, and they care a *lot* about beating Trump, so proving electability in Iowa is a big deal.
In conclusion, KLOBUCHAR
Actually Sanders only lost by 1% in Iowa last time and won New Hampshire.
Thus if Sanders wins Iowa he could be nominee in all but name through momentum alone by the end of March if he wins New Hampshire again too. No candidate has won Iowa and New Hampshire in the last 50 years and failed to be nominee
On the polling such as it is Sanders is nowhere near matching his last score in Iowa. And anecdotally, a lot of Dems seem really unwilling to repeat anything about the whole 2016 psychodrama - if he led Iowa I think the race would still be on and a lot of support would coalesce around an opponent. But I think what I said applies to most of the other candidates - Beto, Biden, Harris, Klobuchar - all of whom have somewhat interchangeable support bases.
I'm wondering if everyone isn't getting this while thing the wrong was around. CA is voting from right after Iowa, but they're not counting the votes until after Super Tuesday, which judging by how fast they normally do things means we don't get their results until somewhere around 2026. What that says to me is that it's Iowa or Bust. If you defeat your similar opponents in Iowa, and the voters start voting in serious numbers right after that, then even NH doesn't matter as much: Your opponents have already been found unviable. Iowa decides who's in the race, and if it doesn't pick you, it's too late to come back. And even the less tactical of Democrats will be aware that the Dems need the mid-west, and they care a *lot* about beating Trump, so proving electability in Iowa is a big deal.
In conclusion, KLOBUCHAR
Actually Sanders only lost by 1% in Iowa last time and won New Hampshire.
Thus if Sanders wins Iowa he could be nominee in all but name through momentum alone by the end of March if he wins New Hampshire again too. No candidate has won Iowa and New Hampshire in the last 50 years and failed to be nominee
That was the last cycle. A lot has happened since then, and some of the sparkle has come off Sanders with the left of the party.
If Biden stays fit and decides to run, he will probably still be favourite - though much can happen in the next year.
That poll has Biden first in Iowa, Sanders second, O'Rourke third (he has said he will not run) and no other Democrat in double figures.
I also think Sanders is more likely to be able to get young voters and left liberals to the caucus than Biden is. Biden appeals more to independents and moderates but they are less likely to turn out
Neither Biden nor Sanders will be Democrat candidate. Both are too old. Polling is meaningless at this point in the cycle, after all who had heard of Beto O'Rouke 6 months ago?
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
He didn't win over lots of Tory voters. The Conservatives started and finished the campaign on just over 40%, which was a huge increase on what they managed in 2015 (even taking the UKIP collapse into account). The real question for the Tories is how to make the Lib Dems and Greens run proper effective campaigns next time round.
Although that said, I do agree that it's wishful thinking that it's impossible for Labour to win next time.
But in early May 2017 the polls had the Tories in the 47% - 49% range. Any strenghening of the LibDem vote share is just as likely to come from ex-Tories - as happened in the Liberal surges of 1964 and February 1974.
The polls were WRONG.. just because the polls say something it doesn't mean its true
Grayling takes politics to a surrealist performance art. Not thinking to check whether the ferry operator has a boat is worthy of Dali.
He is indeed a truly remarkable talent.
And then there's Gavin Williamson, Liam Fox, Andrea Leadsom ... everywhere you look in the cabinet there is astounding, breathtaking, mediocrity and incompetence. The country is, without doubt, in the safest possible hands.
I think Rory Stewart would be good
It is bewildering that he was not made Brexit secretary. He has certainly acted as such. Does May have reservations about how he came by his wife, perhaps?
Do we really want another old-Etonian??
That’s just naked bigotry from you.
Just imagine if I had said do we really want another former comprehensive educated person in the cabinet ? The outrage.
I mean I’m all for dismissing people on the basis of where they were educated.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
I think (but can't prove obviously) that it was despite Corbyn rather than because of Corbyn.
The overwhelming message I got from my real life non-Tory friends on Facebook at the time (who are not overly political Twitter politics types) was that they didn't trust the Tories to have a huge majority, plus Corbyn couldn't possibly win, so we should vote Labour to minimise the Tories majority.
Britain loves to cut down a 'tall poppy' and the idea that the Tories would have an overwhelming majority was not an idea non-Tories found enticing.
I agree that part of it was in spite of Corbyn: right up until the last days of canvassing, although there were some more Corbyn fans coming out of the woodwork, there were still a lot of people saying "I really like your policies, I'm just not sure about the leader". Which is definitely a worry for next time, though I'm still not sure Labour has anyone better, on any "wing" of the party.
I disagree that it was some tactical thing to "limit the size of the Tories' majority though": I think that overestimates how much the average person pays attention to polls or political commentary. My impression was that people thought the election was very close (and this was in the Tories' #1 target seat), and were basing their votes on who they wanted in government.
The reality is that migrants are simply shopping around for the countries they would like to go to and using bogus asylum claims, combined with actually setting foot in their country, to achieve their aims. And since the idea of deporting those who have broken the law and have no right to be here gives everyone the collywobbles, no wonder they keep trying.
You talk as if trying to get to a particular country implies that the claim is bogus, but it doesn't. If you had to leave your home and suddenly start pick up your life for an somewhere else for an unknown period, it would be a big deal whether you had connections there already, whether you spoke the language etc. All the more so if you needed to navigate a complicated immigration system in a foreign language, and if you screwed up the application you could get sent back to the place you just escaped.
If you want to argue that countries should only live up to the minimum letter of their obligations under the relevant treaties and should shunt people back to any other safe country whenever possible then that's up to you, but don't assume people trying to get to the place where they can best cope with their shitty situation aren't genuine refugees.
Someone who has reached France from Iran may - or one of the many other safe countries between Iran and France - may well be a genuine refugee from Iran. But they are not a refugee from France when they try and reach the UK. And it is absurd to claim that they are and get all sentimental about them.
By all means let them apply, like any other migrant, to get into the UK. And let their application be judged on its merits. But they should not use a bogus claim for asylum to get in. They can claim asylum in France or Italy or Greece or lots of other countries they have passed through.
I am in favour of providing assistance to those trapped in camps near war torn countries, much like Cameron did with refugees from Syria. That means we can focus help on those who really need it not those who have the money to pay people smugglers and play the system who may very well not be the most deserving of help. If that makes me sound tough, too bad. Bogus sentimentality has been the enemy of good policy on this topic.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
I think (but can't prove obviously) that it was despite Corbyn rather than because of Corbyn.
The overwhelming message I got from my real life non-Tory friends on Facebook at the time (who are not overly political Twitter politics types) was that they didn't trust the Tories to have a huge majority, plus Corbyn couldn't possibly win, so we should vote Labour to minimise the Tories majority.
Britain loves to cut down a 'tall poppy' and the idea that the Tories would have an overwhelming majority was not an idea non-Tories found enticing.
But that was not what polls were forecasting by the final week of the 2017 campaign - indeed several did point to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament, paricularly in the context of the Tory surge in Scotland implying a weaker performance elsewhere in GB.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
He didn't win over lots of Tory voters. The Conservatives started and finished the campaign on just over 40%, which was a huge increase on what they managed in 2015 (even taking the UKIP collapse into account). The real question for the Tories is how to make the Lib Dems and Greens run proper effective campaigns next time round.
Although that said, I do agree that it's wishful thinking that it's impossible for Labour to win next time.
But in early May 2017 the polls had the Tories in the 47% - 49% range. Any strenghening of the LibDem vote share is just as likely to come from ex-Tories - as happened in the Liberal surges of 1964 and February 1974.
The polls were WRONG.. just because the polls say something it doesn't mean its true
I am sure the polls exaggerated the Tory position - having overcompensated for their 2015 debacle.
I'm wondering if everyone isn't getting this while thing the wrong was around. CA is voting from right after Iowa, but they're not counting the votes until after Super Tuesday, which judging by how fast they normally do things means we don't get their results until somewhere around 2026. What that says to me is that it's Iowa or Bust. If you defeat your similar opponents in Iowa, and the voters start voting in serious numbers right after that, then even NH doesn't matter as much: Your opponents have already been found unviable. Iowa decides who's in the race, and if it doesn't pick you, it's too late to come back. And even the less tactical of Democrats will be aware that the Dems need the mid-west, and they care a *lot* about beating Trump, so proving electability in Iowa is a big deal.
In conclusion, KLOBUCHAR
Actually Sanders only lost by 1% in Iowa last time and won New Hampshire.
Thus if Sanders wins Iowa he could be nominee in all but name through momentum alone by the end of March if he wins New Hampshire again too. No candidate has won Iowa and New Hampshire in the last 50 years and failed to be nominee
On the polling such as it is Sanders is nowhere near matching his last score in Iowa. And anecdotally, a lot of Dems seem really unwilling to repeat anything about the whole 2016 psychodrama - if he led Iowa I think the race would still be on and a lot of support would coalesce around an opponent. But I think what I said applies to most of the other candidates - Beto, Biden, Harris, Klobuchar - all of whom have somewhat interchangeable support bases.
Sanders does not need to as the field will be more divided rather than just Hillary being his opponent.
Sanders is currently second in Democratic nomination polls behind Biden, a good place to be
I would also class as a clanger his efforts to put off the Remain supporters who are shoring up Labour's polling by suggesting in an aside last week that he would press on with Brexit if he won a general election. That was an avoidable self-inflicted wound and came just a week ago.
Not so sure that was a clanger.
I think the calculation, given the GE will likely be after we have left the EU, and perhaps quite a while after, is that most of the votes they got in 2017 from centrists and agnostics who have no appetite for Corbyn but wanted to express hostility to Brexit, those are probably lost anyway, since the issue will be history.
The important thing is not to lose support in our equivalent of the rust belt, the large areas of the Midlands and the North which were pro Leave and where many of Labour's target seats can be found. If they do well there, and in Scotland, they can IMO beat their 2017 seat performance.
Corbyn's clanger was to answer the question, rather than to dodge it. Labour's strategy of equivocation has some merit, but the front man can't be relied upon to deliver it when he is let loose. YouGov polling has shown that, if Labour comes off the fence on Brexit, it loses ground to the Tories either way. So, in the last conducted poll, results were: - Standard VI question: Con 40, Lab 36 - VI question with Con going ahead with Brexit and Lab and LD wanting a 2nd referendum: Con 44, Lab 36 - VI question with both Con and Lab going ahead with Brexit, and LD wanting a 2nd referendum: Con 42, Lab 22
Leave inclined potential Labour supporters have concluded from the party's antics since GE 2017 that there is no way that Labour can be trusted to deliver Brexit whatever Corbyn says. So there are a lot of votes to be lost, but few to be gained.
Grayling takes politics to a surrealist performance art. Not thinking to check whether the ferry operator has a boat is worthy of Dali.
He is indeed a truly remarkable talent.
And then there's Gavin Williamson, Liam Fox, Andrea Leadsom ... everywhere you look in the cabinet there is astounding, breathtaking, mediocrity and incompetence. The country is, without doubt, in the safest possible hands.
I think Rory Stewart would be good
It is bewildering that he was not made Brexit secretary. He has certainly acted as such. Does May have reservations about how he came by his wife, perhaps?
Do we really want another old-Etonian??
I’d settle for someone who was competent and who not constantly being undermined by May and Robbins. Don’t much care where they were educated.
There is quite a clear pattern of the leading party's polling position being overestimated when the polls point to a landslide win. That was true of the elections of - 1966 - October 1974 - 1983 -1997 - 2001 - and 2017
On topic, only Prime Minister in waiting Jeremy Hunt is capable of getting the Tories 20% ahead of Labour by the next election so the dynamics of the last election might not apply.
Simply saying that no-one coming here from France will ever be successful with a claim for asylum (and if they make it here will be detained) would achieve the same thing.
But I don’t think that was her point. She seemed to be talking on the assumption that someone currently based in France might well have a valid basis for claiming asylum in Britain. I don’t think that can be the case and, indeed, it is highly insulting to France to suggest this.
The reality is that migrants are simply shopping .
“Well one of the more obvious reasons why they may have the right to come here rather than France is the presence of family in the UK already and the right to family life under ECHR.”
That, though, is not a claim for asylum. It is a different claim to migrate here which can - and should - be dealt with through the proper channels, just like anyone else seeking to join family here in the UK.
Three points: family life can be lived perfectly well in France. The right is to family life not to family life in the country of your choice. People smugglers use this as a way of getting one person into a country precisely so that person can then use the family option to get a large number of others in. We need to close that off.
And, second, even where there may be a good reason to let someone in under this option there needs to be a limit to the relatives (numbers/degree of consanguinity) let in. So under-age children joining parents: yes. But cousins, aunts by marriage, etc: no. And law-breaking should push you to the back of the queue: otherwise it is unfair to those who try to enter the country legitimately and it rewards the wrong behaviour and incentivises people smigglers.
“It is near impossible to claim asylum anywhere without crossing into the country illegally. The whole international asylum treaty system needs wholesale revision.”
In response to @Foxy (blockquotes have gone mad again!)
Agree with the last sentence.
As to the former, that’s not necessarily true. Many of those landing in Italy or Greece deliberately refuse to claim asylum there - or to be finger printed - precisely because they want to move on. Sorry - but at that point I lose a certain amount of sympathy. We are being played for fools. Highly educated English speaking Iranian enginees are always welcome. Illiterate peasants less so.
I'm wondering if everyone isn't getting this while thing the wrong was around. CA is voting from right after Iowa, but they're not counting the votes until after Super Tuesday, which judging by how fast they normally do things means we don't get their results until somewhere around 2026. What that says to me is that it's Iowa or Bust. If you defeat your similar opponents in Iowa, and the voters start voting in serious numbers right after that, then even NH doesn't matter as much: Your opponents have already been found unviable. Iowa decides who's in the race, and if it doesn't pick you, it's too late to come back. And even the less tactical of Democrats will be aware that the Dems need the mid-west, and they care a *lot* about beating Trump, so proving electability in Iowa is a big deal.
In conclusion, KLOBUCHAR
Actually Sanders only lost by 1% in Iowa last time and won New Hampshire.
Thus if Sanders wins Iowa he could be nominee in all but name through momentum alone by the end of March if he wins New Hampshire again too. No candidate has won Iowa and New Hampshire in the last 50 years and failed to be nominee
On the polling such as it is Sanders is nowhere near matching his last score in Iowa. And anecdotally, a lot of Dems seem really unwilling to repeat anything about the whole 2016 psychodrama - if he led Iowa I think the race would still be on and a lot of support would coalesce around an opponent. But I think what I said applies to most of the other candidates - Beto, Biden, Harris, Klobuchar - all of whom have somewhat interchangeable support bases.
Sanders does not need to as the field will be more divided rather than just Hillary be g his opponent.
Sanders is currently second in polls behind Biden, a good place to be
The point I'm making is that Sanders leading the field on say 25% in Iowa would only go so far, because (now more than last time) he's disliked by a lot of Democrats and even where he isn't he fishes in a different pool to the others. He would of course benefit if the competition remained divided for a long time but it generally doesn't.
I'm wondering if everyone isn't getting this while thing the wrong was around. CA is voting from right after Iowa, but they're not counting the votes until after Super Tuesday, which judging by how fast they normally do things means we don't get their results until somewhere around 2026. What that says to me is that it's Iowa or Bust. If you defeat your similar opponents in Iowa, and the voters start voting in serious numbers right after that, then even NH doesn't matter as much: Your opponents have already been found unviable. Iowa decides who's in the race, and if it doesn't pick you, it's too late to come back. And even the less tactical of Democrats will be aware that the Dems need the mid-west, and they care a *lot* about beating Trump, so proving electability in Iowa is a big deal.
In conclusion, KLOBUCHAR
Actually Sanders only lost by 1% in Iowa last time and won New Hampshire.
Thus if Sanders wins Iowa he could be nominee in all but name through momentum alone by the end of March if he wins New Hampshire again too. No candidate has won Iowa and New Hampshire in the last 50 years and failed to be nominee
That was the last cycle. A lot has happened since then, and some of the sparkle has come off Sanders with the left of the party.
If Biden stays fit and decides to run, he will probably still be favourite - though much can happen in the next year.
That poll has Biden first in Iowa, Sanders second, O'Rourke third (he has said he will not run) and no other Democrat in double figures.
I also think Sanders is more likely to be able to get young voters and left liberals to the caucus than Biden is. Biden appeals more to independents and moderates but they are less likely to turn out
Neither Biden nor Sanders will be Democrat candidate. Both are too old. Polling is meaningless at this point in the cycle, after all who had heard of Beto O'Rouke 6 months ago?
Wrong. Of the last 3 candidates to take on an incumbent president, Romney, Kerry and Dole all were over 60 and Dole was over 70.
The last candidate to beat a President after only 1 term of his party in the White House, Trump's position in 2020, was Reagan at the age of 69 when he beat President Carter in 1980.
O'Rourke needed to won the Texas Senate race to be a contender at the top of the ticket
Simply saying that no-one coming here from France will ever be successful with a claim for asylum (and if they make it here will be detained) would achieve the same thing.
But I don’t think that was her point. She seemed to be talking on the assumption that someone currently based in France might well have a valid basis for claiming asylum in Britain. I don’t think that can be the case and, indeed, it is highly insulting to France to suggest this.
The reality is that migrants are simply shopping around for the countries they would like to go to and using bogus asylum claims, combined with actually setting foot in their country, to achieve their aims. And since the idea of deporting those who have broken the law and have no right to be here gives everyone the collywobbles, no wonder they keep trying.
“Well one of the more obvious reasons why they may have the right to come here rather than France is the presence of family in the UK already and the right to family life under ECHR.”
That, though, is not a claim for asylum. It is a different claim to migrate here which can - and should - be dealt with through the proper channels, just like anyone else seeking to join family here in the UK.
Three points: family life can be lived perfectly well in France. The right is to family life not to family life in the country of your choice. People smugglers use this as a way of getting one person into a country precisely so that person can then use the family option to get a large number of others in. We need to close that off.
And, second, even where there may be a good reason to let someone in under this option there needs to be a limit to the relatives (numbers/degree of consanguinity) let in. So under-age children joining parents: yes. But cousins, aunts by marriage, etc: no. And law-breaking should push you to the back of the queue: otherwise it is unfair to those who try to enter the country legitimately and it rewards the wrong behaviour and incentivises people smigglers.
If is a major source of immigration and one of the reasons that the government has found it so hard to limit non EU immigrants. It would be surprising if we didn’t have the same effect from the 3m EU citizens already here. I really don’t see EU immigration falling below 100k a year after we leave.
Edit. Apologies seem to have completely screwed up the nesting here.
On topic, only Prime Minister in waiting Jeremy Hunt is capable of getting the Tories 20% ahead of Labour by the next election so the dynamics of the last election might not apply.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
Corbyn also drew support from Greens, Lib Dems, non voters, and probably most crucially, about 20% of UKIP voters from 2015. The latter made the difference between the Conservatives winning 45-46%, and their actual score of 43%.
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
Boris also leads Yougov and Survation Tory voter polls but it is members who decide and ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership result spot on, the last time the members voted
Someone who has reached France from Iran may - or one of the many other safe countries between Iran and France - may well be a genuine refugee from Iran. But they are not a refugee from France when they try and reach the UK. And it is absurd to claim that they are
I don't realise understand whose position you're arguing against. Obviously a refugee from Iran is a refugee from Iran. But if they get to Britain, they're still a refugee from Iran.
Abbott was on the TV yesterday saying that people would not embark on these dangerous journeys if we facilitated them making an asylum claim from France. From France? Why should anyone in France need to claim asylum?
She might be on to something. If the UK allowed asylum claims to come to the UK to be made in France (and rejected them all on the grounds that they were in safe France) it might discourage asylum seekers from risking the dangerous journey.
Simply saying that no-one coming here from France will ever be successful with a claim for asylum (and if they make it here will be detained) would achieve the same thing.
But I don’t think that was her point. She seemed to be talking on the assumption that someone currently based in France might well have a valid basis for claiming asylum in Britain. I don’t think that can be the case and, indeed, it is highly insulting to France to suggest this.
The reality is that migrants are simply shopping .
“Well one of the more obvious reasons why they may have the right to come here rather than France is the presence of family in the UK already and the right to family life under ECHR.”
That, though, is not a claim for asylum. It is a different claim to migrate here which can - and should - be dealt with through the proper channels, just like anyone else seeking to join family here in the UK.
Three points: family life can be lived perfectly well in France. The right is to family life not to family life in the country of your choice. People smugglers use this as a way of getting one person into a country precisely so that person can then use the family option to get a large number of others in. We need to close that off.
And, second, even where there may be a good reason to let someone in under this option there needs to be a limit to the relatives (numbers/degree of consanguinity) let in. So under-age children joining parents: yes. But cousins, aunts by marriage, etc: no. And law-breaking should push you to the back of the queue: otherwise it is unfair to those who try to enter the country legitimately and it rewards the wrong behaviour and incentivises people smigglers.
It is near impossible to claim asylum anywhere without crossing into the country illegally. The whole international asylum treaty system needs wholesale revision.
There is certainly way too much smiggling going on.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
I'm wondering if everyone isn't getting this while thing the wrong was around. CA is voting from right after Iowa, but they're not counting the votes until after Super Tuesday, which judging by how fast they normally do things means we don't get their results until somewhere around 2026. What that says to me is that it's Iowa or Bust. If you defeat your similar opponents in Iowa, and the voters start voting in serious numbers right after that, then even NH doesn't matter as much: Your opponents have already been found unviable. Iowa decides who's in the race, and if it doesn't pick you, it's too late to come back. And even the less tactical of Democrats will be aware that the Dems need the mid-west, and they care a *lot* about beating Trump, so proving electability in Iowa is a big deal.
In conclusion, KLOBUCHAR
Actually Sanders only lost by 1% in Iowa last time and won New Hampshire.
Thus if Sanders wins Iowa he could be nominee in all but name through momentum alone by the end of March if he wins New Hampshire again too. No candidate has won Iowa and New Hampshire in the last 50 years and failed to be nominee
On the polling such as it is Sanders is nowhere near matching his last score in Iowa. And anecdotally, a lot of Dems seem really unwilling to repeat anything about the whole 2016 psychodrama - if he led Iowa I think the race would still be on and a lot of support would coalesce around an opponent. But I think what I said applies to most of the other candidates - Beto, Biden, Harris, Klobuchar - all of whom have somewhat interchangeable support bases.
Sanders does not need to as the field will be more divided rather than just Hillary be g his opponent.
Sanders is currently second in polls behind Biden, a good place to be
The point I'm making is that Sanders leading the field on say 25% in Iowa would only go so far, because (now more than last time) he's disliked by a lot of Democrats and even where he isn't he fishes in a different pool to the others. He would of course benefit if the competition remained divided for a long time but it generally doesn't.
He only needs it to be divided in Iowa and New Hampshire, then if he wins those momentum does the rest
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
I'd be surprised if as many as 11% switched directly.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
Fine, but to get more, Labour needs to do something different, or something more, since those who might be attracted by Corbyn doing the same thing again are already in the base.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
I'd be surprised if as many as 11% switched directly.
On a net basis there was barely any net Tory to Labour movement in 2017
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
Boros also leads Yougov and Survation Tory voter polls
by what margins... and neither of those polls are representative of Tory MEMBERS...
ConHome as I said got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on and is representative of Tory members.
A broken clock is right twice a day and this isn't 2005. ConHome is notoriously Kippery, it is an object of ridicule even amongst Tory members on this site who use phrases like "exile to ConHome" as a threatened punishment.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
I'd be surprised if as many as 11% switched directly.
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
It's where the pensioners who spend their waking hours upticking ludicrous comments under Daily Mail online articles go, when they graduate to being able to use their keyboard as well as their mouse.
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
A statement of the blindingly obvious to everyone except HYUFD it seems.
I wonder how many commenters on this site are Tory party members (I can think of a few) and whether they are or are not ConHome members.
ConHome is the only site that regularly surveys Tory members and as 2005 shows its record is spot on
Wrong. It doesn't survey Tory members, it surveys its own members. The two are different. Or do you think all the Tories on site site are also ConHome members?
I'm wondering if everyone isn't getting this while thing the wrong was around. CA is voting from right after Iowa, but they're not counting the votes until after Super Tuesday, which judging by how fast they normally do things means we don't get their results until somewhere around 2026. What that says to me is that it's Iowa or Bust. If you defeat your similar opponents in Iowa, and the voters start voting in serious numbers right after that, then even NH doesn't matter as much: Your opponents have already been found unviable. Iowa decides who's in the race, and if it doesn't pick you, it's too late to come back. And even the less tactical of Democrats will be aware that the Dems need the mid-west, and they care a *lot* about beating Trump, so proving electability in Iowa is a big deal.
In conclusion, KLOBUCHAR
Actually Sanders only lost by 1% in Iowa last time and won New Hampshire.
Thus if Sanders wins Iowa he could be nominee in all but name through momentum alone by the end of March if he wins New Hampshire again too. No candidate has won Iowa and New Hampshire in the last 50 years and failed to be nominee
On the polling such as it is Sanders is nowhere near matching his last score in Iowa. And anecdotally, a lot of Dems seem really unwilling to repeat anything about the whole 2016 psychodrama - if he led Iowa I think the race would still be on and a lot of support would coalesce around an opponent. But I think what I said applies to most of the other candidates - Beto, Biden, Harris, Klobuchar - all of whom have somewhat interchangeable support bases.
Sanders does not need to as the field will be more divided rather than just Hillary be g his opponent.
Sanders is currently second in polls behind Biden, a good place to be
The point I'm making is that Sanders leading the field on say 25% in Iowa would only go so far, because (now more than last time) he's disliked by a lot of Democrats and even where he isn't he fishes in a different pool to the others. He would of course benefit if the competition remained divided for a long time but it generally doesn't.
He only needs it to be divided in Iowa and New Hampshire, then if he wins those momentum does the rest
You can only win on momentum if the voters generally want you to win, if the majority wish you weren't running then it'll tend to feed your opposition.
OT, i’m spending NYE this year in Ulverston in Cumbria. Never been before and wasn’t impressed initially but the old town is lovely.
I am looking like I am spending it in hospital which is a bit of a bore. My view is of another bit of white concrete opposite. No doubt the nurses will have a good selection of spirits ready for the bells. Possibly water with the water.
Sorry to hear that - and hope you are soon on the mend! Is it still the DRI?
No one does Hogmanay like the Scots - I left Scotland when still a child, but one return visit as a teen was a memorable experience - the whole town (virtually) threw an open house party "Come away in, your Mother taught our daughter so you're most welcome, is it whisky or sherry you're having?"
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
He didn't win over lots of Tory voters. The Conservatives started and finished the campaign on just over 40%, which was a huge increase on what they managed in 2015 (even taking the UKIP collapse into account). The real question for the Tories is how to make the Lib Dems and Greens run proper effective campaigns next time round.
Although that said, I do agree that it's wishful thinking that it's impossible for Labour to win next time.
But in early May 2017 the polls had the Tories in the 47% - 49% range. Any strenghening of the LibDem vote share is just as likely to come from ex-Tories - as happened in the Liberal surges of 1964 and February 1974.
The polls were WRONG.. just because the polls say something it doesn't mean its true
I am sure the polls exaggerated the Tory position - having overcompensated for their 2015 debacle.
Indeed. And by the same reasoning, given that the changes made by the polling companies since 2017 have quite possibly overcompensated for their 2017 polling debacle, then if the very specific circumstances of 2017 don't apply to the next GE, they are running the risk of understating the Tory lead relative to Labour. There has been such a pattern over the last few election cycles.
i.e.
2005 GE Labour lead overstated.
Polling companies overadjusted their approach in response to 2005. 2010 Con lead overstated.
Polling companies overadjusted their approach in response to 2010. 2015 Con lead understated.
Polling companies overadjusted their approach in response to 2015. 2017 Con lead overstated.
Polling companies overadjusted(?) their approach in response to 2017. 2019 Con lead understated?
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
Boros also leads Yougov and Survation Tory voter polls
by what margins... and neither of those polls are representative of Tory MEMBERS...
ConHome as I said got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on and is representative of Tory members.
A broken clock is right twice a day and this isn't 2005. ConHome is notoriously Kippery, it is an object of ridicule even amongst Tory members on this site who use phrases like "exile to ConHome" as a threatened punishment.
HYUFD doesn’t mention the ConHome polls from late 2015.
Most of the people who ConHome wanted didn’t even stand six months later.
On a sidenote, one interesting thing from the YouGov poll is that 21% of Labour Leavers sat out the 2017 election altogether. As compared to only 8% of Labour Remainers.
By contrast, Brexit didn't seem to affect Tory voters' abstention rate, with 12% of both their Remain voters and Leave voters sitting out.
YouGov polling has shown that, if Labour comes off the fence on Brexit, it loses ground to the Tories either way. So, in the last conducted poll, results were: - Standard VI question: Con 40, Lab 36 - VI question with Con going ahead with Brexit and Lab and LD wanting a 2nd referendum: Con 44, Lab 36 - VI question with both Con and Lab going ahead with Brexit, and LD wanting a 2nd referendum: Con 42, Lab 22
Yes, I saw that and it rings true. In direction, at least, if not in size. However the context there is a GE very soon with Brexit still outstanding and therefore a massive issue.
My thinking (and I'm postulating JCs too) is that by the time the next election happens in 2022, Brexit will be history and will have lost its animating influence among most of the electorate.
On a sidenote, one interesting thing from the YouGov poll is that 21% of Labour Leavers sat out the 2017 election altogether. As compared to only 4% of Labour Remainers.
By contrast, Brexit didn't seem to affect Tory voters' abstention rate, with 12% of both their Remain voters and Leave voters sitting out.
How do abstainers get to be "voters" in the first place??
On a sidenote, one interesting thing from the YouGov poll is that 21% of Labour Leavers sat out the 2017 election altogether. As compared to only 4% of Labour Remainers.
By contrast, Brexit didn't seem to affect Tory voters' abstention rate, with 12% of both their Remain voters and Leave voters sitting out.
How do abstainers get to be "voters" in the first place??
People who voted in 2015, and in the EU referendum, but abstained in 2017.
Someone who has reached France from Iran may - or one of the many other safe countries between Iran and France - may well be a genuine refugee from Iran. But they are not a refugee from France when they try and reach the UK. And it is absurd to claim that they are
I don't realise understand whose position you're arguing against. Obviously a refugee from Iran is a refugee from Iran. But if they get to Britain, they're still a refugee from Iran.
But if they have crossed Europe they have not "sought refuge" in the first "place of safety" - but have decided to "shop around".
Changed days.
A school joke, (in the seventies) - told by a teacher:
"A group of Pakis (to be truthful) refugees were stopped on the beach.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
I'd be surprised if as many as 11% switched directly.
I would certainly hope the Tories are taking the prospect of a Corbyn led government seriously!!! Seeing May's disastrous approach to Brexit makes me wonder if the Tories have lost the plot.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
Fine, but to get more, Labour needs to do something different, or something more, since those who might be attracted by Corbyn doing the same thing again are already in the base.
Oh, I agree. It won't happen by itself, without any effort or tweaking in polices from Corbyn. If an election was suddenly announced for tomorrow, I doubt the result would be much different from last time.
But, theoretically, since Corbyn's shown he's capable of making deep inroads into the Tory vote before, he is capable of doing so again, no? (And, to be fair, by the same logic, May is surely capable of making further inroads into the Labour vote since she managed it in 2017.)
OT, i’m spending NYE this year in Ulverston in Cumbria. Never been before and wasn’t impressed initially but the old town is lovely.
I am looking like I am spending it in hospital which is a bit of a bore. My view is of another bit of white concrete opposite. No doubt the nurses will have a good selection of spirits ready for the bells. Possibly water with the water.
Sorry to hear that - and hope you are soon on the mend! Is it still the DRI?
No one does Hogmanay like the Scots - I left Scotland when still a child, but one return visit as a teen was a memorable experience - the whole town (virtually) threw an open house party "Come away in, your Mother taught our daughter so you're most welcome, is it whisky or sherry you're having?"
Mind you, things might have changed.....
No the DRI is now a flatted development. Ninewells. And I have to say the Scotch broth at lunch was rather good.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
Fine, but to get more, Labour needs to do something different, or something more, since those who might be attracted by Corbyn doing the same thing again are already in the base.
Oh, I agree. It won't happen by itself, without any effort or tweaking in polices from Corbyn. If an election was suddenly announced for tomorrow, I doubt the result would be much different from last time.
But, theoretically, since Corbyn's shown he's capable of making deep inroads into the Tory vote before, he is capable of doing so again, no? (And, to be fair, by the same logic, May is surely capable of making further inroads into the Labour vote since she managed it in 2017.)
Actually, no. I think the last election was probably peak vote share for both Tory and Labour. The next will be decided on which loses fewer votes to other parties.
Someone who has reached France from Iran may - or one of the many other safe countries between Iran and France - may well be a genuine refugee from Iran. But they are not a refugee from France when they try and reach the UK. And it is absurd to claim that they are
I don't realise understand whose position you're arguing against. Obviously a refugee from Iran is a refugee from Iran. But if they get to Britain, they're still a refugee from Iran.
Look at the Dublin Convention. Once you are in a safe country, that is where you should claim asylum. Refugees who have reached France are in a safe country. That is where they should make their asylum claim. If they don't then they have no basis for making an asylum claim to get into Britain. They may have some other basis for seeking to migrate to Britain and, if so, they can and, IMO, should apply in the normal way. Which they can do in France.
Under the current laws, "refugee" and "migrant" are not interchangeable but distinct categories. Though people smugglers and many migrants seek to blur the distinction.
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
Boros also leads Yougov and Survation Tory voter polls
by what margins... and neither of those polls are representative of Tory MEMBERS...
ConHome as I said got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on and is representative of Tory members.
A broken clock is right twice a day and this isn't 2005. ConHome is notoriously Kippery, it is an object of ridicule even amongst Tory members on this site who use phrases like "exile to ConHome" as a threatened punishment.
I must admit I used to visit it and Guido during the brown days but never go there now as its head banger central.
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
A statement of the blindingly obvious to everyone except HYUFD it seems.
I wonder how many commenters on this site are Tory party members (I can think of a few) and whether they are or are not ConHome members.
ConHome is the only site that regularly surveys Tory members and as 2005 shows its record is spot on
Wrong. It doesn't survey Tory members, it surveys its own members. The two are different. Or do you think all the Tories on site site are also ConHome members?
2005 shows no such thing.
Wrong on both counts.
ConHome got Cameron's victory margin almost exactly right in 2005 and asks all its participants whether they are party members and how active they are.
The fact you dislike ConHome results does not make them wrong
YouGov polling has shown that, if Labour comes off the fence on Brexit, it loses ground to the Tories either way. So, in the last conducted poll, results were: - Standard VI question: Con 40, Lab 36 - VI question with Con going ahead with Brexit and Lab and LD wanting a 2nd referendum: Con 44, Lab 36 - VI question with both Con and Lab going ahead with Brexit, and LD wanting a 2nd referendum: Con 42, Lab 22
Yes, I saw that and it rings true. In direction, at least, if not in size. However the context there is a GE very soon with Brexit still outstanding and therefore a massive issue.
My thinking (and I'm postulating JCs too) is that by the time the next election happens in 2022, Brexit will be history and will have lost its animating influence among most of the electorate.
I think it is utterly delusional (and this is not aimed at you personally) to think that Brexit will be history in 2022. It will still be the animating force in British politics, depending on what sort of Brexit we will have had or even if we have not Brexited, and what sort of trading (or other) relationship we will have with Europe will be a key aspect of British policy, as well as the effects of Brexit on Britain's economy.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
On a net basis there was actually almost no net movement of 2015 Tory voters to Labour in 2017, Corbyn lost almost as many 2015 Labour voters to the Tories as he gained 2015 Tory voters to Labour.
Almost all Labour's net gains in 2017 came from 2015 LD, Green, Plaid, SNP and UKIP voters and those who stayed home in 2015
Yes, there was movement from Labour to the Tories too. Which also shows that Theresa May was more of an asset to the Tories than people think.
But, nonetheless, it's still true that ~1m who voted Tory in 2015, switched over to Corbyn in 2017. Why was this, and why would he be incapable of doing the same again?
It was mostly remain-supporting Tories whose desire to punish the party for Brexit exceeded their reservations about Corbyn's Labour.
That was certainly true in parts of Greater London, although the number of Tory switchers was very small outside Greater London.
11% of the Tory vote defected to Labour - that is hardly going to be only London voters.
Fine, but to get more, Labour needs to do something different, or something more, since those who might be attracted by Corbyn doing the same thing again are already in the base.
Oh, I agree. It won't happen by itself, without any effort or tweaking in polices from Corbyn. If an election was suddenly announced for tomorrow, I doubt the result would be much different from last time.
But, theoretically, since Corbyn's shown he's capable of making deep inroads into the Tory vote before, he is capable of doing so again, no? (And, to be fair, by the same logic, May is surely capable of making further inroads into the Labour vote since she managed it in 2017.)
Actually, no. I think the last election was probably peak vote share for both Tory and Labour. The next will be decided on which loses fewer votes to other parties.
Tend to agree with that but fear of the other will remain a powerful driver of votes.
I'm wondering if everyone isn't getting this while thing the wrong was around. CA is voting from right after Iowa, but they're not counting the votes until after Super Tuesday, which judging by how fast they normally do things means we don't get their results rump, so proving electability in Iowa is a big deal.
In conclusion, KLOBUCHAR
Actually Sanders only lost by 1% in Iowa last time and won New Hampshire.
Thus if Sanders wins Iowa he could be nominee in all but name through momentum alone by the end of March if he wins New Hampshire again too. No candidate has won Iowa and New Hampshire in the last 50 years and failed to be nominee
On the polling such as it is Sanders is nowhere near matching his last score in Iowa. And anecdotally, a lot of Dems seem really unwilling to repeat anything about the whole 2016 psychodrama - if he led Iowa I think the race would still be on and a lot of support would coalesce around an opponent. But I think what I said applies to most of the other candidates - Beto, Biden, Harris, Klobuchar - all of whom have somewhat interchangeable support bases.
Sanders does not need to as the field will be more divided rather than just Hillary be g his opponent.
Sanders is currently second in polls behind Biden, a good place to be
The point I'm making is that Sanders leading the field on say 25% in Iowa would only go so far, because (now more than last time) he's disliked by a lot of Democrats and even where he isn't he fishes in a different pool to the others. He would of course benefit if the competition remained divided for a long time but it generally doesn't.
He only needs it to be divided in Iowa and New Hampshire, then if he wins those momentum does the rest
You can only win on momentum if the voters generally want you to win, if the majority wish you weren't running then it'll tend to feed your opposition.
Tell that to Trump who won because of his passionate base even if a lot of opposition elsewhere.
The last candidate to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House was Reagan in 1980 and Reagan was the runner up to Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries
OT, i’m spending NYE this year in Ulverston in Cumbria. Never been before and wasn’t impressed initially but the old town is lovely.
I am looking like I am spending it in hospital which is a bit of a bore. My view is of another bit of white concrete opposite. No doubt the nurses will have a good selection of spirits ready for the bells. Possibly water with the water.
Sorry to hear that - and hope you are soon on the mend! Is it still the DRI?
No one does Hogmanay like the Scots - I left Scotland when still a child, but one return visit as a teen was a memorable experience - the whole town (virtually) threw an open house party "Come away in, your Mother taught our daughter so you're most welcome, is it whisky or sherry you're having?"
The fuss about the company with no ships continues. One of the directors is the brother of a Tory donor, so that must have been a really tough interview. The company's login page is a photograph of a login page. Yes, really.
It's a testament to the utterly ovine nature of the British people that we're just taking this.
I know. It's bugging the hell out of me. All I'm doing is posting sarcastic stuff on a website. It's not nice to see bad people prosper and there's nothing I can do to stop it.
Things have come to a pretty pass when not even one loyalist can come up with a defence (however half baked).
OT, i’m spending NYE this year in Ulverston in Cumbria. Never been before and wasn’t impressed initially but the old town is lovely.
I am looking like I am spending it in hospital which is a bit of a bore. My view is of another bit of white concrete opposite. No doubt the nurses will have a good selection of spirits ready for the bells. Possibly water with the water.
Sorry to hear that - and hope you are soon on the mend! Is it still the DRI?
No one does Hogmanay like the Scots - I left Scotland when still a child, but one return visit as a teen was a memorable experience - the whole town (virtually) threw an open house party "Come away in, your Mother taught our daughter so you're most welcome, is it whisky or sherry you're having?"
Mind you, things might have changed.....
No the DRI is now a flatted development. Ninewells. And I have to say the Scotch broth at lunch was rather good.
Ah yes! Showing my age - yes, I remember Ninewells going up - but then I also remember crossing the Forth by Ferry!
Any chance of anything more robust than Scotch broth after the bells?
(I send family exiles in England Baxters hampers for Christmas).
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
Boros also leads Yougov and Survation Tory voter polls
by what margins... and neither of those polls are representative of Tory MEMBERS...
ConHome as I said got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on and is representative of Tory members.
I think we have a winner for the "disturbing thought of the day" award already, folks?
Survation's now have a panel of up to 1,000 Conservative councillors. Their views should be close to members' views.
Conservative councillors tend to be more establishment in their views and more likely to have voted Remain and be pro May's Deal than Tory members as a whole.
Someone who has reached France from Iran may - or one of the many other safe countries between Iran and France - may well be a genuine refugee from Iran. But they are not a refugee from France when they try and reach the UK. And it is absurd to claim that they are
I don't realise understand whose position you're arguing against. Obviously a refugee from Iran is a refugee from Iran. But if they get to Britain, they're still a refugee from Iran.
Look at the Dublin Convention. Once you are in a safe country, that is where you should claim asylum. Refugees who have reached France are in a safe country. That is where they should make their asylum claim. If they don't then they have no basis for making an asylum claim to get into Britain. They may have some other basis for seeking to migrate to Britain and, if so, they can and, IMO, should apply in the normal way. Which they can do in France.
Under the current laws, "refugee" and "migrant" are not interchangeable but distinct categories. Though people smugglers and many migrants seek to blur the distinction.
The Dublin Convention won't apply to the UK after B-Day...
Many of those landing in Italy or Greece deliberately refuse to claim asylum there - or to be finger printed - precisely because they want to move on. Sorry - but at that point I lose a certain amount of sympathy. We are being played for fools. Highly educated English speaking Iranian engineers are always welcome. Illiterate peasants less so.
Couple of points though.
Strict enforcement of 'claim where you first arrive' would create a very skewed profile of refugee settlement. Large numbers in Greece, for example, and precious few for us.
When it comes to asylum, I assume (although I'm not sure about it) that the language skills and other talents of the applicant are not deemed relevant.
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
Boros also leads Yougov and Survation Tory voter polls
by what margins... and neither of those polls are representative of Tory MEMBERS...
ConHome as I said got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on and is representative of Tory members.
I think we have a winner for the "disturbing thought of the day" award already, folks?
Survation's now have a panel of up to 1,000 Conservative councillors. Their views should be close to members' views.
Conservative councillors tend to be more establishment in their views and more pro May's Deal than Tory members as a whole.
Maybe because they actually speak to real people now and again rather than simply interacting with the world through the daily mail and their computer?
OT, i’m spending NYE this year in Ulverston in Cumbria. Never been before and wasn’t impressed initially but the old town is lovely.
I am looking like I am spending it in hospital which is a bit of a bore. My view is of another bit of white concrete opposite. No doubt the nurses will have a good selection of spirits ready for the bells. Possibly water with the water.
Sorry to hear that - and hope you are soon on the mend! Is it still the DRI?
No one does Hogmanay like the Scots - I left Scotland when still a child, but one return visit as a teen was a memorable experience - the whole town (virtually) threw an open house party "Come away in, your Mother taught our daughter so you're most welcome, is it whisky or sherry you're having?"
Mind you, things might have changed.....
No the DRI is now a flatted development. Ninewells. And I have to say the Scotch broth at lunch was rather good.
Ah yes! Showing my age - yes, I remember Ninewells going up - but then I also remember crossing the Forth by Ferry!
Any chance of anything more robust than Scotch broth after the bells?
(I send family exiles in England Baxters hampers for Christmas).
We’ll have to see. I once spent Hogmanay in the DRI after a RTA and some drink miraculously appeared.
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
OT, i’m spending NYE this year in Ulverston in Cumbria. Never been before and wasn’t impressed initially but the old town is lovely.
I am looking like I am spending it in hospital which is a bit of a bore. My view is of another bit of white concrete opposite. No doubt the nurses will have a good selection of spirits ready for the bells. Possibly water with the water.
Sorry to hear that - and hope you are soon on the mend! Is it still the DRI?
No one does Hogmanay like the Scots - I left Scotland when still a child, but one return visit as a teen was a memorable experience - the whole town (virtually) threw an open house party "Come away in, your Mother taught our daughter so you're most welcome, is it whisky or sherry you're having?"
Mind you, things might have changed.....
Is it a cup of tea you'll be having Dr Cameron?
EYE Janet.
The traditional Aberdeen welcome is, “you’ll have had your tea?” Grippet, a good Scots word.
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
Boros also leads Yougov and Survation Tory voter polls
by what margins... and neither of those polls are representative of Tory MEMBERS...
ConHome as I said got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on and is representative of Tory members.
I think we have a winner for the "disturbing thought of the day" award already, folks?
Survation's now have a panel of up to 1,000 Conservative councillors. Their views should be close to members' views.
Conservative councillors tend to be more establishment in their views and more likely to have voted Remain and be pro May's Deal than Tory members as a whole.
Where Con Home's panel is out of line with other surveys of Conservative opinion (voters, councillors, and MP's) is in their support for the No Confidence motion in May). That suggests they could be skewed well to the right in other responses.
My thinking (and I'm postulating JCs too) is that by the time the next election happens in 2022, Brexit will be history and will have lost its animating influence among most of the electorate.
I think it is utterly delusional (and this is not aimed at you personally) to think that Brexit will be history in 2022. It will still be the animating force in British politics, depending on what sort of Brexit we will have had or even if we have not Brexited, and what sort of trading (or other) relationship we will have with Europe will be a key aspect of British policy, as well as the effects of Brexit on Britain's economy.
I agree. My prediction.
1. Mrs May's deal is decisively rejected on 17th January. 2. Following this defeat, Corbyn proposes a VONC in the government on 17th January but on 18th January, the VONC is defeated when all Tory and DUP MPs back the government. (Tory MPs don't want a GE and the DUP don't want to lose their pivotal role). 3. On January 21st, Mrs May puts Britain on a war footing for a crash out no deal (no transition) in a big bluff. Big drop in Sterling and FTSE. 4. On February 7th, Mrs May puts her deal to the vote again and is again defeated. Her bluff is called. It's now getting desperate. 5. She doesn't want to crash out (ruinous for the UK, the Tory Party and her reputation) so she only has two options to avoid a crash out. 6a. She revokes A50. Nah. She would lose more than half her Cabinet, split the Tory party. 6b. or .. when it's the only option left, she does a deal with the minor parties and Remainer Labour MPs and proposes her deal with the condition that it is supported by a referendum (her Deal versus Remain) and a request to extend A50 to allow time for the referendum. She believes in her deal but she now realises that the only way to get it through parliament is to go over the heads of MPs and appeal to the people. 7. On February 12th, her Deal with a condition of a referendum is passed with support from all the minor parties and 80 Labour MPs who favour a referendum. The alternative is genuinely a crash out. 7. On May 9th, her deal wins the referendum and we exit the EU just before the EuroElections on May 26th. 8. From 2019 to 2029 we continue negotiations on our new relationship through two general elections) during which the status quo prevails. 9. 2030, following another referendum, we rejoin but don't notice the difference.
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
Boros also leads Yougov and Survation Tory voter polls
by what margins... and neither of those polls are representative of Tory MEMBERS...
ConHome as I said got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on and is representative of Tory members.
I think we have a winner for the "disturbing thought of the day" award already, folks?
Survation's now have a panel of up to 1,000 Conservative councillors. Their views should be close to members' views.
Conservative councillors tend to be more establishment in their views and more pro May's Deal than Tory members as a whole.
Maybe because they actually speak to real people now and again rather than simply interacting with the world through the daily mail and their computer?
It was Labour members as a whole who got Corbyn elected remember, Labour councillors I think favoured Burnham or Cooper
I don't think anybody in their right mind within Labour would think the next election is "in the bag", or anything close to it.
But, at the same time, it's wishful thinking to think it's impossible for Labour to win. No Tory commentators (including on PB) seem to have asked themselves how Jeremy Corbyn managed to win around 1m Tory voters in the course of the last election - or asked themselves why, if he's already shown he can win over a lot of Tory voters, why wouldn't he able to win over even more next time round.
He didn't win over lots of Tory voters. The Conservatives started and finished the campaign on just over 40%, which was a huge increase on what they managed in 2015 (even taking the UKIP collapse into account). The real question for the Tories is how to make the Lib Dems and Greens run proper effective campaigns next time round.
Although that said, I do agree that it's wishful thinking that it's impossible for Labour to win next time.
But in early May 2017 the polls had the Tories in the 47% - 49% range. Any strenghening of the LibDem vote share is just as likely to come from ex-Tories - as happened in the Liberal surges of 1964 and February 1974.
The original point was around Labour's performance across an election campaign. The fact that Theresa May initially oversaw an increase before settling back down to the low-to-mid 40s shouldn't overshadow the fact that ultimately the Tories got almost as many votes as they could have reasonably expected when the election was called.
On the Lib Dems - agreed, but given where the parties find themselves right now, it seems reasonable to assume that their best chance of a material advance is targeting disgruntled Labour Remainers fed up with their party's stance on Brexit.
Con Home is not a representative sample of Tory voters.
Boros also leads Yougov and Survation Tory voter polls
by what margins... and neither of those polls are representative of Tory MEMBERS...
ConHome as I said got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on and is representative of Tory members.
I think we have a winner for the "disturbing thought of the day" award already, folks?
Survation's now have a panel of up to 1,000 Conservative councillors. Their views should be close to members' views.
Conservative councillors tend to be more establishment in their views and more likely to have voted Remain and be pro May's Deal than Tory members as a whole.
Where Con Home's panel is out of line with other surveys of Conservative opinion (voters, councillors, and MP's) is in their support for the No Confidence motion in May). That suggests they could be skewed well to the right in other responses.
Remember though many Tory voters now will have voted for Blair from 1997 to 2005, while I know lots of UKIP members who have now joined the Tories
I think it is utterly delusional (and this is not aimed at you personally) to think that Brexit will be history in 2022. It will still be the animating force in British politics, depending on what sort of Brexit we will have had or even if we have not Brexited, and what sort of trading (or other) relationship we will have with Europe will be a key aspect of British policy, as well as the effects of Brexit on Britain's economy.
Hmm, maybe, but I personally doubt it. The event itself (us leaving) is deeply divisive and arouses great passion.
But now imagine it's happened.
We're out and it's done. Some have partied, some have wept. Lying ahead are many years of FTA talks, very technical, protracted, complicated, boring even, and where the difference between the 2 main parties is not stark. A close alignment or a very close alignment.
I just don't see that dominating British politics.
Jeez and that YouGov survey was back in July before Davis resigned. Hardly recent!
Even then Tory members didn't have a good view of Boris and as far as Rees-Mogg is concerned he ranked badly on almost all characteristics except for some reason being viewed as competent. I somewhat doubt he's viewed as competent after his recent shenanigans and failure to count properly.
I thought you were trying to demonstrate that Tory members love Boris?
That link says Boris is less popular than Rees-Mogg, Javid, Davidson and Gove.
Rather contradicts all your ConHome rants.
Not at all. That poll was taken in July when ConHome like Yougov also had Rees Mogg ahead, just much of the Rees Mogg support has now switched back to Boris.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Someone who has reached France from Iran may - or one of the many other safe countries between Iran and France - may well be a genuine refugee from Iran. But they are not a refugee from France when they try and reach the UK. And it is absurd to claim that they are
I don't realise understand whose position you're arguing against. Obviously a refugee from Iran is a refugee from Iran. But if they get to Britain, they're still a refugee from Iran.
Look at the Dublin Convention. Once you are in a safe country, that is where you should claim asylum. Refugees who have reached France are in a safe country. That is where they should make their asylum claim. If they don't then they have no basis for making an asylum claim to get into Britain. They may have some other basis for seeking to migrate to Britain and, if so, they can and, IMO, should apply in the normal way. Which they can do in France.
Under the current laws, "refugee" and "migrant" are not interchangeable but distinct categories. Though people smugglers and many migrants seek to blur the distinction.
The Dublin Convention is about the rights and responsibilities of states, not the responsibilities of asylum seekers. What it says is that if you've been through a safe country before getting to another country, the second country is within its rights to shunt you back there and tell you to apply there instead. And even this rule has various exceptions.
I think (but can't prove obviously) that it was despite Corbyn rather than because of Corbyn.
The overwhelming message I got from my real life non-Tory friends on Facebook at the time (who are not overly political Twitter politics types) was that they didn't trust the Tories to have a huge majority, plus Corbyn couldn't possibly win, so we should vote Labour to minimise the Tories majority.
Britain loves to cut down a 'tall poppy' and the idea that the Tories would have an overwhelming majority was not an idea non-Tories found enticing.
There was however a poll showing that the swing to Labour was greatest among those who expected Labour to win, and certainly I met voters who were normally tactically Labour but were voting LibDem, Green or not at all because they felt it was hopeless. It's all a bit anecdotal and it's probably not safe to generalise either way.
Of those who did vote Labour, my impression (which is very anecdotal, but based on a lot of doorstep discussions and emails) is that about half were very enthused by Corbyn, while the rest were dubious to varying degrees but voted Labour anyway because they always do or because they felt the Tories had to be opposed. The failure of the Mail/Sun offensive was not that they failed to sow doubts, but that they didn't have much impact on the loyalist Labour vote. The argument "vote Lsbour to stop a Tory landslide" didn't actually work in my experience - people not inclined to vote Labour weren't prepared to do so for such a hypothetical reason.
Many of those landing in Italy or Greece deliberately refuse to claim asylum there - or to be finger printed - precisely because they want to move on. Sorry - but at that point I lose a certain amount of sympathy. We are being played for fools. Highly educated English speaking Iranian engineers are always welcome. Illiterate peasants less so.
Couple of points though.
Strict enforcement of 'claim where you first arrive' would create a very skewed profile of refugee settlement. Large numbers in Greece, for example, and precious few for us.
[Snipped]
Indeed. But that is the current law. So either the laws are rewritten. Or we enforce the laws. Or we allow the laws to be broken.
The last is not a viable option, for countries which pride themselves on the rule of law. And it is deeply unfair to those who do abide by the rule of law. Why, for instance, should @Sandpit's wife be denied entry when someone who has broken various laws and may bring no benefit to this country, be allowed in purely because he has had the money and/or unscrupulousness to get here?
Jeez and that YouGov survey was back in July before Davis resigned. Hardly recent!
Even then Tory members didn't have a good view of Boris and as far as Rees-Mogg is concerned he ranked badly on almost all characteristics except for some reason being viewed as competent. I somewhat doubt he's viewed as competent after his recent shenanigans and failure to count properly.
Rees Mogg beat every other contender with Tory members in that poll head to head, including Javid and Gove
Not at all. That poll was taken in July when ConHome like Yougov also had Rees Mogg ahead, just much of the Rees Mogg support has now switched back to Boris.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Which just goes to show how meaningless polls are then and why they shouldn't be held up as evidence of anything.
I believe the two most popular candidates here amongst Tory members here (not ConHome) are Gove and Javid. Both of which beat Boris in YouGov's out of date poll.
Jeez and that YouGov survey was back in July before Davis resigned. Hardly recent!
Even then Tory members didn't have a good view of Boris and as far as Rees-Mogg is concerned he ranked badly on almost all characteristics except for some reason being viewed as competent. I somewhat doubt he's viewed as competent after his recent shenanigans and failure to count properly.
Rees Mogg beat every other contender with Tory members in that poll head to head, including Javid and Gove
Which goes to show how irrelevant polls taken outside of an actual election are. Like ConHome's meaningless 2015 polls that got the 2016 election completely wrong.
Rees Mogg won't make final 2 let alone be elected leader. Neither will Boris.
I think it is utterly delusional (and this is not aimed at you personally) to think that Brexit will be history in 2022. It will still be the animating force in British politics, depending on what sort of Brexit we will have had or even if we have not Brexited, and what sort of trading (or other) relationship we will have with Europe will be a key aspect of British policy, as well as the effects of Brexit on Britain's economy.
Hmm, maybe, but I personally doubt it. The event itself (us leaving) is deeply divisive and arouses great passion.
But now imagine it's happened.
We're out and it's done. Some have partied, some have wept. Lying ahead are many years of FTA talks, very technical, protracted, complicated, boring even, and where the difference between the 2 main parties is not stark. A close alignment or a very close alignment.
I just don't see that dominating British politics.
You are ignoring the effect of Brexit on the economy. If the City loses business and jobs and there is a knock on effect on other service jobs, if a car plant closes down, if tax revenues fall, if unemployment rises, etc then all of these will have an effect on domestic policies.
Leaving will be the start of the process not the end of it. The EU will affect and in some cases dominate many aspects of British policy in a way it has not done in the past. The reality of not being able to have a say on developments which will impact us will hit home and will be a continuing theme of British politics. And it will affect both parties, albeit in different ways.
Comments
Any strenghening of the LibDem vote share is just as likely to come from ex-Tories - as happened in the Liberal surges of 1964 and February 1974.
Just imagine if I had said do we really want another former comprehensive educated person in the cabinet ? The outrage.
I mean I’m all for dismissing people on the basis of where they were educated.
I disagree that it was some tactical thing to "limit the size of the Tories' majority though": I think that overestimates how much the average person pays attention to polls or political commentary. My impression was that people thought the election was very close (and this was in the Tories' #1 target seat), and were basing their votes on who they wanted in government.
By all means let them apply, like any other migrant, to get into the UK. And let their application be judged on its merits. But they should not use a bogus claim for asylum to get in. They can claim asylum in France or Italy or Greece or lots of other countries they have passed through.
I am in favour of providing assistance to those trapped in camps near war torn countries, much like Cameron did with refugees from Syria. That means we can focus help on those who really need it not those who have the money to pay people smugglers and play the system who may very well not be the most deserving of help. If that makes me sound tough, too bad. Bogus sentimentality has been the enemy of good policy on this topic.
Hunt is 4th on 8% and Davis 5th on 6%
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/12/our-survey-next-tory-leader-johnson-is-top-again-javid-second-raab-third-hunt-is-now-fourth.html
Sanders is currently second in Democratic nomination polls behind Biden, a good place to be
- Standard VI question: Con 40, Lab 36
- VI question with Con going ahead with Brexit and Lab and LD wanting a 2nd referendum: Con 44, Lab 36
- VI question with both Con and Lab going ahead with Brexit, and LD wanting a 2nd referendum: Con 42, Lab 22
Leave inclined potential Labour supporters have concluded from the party's antics since GE 2017 that there is no way that Labour can be trusted to deliver Brexit whatever Corbyn says. So there are a lot of votes to be lost, but few to be gained.
In response to @Foxy (blockquotes have gone mad again!)
Agree with the last sentence.
As to the former, that’s not necessarily true. Many of those landing in Italy or Greece deliberately refuse to claim asylum there - or to be finger printed - precisely because they want to move on. Sorry - but at that point I lose a certain amount of sympathy. We are being played for fools. Highly educated English speaking Iranian enginees are always welcome. Illiterate peasants less so.
The last candidate to beat a President after only 1 term of his party in the White House, Trump's position in 2020, was Reagan at the age of 69 when he beat President Carter in 1980.
O'Rourke needed to won the Texas Senate race to be a contender at the top of the ticket
That, though, is not a claim for asylum. It is a different claim to migrate here which can - and should - be dealt with through the proper channels, just like anyone else seeking to join family here in the UK.
Three points: family life can be lived perfectly well in France. The right is to family life not to family life in the country of your choice. People smugglers use this as a way of getting one person into a country precisely so that person can then use the family option to get a large number of others in. We need to close that off.
And, second, even where there may be a good reason to let someone in under this option there needs to be a limit to the relatives (numbers/degree of consanguinity) let in. So under-age children joining parents: yes. But cousins, aunts by marriage, etc: no. And law-breaking should push you to the back of the queue: otherwise it is unfair to those who try to enter the country legitimately and it rewards the wrong behaviour and incentivises people smigglers.
If is a major source of immigration and one of the reasons that the government has found it so hard to limit non EU immigrants. It would be surprising if we didn’t have the same effect from the 3m EU citizens already here. I really don’t see EU immigration falling below 100k a year after we leave.
Edit. Apologies seem to have completely screwed up the nesting here.
Corbyn also drew support from Greens, Lib Dems, non voters, and probably most crucially, about 20% of UKIP voters from 2015. The latter made the difference between the Conservatives winning 45-46%, and their actual score of 43%.
I wonder how many commenters on this site are Tory party members (I can think of a few) and whether they are or are not ConHome members.
I don't know that that us the grand evidence of it's utter reliability that you seem to think it is.
Maybe they will get it right, but its not gospel when it comes to Tory views.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kug7qzc4lh/InternalResults_170615_VoteSwitchers_W.pdf
2005 shows no such thing.
No one does Hogmanay like the Scots - I left Scotland when still a child, but one return visit as a teen was a memorable experience - the whole town (virtually) threw an open house party "Come away in, your Mother taught our daughter so you're most welcome, is it whisky or sherry you're having?"
Mind you, things might have changed.....
i.e.
2005 GE Labour lead overstated.
Polling companies overadjusted their approach in response to 2005. 2010 Con lead overstated.
Polling companies overadjusted their approach in response to 2010. 2015 Con lead understated.
Polling companies overadjusted their approach in response to 2015. 2017 Con lead overstated.
Polling companies overadjusted(?) their approach in response to 2017. 2019 Con lead understated?
Most of the people who ConHome wanted didn’t even stand six months later.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/08/05/why-im-expecting-boris-to-fail-in-his-bid-to-be-theresa-mays-successor/
By contrast, Brexit didn't seem to affect Tory voters' abstention rate, with 12% of both their Remain voters and Leave voters sitting out.
My thinking (and I'm postulating JCs too) is that by the time the next election happens in 2022, Brexit will be history and will have lost its animating influence among most of the electorate.
Changed days.
A school joke, (in the seventies) - told by a teacher:
"A group of Pakis (to be truthful) refugees were stopped on the beach.
"Police?"
"No. Psychiatrists"
Who would want to come to Britain?
But, theoretically, since Corbyn's shown he's capable of making deep inroads into the Tory vote before, he is capable of doing so again, no? (And, to be fair, by the same logic, May is surely capable of making further inroads into the Labour vote since she managed it in 2017.)
Under the current laws, "refugee" and "migrant" are not interchangeable but distinct categories. Though people smugglers and many migrants seek to blur the distinction.
ConHome got Cameron's victory margin almost exactly right in 2005 and asks all its participants whether they are party members and how active they are.
The fact you dislike ConHome results does not make them wrong
The last candidate to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House was Reagan in 1980 and Reagan was the runner up to Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries
EYE Janet.
Any chance of anything more robust than Scotch broth after the bells?
(I send family exiles in England Baxters hampers for Christmas).
Strict enforcement of 'claim where you first arrive' would create a very skewed profile of refugee settlement. Large numbers in Greece, for example, and precious few for us.
When it comes to asylum, I assume (although I'm not sure about it) that the language skills and other talents of the applicant are not deemed relevant.
Polling also suggests it too, of Tory members polls ConHome has Boris ahead, Yougov had Rees Mogg ahead in its last poll.
Survation had Javid ahead though when only Tory councillors were surveyed
The traditional Aberdeen welcome is, “you’ll have had your tea?” Grippet, a good Scots word.
1. Mrs May's deal is decisively rejected on 17th January.
2. Following this defeat, Corbyn proposes a VONC in the government on 17th January but on 18th January, the VONC is defeated when all Tory and DUP MPs back the government. (Tory MPs don't want a GE and the DUP don't want to lose their pivotal role).
3. On January 21st, Mrs May puts Britain on a war footing for a crash out no deal (no transition) in a big bluff. Big drop in Sterling and FTSE.
4. On February 7th, Mrs May puts her deal to the vote again and is again defeated. Her bluff is called. It's now getting desperate.
5. She doesn't want to crash out (ruinous for the UK, the Tory Party and her reputation) so she only has two options to avoid a crash out.
6a. She revokes A50. Nah. She would lose more than half her Cabinet, split the Tory party.
6b. or .. when it's the only option left, she does a deal with the minor parties and Remainer Labour MPs and proposes her deal with the condition that it is supported by a referendum (her Deal versus Remain) and a request to extend A50 to allow time for the referendum. She believes in her deal but she now realises that the only way to get it through parliament is to go over the heads of MPs and appeal to the people.
7. On February 12th, her Deal with a condition of a referendum is passed with support from all the minor parties and 80 Labour MPs who favour a referendum. The alternative is genuinely a crash out.
7. On May 9th, her deal wins the referendum and we exit the EU just before the EuroElections on May 26th.
8. From 2019 to 2029 we continue negotiations on our new relationship through two general elections) during which the status quo prevails.
9. 2030, following another referendum, we rejoin but don't notice the difference.
Please provide a survey of Tory members, not a survey of ConHome members.
On the Lib Dems - agreed, but given where the parties find themselves right now, it seems reasonable to assume that their best chance of a material advance is targeting disgruntled Labour Remainers fed up with their party's stance on Brexit.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/07/09/leave-voting-conservative-party-members-are-starti
That link says Boris is less popular than Rees-Mogg, Javid, Davidson and Gove.
Rather contradicts all your ConHome rants.
But now imagine it's happened.
We're out and it's done. Some have partied, some have wept. Lying ahead are many years of FTA talks, very technical, protracted, complicated, boring even, and where the difference between the 2 main parties is not stark. A close alignment or a very close alignment.
I just don't see that dominating British politics.
Even then Tory members didn't have a good view of Boris and as far as Rees-Mogg is concerned he ranked badly on almost all characteristics except for some reason being viewed as competent. I somewhat doubt he's viewed as competent after his recent shenanigans and failure to count properly.
Even the Yougov poll had Boris beating Hunt, Williamson and Mourdaunt with Tory members
Of those who did vote Labour, my impression (which is very anecdotal, but based on a lot of doorstep discussions and emails) is that about half were very enthused by Corbyn, while the rest were dubious to varying degrees but voted Labour anyway because they always do or because they felt the Tories had to be opposed. The failure of the Mail/Sun offensive was not that they failed to sow doubts, but that they didn't have much impact on the loyalist Labour vote. The argument "vote Lsbour to stop a Tory landslide" didn't actually work in my experience - people not inclined to vote Labour weren't prepared to do so for such a hypothetical reason.
The last is not a viable option, for countries which pride themselves on the rule of law. And it is deeply unfair to those who do abide by the rule of law. Why, for instance, should @Sandpit's wife be denied entry when someone who has broken various laws and may bring no benefit to this country, be allowed in purely because he has had the money and/or unscrupulousness to get here?
I believe the two most popular candidates here amongst Tory members here (not ConHome) are Gove and Javid. Both of which beat Boris in YouGov's out of date poll.
Rees Mogg won't make final 2 let alone be elected leader. Neither will Boris.
Leaving will be the start of the process not the end of it. The EU will affect and in some cases dominate many aspects of British policy in a way it has not done in the past. The reality of not being able to have a say on developments which will impact us will hit home and will be a continuing theme of British politics. And it will affect both parties, albeit in different ways.