I'm not claiming to know anything about the North West.
I do, I live here.
But there's more swing seats in the North West than the North East so why are you assuming the strategy will fail?
Is there polling or electoral evidence of a waterfall of Labour seats turning blue in the NW?
2010 and 2015.
There are a lot of swing seats here. If the Tories are to gain a majority back then it will be via winning votes here and in the Midlands, not where you're based.
Things are rather different now than in 2015 don't you think? What seats specifically do you see going Blue?
I'd be surprised if these don't flip: Crewe and Nantwich Barrow and Furness Warrington South
Potentially also: Blackpool South Weaver Vale
That's without counting the Midlands or anywhere else. More chances there than the North East I imagine.
So that makes up for the losses in Scotland (assuming the Tories lose 6 seats and not the 9 I suspect they will). Boris is going to have to win a lot of seats in the
There's 11 seats in the Midlands requiring a swing under 5% [and more in the NW that would fall with that] and that's without counting Yorkshire or other regions either.
The Tories could win the Midlands and NW marginals alone, lose every single Scottish seat and still end up with a majority.
You’re forgetting places like Putny, Hastings, Richmond Park even Rees Mogg’s seat could easily go the other way.
I could see Berwick going Lib Dem again too although this is a long shot.
I'm forgetting nothing, there's a lot of ifs and maybes. A lot of seats that I'd expect to change hands either way long before seats like City of Durham [which voted nearly 60% Remain btw] become remotely relevant.
Who’s talking about the City of Durham?
You were talking about the North East. You named County Durham. City of Durham is a seat within County Durham within the North East. Seemed relevant.
County Durham and City of Durham are different things.
You were talking about the North East. You named County Durham. City of Durham is a seat within County Durham within the North East. Seemed relevant.
That’s like me using Manchester Central as a counter point to your North West commentary.
Except you said and I'll paraphrase "the strategy won't work because it won't swing rock solid Labour seats where I live" and I said "let's instead look at the swing seats like in the North West and Midlands".
City of Durham with its 25.6% majority for Labour is precisely the sort of seat you seemed to be referencing, but Manchester Central isn't a counter point as while it may be in the North West it is NOT a swing seat. Its also not a swing seat won by Leave which is what I also referenced.
Across the North West if we have a genuine Brexit election [as opposed to the 2017 farce of one] the Tories will struggle more than normal in seats like Manchester Central [which makes no difference because they were going to lose that anyway] but may benefit more in seats like Crewe and Nantwich.
Labour or Lib Dems piling up votes in Manchester Central will do them no favours.
I’m not referencing City of Durham.
I’m talking about working class Leave seats like Gateshead, Blaydon, Jarrow, South Shields, Sunderland Central, Washington and Sunderland West, Houghton and Sunderland South, Wansbeck, Blyth Valley.
This is not middle class suburbia.
How many of them are marginals? Of the names I recognise they all seem like safe seats.
Why not marginal Leave seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Why do they believe all this ? Why do the poorest support Trump ? Is it a false honour ?
They don't, voters earning under $50 000 a year voted for Hillary in 2016, Trump had his biggest lead with middle income voters earning $50 to $100 000 a year, while Hillary almost tied Trump with voters earning over $100 000 a year
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
You were talking about the North East. You named County Durham. City of Durham is a seat within County Durham within the North East. Seemed relevant.
That’s like me using Manchester Central as a counter point to your North West commentary.
Except you said and I'll paraphrase "the strategy won't work because it won't swing rock solid Labour seats where I live" and I said "let's instead look at the swing seats like in the North West and Midlands".
City of Durham with its 25.6% majority for Labour is precisely the sort of seat you seemed to be referencing, but Manchester Central isn't a counter point as while it may be in the North West it is NOT a swing seat. Its also not a swing seat won by Leave which is what I also referenced.
Across the North West if we have a genuine Brexit election [as opposed to the 2017 farce of one] the Tories will struggle more than normal in seats like Manchester Central [which makes no difference because they were going to lose that anyway] but may benefit more in seats like Crewe and Nantwich.
Labour or Lib Dems piling up votes in Manchester Central will do them no favours.
I’m not referencing City of Durham.
I’m talking about working class Leave seats like Gateshead, Blaydon, Jarrow, South Shields, Sunderland Central, Washington and Sunderland West, Houghton and Sunderland South, Wansbeck, Blyth Valley.
This is not middle class suburbia.
How many of them are marginals? Of the names I recognise they all seem like safe seats.
Why not marginal Leave seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
My whole point, from the very beginning of this conversation, was that Boris will get big swings in these safe seats but not take them.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Why do they believe all this ? Why do the poorest support Trump ? Is it a false honour ?
They don't, voters earning under $50 000 a year voted for Hillary in 2016, Trump had his biggest lead with middle income voters earning $50 to $100 000 a year, while Hillary almost tied Trump with voters earning over $100 000 a year
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Straight out of the Tory manifesto. God it’s boring.
My whole point, from the very beginning of this conversation, was that Boris will get big swings in these safe seats but not take them.
So more productively, since you guys both know your areas, how many seats in each do we reckon are in play, and how many are just making a big splash against the side of the sea wall?
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
You were talking about the North East. You named County Durham. City of Durham is a seat within County Durham within the North East. Seemed relevant.
That’s like me using Manchester Central as a counter point to your North West commentary.
Except you said and I'll paraphrase "the strategy won't work because it won't swing rock solid Labour seats where I live" and I said "let's instead look at the swing seats like in the North West and Midlands".
City of Durham with its 25.6% majority for Labour is precisely the sort of seat you seemed to be referencing, but Manchester Central isn't a counter point as while it may be in the North West it is NOT a swing seat. Its also not a swing seat won by Leave which is what I also referenced.
Across the North West if we have a genuine Brexit election [as opposed to the 2017 farce of one] the Tories will struggle more than normal in seats like Manchester Central [which makes no difference because they were going to lose that anyway] but may benefit more in seats like Crewe and Nantwich.
Labour or Lib Dems piling up votes in Manchester Central will do them no favours.
I’m not referencing City of Durham.
I’m talking about working class Leave seats like Gateshead, Blaydon, Jarrow, South Shields, Sunderland Central, Washington and Sunderland West, Houghton and Sunderland South, Wansbeck, Blyth Valley.
This is not middle class suburbia.
How many of them are marginals? Of the names I recognise they all seem like safe seats.
Why not marginal Leave seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
My whole point, from the very beginning of this conversation, was that Boris will get big swings in these safe seats but not take them.
Stop moving the goalposts FFS.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Yes but Johnson's window for victory is small. After no deal the time between a Johnson landslide and a Corbyn majority could be very tight if things start to get messy.
Depends how messy.
If its a temporary blip that is overcome then like the Fuel Protests of 2000 which saw Hague poll leads in the polls prior to the Blair landslide of 2001 I think it will be much ado about nothing.
The disruption from the fuel protests was relatively minor and very short-lived and yet the electorate temporarily completely lost their shit over it.
There's a very low bar beyond which disruption will cause far-reaching electoral consequences. I think if there's a shortage of anything that's taken for granted that lasts more than half a week, then that will be curtains.
Psychologically I think the UK is not inclined to stoicism. I think it could be quite embarrassing. Like the KFC shortage but dialled up to 11.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Considering the UC rollout only finished in Dec 18 I don’t know how you can say that is the reason we have record employment.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Nah. Employment was on an upward curve waaaay before UC. We are talking liver cancer, psychosis, single mums with kids under 5 and a violent ex-partner now. Everyone else is working now. Who is going to employ them? No responsible employer would. We used to have a system for ensuring they were all right.
Tonight's Deltapoll gives the highest combined Tory + Brexit Party vote since Johnson became leader, at 49%. With the BP on 14%, there is a lot of Leave support left for Johnson to squeeze in a General Election to add to that 35%.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Nah. Employment was on an upward curve waaaay before UC. We are talking liver cancer, psychosis, single mums with kids under 5 and a violent ex-partner now. Everyone else is working now. Who is going to employ them? No responsible employer would. We used to have a system for ensuring they were all right.
Nah, getting people who could work to work 16 hours and no more than that "as the Jobcentre won't let me work more or I'll lose my benefits" was how it worked for lots of the country previously.
Now people are progressing from minimum wage '16 hour and no more' jobs as UC helps with that. That is why despite the furore over "zero hour contracts" not only is employment increasing but full time employment is increasing as a share of employment too.
People who were previously trapped in poverty unable or unwilling to work beyond 16 hours on minimum wage as they didn't see a point now can. That's progress.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
All of the safe Labour seats I have referenced have been heavily Leave.
I see Boris’s education spending policy announcement was in the news for less than 24 hours. Great work Dominic.
Wait for Wednesday. Dominic has laid a trap.
Wednesday is when the education spending and Police spending and all this other good spending gets unlocked by the Spending Review.
Unless of course the opposition and rebels in Parliament choose to deny time to the Spending Review in order to drag Brexit on and thus deny the kids their money, deny the Police their funds etc
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
All of the safe Labour seats I have referenced have been heavily Leave.
Which is irrelevant as they are cherrypicked exceptions to the rule.
Safe seats are on average more Remain. Marginal seats are on average more Leave.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Considering the UC rollout only finished in Dec 18 I don’t know how you can say that is the reason we have record employment.
UC rollout is far from finished. Dec 18 is Northumberland. Many places haven't even started yet. Ultimately, it will affect everyone claiming WTC and CTC. The surface hasn't been scratched yet.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
All of the safe Labour seats I have referenced have been heavily Leave.
Which is irrelevant as they are cherrypicked exceptions to the rule.
Safe seats are on average more Remain. Marginal seats are on average more Leave.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Considering the UC rollout only finished in Dec 18 I don’t know how you can say that is the reason we have record employment.
UC rollout is far from finished. Dec 18 is Northumberland. Many places haven't even started yet. Ultimately, it will affect everyone claiming WTC and CTC. The surface hasn't been scratched yet.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
All of the safe Labour seats I have referenced have been heavily Leave.
Which is irrelevant as they are cherrypicked exceptions to the rule.
Safe seats are on average more Remain. Marginal seats are on average more Leave.
That is what the data says.
But do we know where the greater swings are? No.
If the swings are based on Brexit in a genuinely Brexit election then yes they will be in the marginals more than safe seats because that is where the voters are.
What evidence do you have that seats like Gateshead will swing more than seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
Tonight's Deltapoll gives the highest combined Tory + Brexit Party vote since Johnson became leader, at 49%. With the BP on 14%, there is a lot of Leave support left for Johnson to squeeze in a General Election to add to that 35%.
...Or that's a sign that they have a dodgy sample.
Over the last three years I've seen very little evidence of significant changes in Remain/Leave opinion, so why would you think a poll that shows a significant change is valid, rather than being a rogue sample?
(This is a cut-out-and-keep comment that can be reused for the next poll that has an anonymously low combined Tory+ Brexit Party share).
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
All of the safe Labour seats I have referenced have been heavily Leave.
Which is irrelevant as they are cherrypicked exceptions to the rule.
Safe seats are on average more Remain. Marginal seats are on average more Leave.
That is what the data says.
But do we know where the greater swings are? No.
If the swings are based on Brexit in a genuinely Brexit election then yes they will be in the marginals more than safe seats because that is where the voters are.
What evidence do you have that seats like Gateshead will swing more than seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
Just as much evidence as you saying the opposite. Ie none.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
All of the safe Labour seats I have referenced have been heavily Leave.
Which is irrelevant as they are cherrypicked exceptions to the rule.
Safe seats are on average more Remain. Marginal seats are on average more Leave.
That is what the data says.
But do we know where the greater swings are? No.
If the swings are based on Brexit in a genuinely Brexit election then yes they will be in the marginals more than safe seats because that is where the voters are.
What evidence do you have that seats like Gateshead will swing more than seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
Just as much evidence as you saying the opposite. Ie none.
I do have evidence for the opposite. I have literally given data.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
All of the safe Labour seats I have referenced have been heavily Leave.
Which is irrelevant as they are cherrypicked exceptions to the rule.
Safe seats are on average more Remain. Marginal seats are on average more Leave.
That is what the data says.
But do we know where the greater swings are? No.
If the swings are based on Brexit in a genuinely Brexit election then yes they will be in the marginals more than safe seats because that is where the voters are.
What evidence do you have that seats like Gateshead will swing more than seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
Just as much evidence as you saying the opposite. Ie none.
I do have evidence for the opposite. I have literally given data.
No you haven’t. You’ve told me the marginals are more leave and then assured me this means they will have greater swings with no evidence to support that.
At least I have the honesty to admit that my point is simply an opinion.
There may be other links that combine them better, but target seats are more Brexity than non-target seats on average. A Brexit election won't result in greater swings in safe seats [and I don't see why a non-Brexit election would either] since that goes against the data available.
There may be other links that combine them better, but target seats are more Brexity than non-target seats on average. A Brexit election won't result in greater swings in safe seats [and I don't see why a non-Brexit election would either] since that goes against the data available.
I’m not disputing that target seats are more brexity. Why do you keep repeating this?
There may be other links that combine them better, but target seats are more Brexity than non-target seats on average. A Brexit election won't result in greater swings in safe seats [and I don't see why a non-Brexit election would either] since that goes against the data available.
I’m not disputing that target seats are more brexity. Why do you keep repeating this?
Because you keep pointing to seats like Gateshead and saying they'll swing more in a Brexit-induced election without giving a reason why.
If this is an election about Brexit then the swing will logically be to the Tories more in more Brexity seats and away from the Tories more in more Remainery seats. Which means a swing more to the Tories in marginals and away from them in safe seats. The polar opposite of your claim.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Considering the UC rollout only finished in Dec 18 I don’t know how you can say that is the reason we have record employment.
UC rollout is far from finished. Dec 18 is Northumberland. Many places haven't even started yet. Ultimately, it will affect everyone claiming WTC and CTC. The surface hasn't been scratched yet.
Apologies. I didn’t know that.
Absolutely no need to apologise. The vast majority, who are in work, have yet to be put on it, even in areas where it has been rolled out. If and when it is, which means a month with no WTC or CTC HB CB and CTC, then a large drop in income permanently will result. Right now, it is targeting the sick, disabled and unemployable, largely by migrating people off ESA onto UC. Basically saying you are too sick or disabled to work, so find work or be penalised. Those in reasonable employment claiming WTC and CTC are unaffected. So far. Ultimately, though,it will affect almost all working age people if they are mad enough to go through with it.
There may be other links that combine them better, but target seats are more Brexity than non-target seats on average. A Brexit election won't result in greater swings in safe seats [and I don't see why a non-Brexit election would either] since that goes against the data available.
I’m not disputing that target seats are more brexity. Why do you keep repeating this?
Because you keep pointing to seats like Gateshead and saying they'll swing more in a Brexit-induced election without giving a reason why.
If this is an election about Brexit then the swing will logically be to the Tories more in more Brexity seats and away from the Tories more in more Remainery seats. Which means a swing more to the Tories in marginals and away from them in safe seats. The polar opposite of your claim.
1. that assumes that EU ref. non voters will turn out 2. that assumes that these leave constituencies are still pro Brexit which is by no means guaranteed 3. that assumes pro Brexit people are even going to vote for the Conservatives. They could easily vote for Brexit Party, UKIP or other independents 4. that assumes leaves will be more motivated than remainers in marginals
My hypothesis is based on local observations. You call it cherry picking but the North East was a major bastion for Leave and if Boris gets higher than average swing here to no benefit he gets lower elsewhere.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Considering the UC rollout only finished in Dec 18 I don’t know how you can say that is the reason we have record employment.
UC rollout is far from finished. Dec 18 is Northumberland. Many places haven't even started yet. Ultimately, it will affect everyone claiming WTC and CTC. The surface hasn't been scratched yet.
Apologies. I didn’t know that.
Absolutely no need to apologise. The vast majority, who are in work, have yet to be put on it, even in areas where it has been rolled out. If and when it is, which means a month with no WTC or CTC HB CB and CTC, then a large drop in income permanently will result. Right now, it is targeting the sick, disabled and unemployable, largely by migrating people off ESA onto UC. Basically saying you are too sick or disabled to work, so find work or be penalised. Those in reasonable employment claiming WTC and CTC are unaffected. So far. Ultimately, though,it will affect almost all working age people if they are mad enough to go through with it.
Why should almost all working age people be claiming WTC or CTC?
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Nah. Employment was on an upward curve waaaay before UC. We are talking liver cancer, psychosis, single mums with kids under 5 and a violent ex-partner now. Everyone else is working now. Who is going to employ them? No responsible employer would. We used to have a system for ensuring they were all right.
Nah, getting people who could work to work 16 hours and no more than that "as the Jobcentre won't let me work more or I'll lose my benefits" was how it worked for lots of the country previously.
Now people are progressing from minimum wage '16 hour and no more' jobs as UC helps with that. That is why despite the furore over "zero hour contracts" not only is employment increasing but full time employment is increasing as a share of employment too.
People who were previously trapped in poverty unable or unwilling to work beyond 16 hours on minimum wage as they didn't see a point now can. That's progress.
That, with all due respect, is bollocks. What about those who can't work?. What about those who no one will employ? It really doesn't help if you have terminal cancer.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Nah. Employment was on an upward curve waaaay before UC. We are talking liver cancer, psychosis, single mums with kids under 5 and a violent ex-partner now. Everyone else is working now. Who is going to employ them? No responsible employer would. We used to have a system for ensuring they were all right.
Nah, getting people who could work to work 16 hours and no more than that "as the Jobcentre won't let me work more or I'll lose my benefits" was how it worked for lots of the country previously.
Now people are progressing from minimum wage '16 hour and no more' jobs as UC helps with that. That is why despite the furore over "zero hour contracts" not only is employment increasing but full time employment is increasing as a share of employment too.
People who were previously trapped in poverty unable or unwilling to work beyond 16 hours on minimum wage as they didn't see a point now can. That's progress.
That, with all due respect, is bollocks. What about those who can't work?. What about those who no one will employ? It really doesn't help if you have terminal cancer.
I'm not talking about those who can't work. Those who can't work shouldn't be on UC and be getting told to work.
What about those who can work though? What about those who can be employed? What about those who think if they work more than 16 hours they'll lose their benefits? That's more people than you're talking about in my experience.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Nah. Employment was on an upward curve waaaay before UC. We are talking liver cancer, psychosis, single mums with kids under 5 and a violent ex-partner now. Everyone else is working now. Who is going to employ them? No responsible employer would. We used to have a system for ensuring they were all right.
Nah, getting people who could work to work 16 hours and no more than that "as the Jobcentre won't let me work more or I'll lose my benefits" was how it worked for lots of the country previously.
Now people are progressing from minimum wage '16 hour and no more' jobs as UC helps with that. That is why despite the furore over "zero hour contracts" not only is employment increasing but full time employment is increasing as a share of employment too.
People who were previously trapped in poverty unable or unwilling to work beyond 16 hours on minimum wage as they didn't see a point now can. That's progress.
That, with all due respect, is bollocks. What about those who can't work?. What about those who no one will employ? It really doesn't help if you have terminal cancer.
I'm not talking about those who can't work. Those who can't work shouldn't be on UC and be getting told to work.
What about those who can work though? What about those who can be employed? What about those who think if they work more than 16 hours they'll lose their benefits? That's more people than you're talking about in my experience.
As someone who works on the coal face of UC. Those who can't work are being put on UC. For those who can, especially those in the gig economy it works better than before.
As someone who works on the coal face of UC. Those who can't work are being put on UC. For those who can, especially those in the gig economy it works better than before.
I think we're talking cross-purposes then. If you're saying its working better than before for those who can work then that was my point. I don't think we are disagreeing then.
If people who can't work are being told they have to work then that is inappropriate regardless of system. That is inappropriate regardess of whether we are speaking about UC, JSA or WTC. Do you disagree?
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Considering the UC rollout only finished in Dec 18 I don’t know how you can say that is the reason we have record employment.
UC rollout is far from finished. Dec 18 is Northumberland. Many places haven't even started yet. Ultimately, it will affect everyone claiming WTC and CTC. The surface hasn't been scratched yet.
Apologies. I didn’t know that.
Absolutely no need to apologise. The vast majority, who are in work, have yet to be put on it, even in areas where it has been rolled out. If and when it is, which means a month with no WTC or CTC HB CB and CTC, then a large drop in income permanently will result. Right now, it is targeting the sick, disabled and unemployable, largely by migrating people off ESA onto UC. Basically saying you are too sick or disabled to work, so find work or be penalised. Those in reasonable employment claiming WTC and CTC are unaffected. So far. Ultimately, though,it will affect almost all working age people if they are mad enough to go through with it.
Why should almost all working age people be claiming WTC or CTC?
Because housing costs gauged by BTL landlords are sky high? Because the cost of child care is prohibitive? Jeez, it almost sounds like you have no comprehension of why people voted Leave.
To emphasise my point, several people, unprompted, have told me at the food bank, that once we are out of the EU, Boris will be able to abolish Universal Credit and put a stop to benefit sanctions.
Universal credit aims to ensure work always pays, no matter how little, it is the teething problems that need solving not the principle that you can lose all your benefits working over 16 hours a week
Yes it does. The principle is sound. The practicality of it is a fucking shambles though.
The practicality of it works which is why we have record employment.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
Considering the UC rollout only finished in Dec 18 I don’t know how you can say that is the reason we have record employment.
UC rollout is far from finished. Dec 18 is Northumberland. Many places haven't even started yet. Ultimately, it will affect everyone claiming WTC and CTC. The surface hasn't been scratched yet.
Apologies. I didn’t know that.
Absolutely no need to apologise. The vast majority, who are in work, have yet to be put on it, even in areas where it has been rolled out. If and when it is, which means a month with no WTC or CTC HB CB and CTC, then a large drop in income permanently will result. Right now, it is targeting the sick, disabled and unemployable, largely by migrating people off ESA onto UC. Basically saying you are too sick or disabled to work, so find work or be penalised. Those in reasonable employment claiming WTC and CTC are unaffected. So far. Ultimately, though,it will affect almost all working age people if they are mad enough to go through with it.
Why should almost all working age people be claiming WTC or CTC?
Because housing costs gauged by BTL landlords are sky high? Because the cost of child care is prohibitive? Jeez, it almost sounds like you have no comprehension of why people voted Leave.
To take back control of our laws, money and borders. Obviously.
As someone who works on the coal face of UC. Those who can't work are being put on UC. For those who can, especially those in the gig economy it works better than before.
I think we're talking cross-purposes then. If you're saying its working better than before for those who can work then that was my point. I don't think we are disagreeing then.
If people who can't work are being told they have to work then that is inappropriate regardless of system. That is inappropriate regardess of whether we are speaking about UC, JSA or WTC. Do you disagree?
Of course not. But it is having a catastrophic effect on those who can't.
As someone who works on the coal face of UC. Those who can't work are being put on UC. For those who can, especially those in the gig economy it works better than before.
I think we're talking cross-purposes then. If you're saying its working better than before for those who can work then that was my point. I don't think we are disagreeing then.
If people who can't work are being told they have to work then that is inappropriate regardless of system. That is inappropriate regardess of whether we are speaking about UC, JSA or WTC. Do you disagree?
Of course not. But it is having a catastrophic effect on those who can't.
Then lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The problems for those who can work were very real and if the solution is improved for them then great that was its purpose.
If there's an issue with those who can't then that should be dealt with, I don't think we disagree on that. Although I mean if people genuinely can't work - my next door neighbour a decade ago [before UC] made no secret of the fact he was signed off unable to work and claiming benefits while working a job cash in hand. People who take advantage like that make it harder for those who really need the help.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
All of the safe Labour seats I have referenced have been heavily Leave.
Which is irrelevant as they are cherrypicked exceptions to the rule.
Safe seats are on average more Remain. Marginal seats are on average more Leave.
That is what the data says.
But do we know where the greater swings are? No.
If the swings are based on Brexit in a genuinely Brexit election then yes they will be in the marginals more than safe seats because that is where the voters are.
What evidence do you have that seats like Gateshead will swing more than seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
In Crewe & Nantwich Labour will have first term incumbency - and the former popular Tory MP Edward Timpson is not standing again.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
All of the safe Labour seats I have referenced have been heavily Leave.
Which is irrelevant as they are cherrypicked exceptions to the rule.
Safe seats are on average more Remain. Marginal seats are on average more Leave.
That is what the data says.
But do we know where the greater swings are? No.
If the swings are based on Brexit in a genuinely Brexit election then yes they will be in the marginals more than safe seats because that is where the voters are.
What evidence do you have that seats like Gateshead will swing more than seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
In Crewe & Nantwich Labour will have first term incumbency - and the former popular Tory MP Edward Timpson is not standing again.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
All of the safe Labour seats I have referenced have been heavily Leave.
Which is irrelevant as they are cherrypicked exceptions to the rule.
Safe seats are on average more Remain. Marginal seats are on average more Leave.
That is what the data says.
But do we know where the greater swings are? No.
If the swings are based on Brexit in a genuinely Brexit election then yes they will be in the marginals more than safe seats because that is where the voters are.
What evidence do you have that seats like Gateshead will swing more than seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
In Crewe & Nantwich Labour will have first term incumbency - and the former popular Tory MP Edward Timpson is not standing again.
Indeed hence why I said "seats like" for both.
It's a single seat ! The point is that first time incumbency and the withdrawal of a popular former MP probably means that Labour is better placed there than the figures suggest.
This won't work will it? I thought it was the 27 who decide whether to extend A50 - not the 28?
Senior Tories have war-gamed how to react if Remain MPs pass laws forcing Mr Johnson to demand a Brexit extension. Under one scenario, he would duly ask for a delay beyond October 31 – but then use the UK's veto in the EU to kill his own request;
The Prime Minister's suspension of Parliament during the party conference period is certainly gamesmanship, and open to criticism. Prorogations, even quite long ones, are not unusual.
But this one is unusually long and will create extra difficulties for opponents of Brexit, though it still leaves them remarkable room to make trouble, which no real dictator or despot would have permitted.
Some on Boris Johnson's own side no doubt have reservations about the suspension. But it is also a perfectly reasonable response to openly declared plans by Remainers to try to bring down the Government or obstruct its single most important and urgent policy objective.
What sort of Prime Minister sits and does nothing in the face of such efforts? It would be weak and ineffectual for Mr Johnson to fail to react, and it would also persuade the EU leaders that he did not mean business.
He must act firmly at home if he is to be able to negotiate firmly abroad.
Yes but Johnson's window for victory is small. After no deal the time between a Johnson landslide and a Corbyn majority could be very tight if things start to get messy.
Depends how messy.
If its a temporary blip that is overcome then like the Fuel Protests of 2000 which saw Hague poll leads in the polls prior to the Blair landslide of 2001 I think it will be much ado about nothing.
The disruption from the fuel protests was relatively minor and very short-lived and yet the electorate temporarily completely lost their shit over it.
There's a very low bar beyond which disruption will cause far-reaching electoral consequences. I think if there's a shortage of anything that's taken for granted that lasts more than half a week, then that will be curtains.
Psychologically I think the UK is not inclined to stoicism. I think it could be quite embarrassing. Like the KFC shortage but dialled up to 11.
Yes, I think this is correct. Nothing about modern English society and popular culture indicates stamina, stoicism and high tolerance for hardship.
I was forced to watch the first two episodes of a dire tv show called ‘The Island’ this week. Jeeepers creepers! What a bunch of total and utter pussies and mental retards. My favourites were a former (ahem) “soldier” who started whining after about 5 seconds, and the (ahem) “doctor” who forced half the contestants to drink stagnant (!!!!) water. FFS. The thicko “doctor” couldn’t work out why everyone was puking. Most primary school kids would’ve been smarter.
Now I realise that it was in the interests of the show’s producers to pick a bunch of fundamentally weak, thick and flawed personalities: it makes for “good tv” (I thought it was absolute shit tv, but I’m not the target audience), but even so: one came away with the impression that the English are absaflippinlootley useless... really, really useless... at putting up with even the slightest hint of hardship.
I’m coming round to the argument that we just let BoZo the Clown get on with it: let them No Deal at Halloween. Let them do it, and let them own it. Let them own it 100%. I have no doubt whatsoever that it’ll fundamentally cripple the Conservative and Unionist movement for half a century, which is plenty of time for its opponents to fundamentally dismantle the entire infrastructure supporting the shits.
It's a single seat ! The point is that first time incumbency and the withdrawal of a popular former MP probably means that Labour is better placed there than the figures suggest.
Justin, I respect your First Time Incumbency point. Technically you are correct. But it only helps a little, and you seem to be hoping it helps a lot. It will not save screeds of Labour seats if there is a big anti-Labour swing; it would only save a few.
Labour’s key weakness is that your leader is a Cold War relic. He is just so far out of date he looks out of place on colour tv. He is a black and white personality in an multifaceted world.
I don’t personally dislike the guy. He is a survivor, and stamina is important in a leader, but I’m a bit of a polling nerd (like you and many others here), and the numbers on Corbyn are not good. Not good at all. In fact they are bloody awful. Voters just do not take to him.
Such deeply unpopular leaders do not win elections. They cannot; no matter how appalling the sitting government has been.
The Tories are demonstrably incompetent and evil, Labour is unclear and led by a profoundly unpopular crank; and the Lib Dem leader lacks the calibre to run a small local authority. And then there’s the Brexit Party. I feel genuinely sorry for English voters: most of you are going to be struggling to find a name worth crossing on the ballot paper.
I'm not. My point is that seats like that don't matter! And they are more than cancelled out by seats like Manchester Central, Hackney, Bristol West and others where Remain won by 3 to 1 and Tories are 50 points behind.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
The point is that I think Boris will get bigger swings in safe Labour seats than in important marginals and that matters when looking at the polls.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
The evidence doesn't support your point though!
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
All of the safe Labour seats I have referenced have been heavily Leave.
Which is irrelevant as they are cherrypicked exceptions to the rule.
Safe seats are on average more Remain. Marginal seats are on average more Leave.
That is what the data says.
But do we know where the greater swings are? No.
If the swings are based on Brexit in a genuinely Brexit election then yes they will be in the marginals more than safe seats because that is where the voters are.
What evidence do you have that seats like Gateshead will swing more than seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
In Crewe & Nantwich Labour will have first term incumbency - and the former popular Tory MP Edward Timpson is not standing again.
Your faith in first term incumbency is touching. I prefer the notion that "You've turned out to be a useless fecker - bugger off!"
This won't work will it? I thought it was the 27 who decide whether to extend A50 - not the 28?
Senior Tories have war-gamed how to react if Remain MPs pass laws forcing Mr Johnson to demand a Brexit extension. Under one scenario, he would duly ask for a delay beyond October 31 – but then use the UK's veto in the EU to kill his own request;
" The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
Comments
Why not marginal Leave seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
Stop moving the goalposts FFS.
My point is we should ignore seats like Gateshead and Manchester Central and concentrate on the marginals - and a lot of marginals are more leave than non-marginals oddly enough since Remain concentrated their votes in very safe city centres.
There have been teething issues and more can be done but the principle is sound and the practice is better than leaving people in a poverty trap.
There's a very low bar beyond which disruption will cause far-reaching electoral consequences. I think if there's a shortage of anything that's taken for granted that lasts more than half a week, then that will be curtains.
Psychologically I think the UK is not inclined to stoicism. I think it could be quite embarrassing. Like the KFC shortage but dialled up to 11.
I’m interested to find out if the Lib Dems will outperform their swing in less traditional places as ‘wet’ Tories switch their votes. This will be outside city centres.
Safe Labour seats are more safe Remain than they are Leave on average.
Marginal seats are more Leave than Remain. You can cherrypick exceptions of course but Remain dominated in seats the Tories don't have a chance in while Leave swept swathes of marginal constituencies.
Who is going to employ them? No responsible employer would.
We used to have a system for ensuring they were all right.
Do you think a deal that is good for Britain and f##k the unionists in NI who cares about them is appropriate?
Now people are progressing from minimum wage '16 hour and no more' jobs as UC helps with that. That is why despite the furore over "zero hour contracts" not only is employment increasing but full time employment is increasing as a share of employment too.
People who were previously trapped in poverty unable or unwilling to work beyond 16 hours on minimum wage as they didn't see a point now can. That's progress.
Wednesday is when the education spending and Police spending and all this other good spending gets unlocked by the Spending Review.
Unless of course the opposition and rebels in Parliament choose to deny time to the Spending Review in order to drag Brexit on and thus deny the kids their money, deny the Police their funds etc
Safe seats are on average more Remain.
Marginal seats are on average more Leave.
That is what the data says.
What evidence do you have that seats like Gateshead will swing more than seats like Crewe and Nantwich?
Over the last three years I've seen very little evidence of significant changes in Remain/Leave opinion, so why would you think a poll that shows a significant change is valid, rather than being a rogue sample?
(This is a cut-out-and-keep comment that can be reused for the next poll that has an anonymously low combined Tory+ Brexit Party share).
At least I have the honesty to admit that my point is simply an opinion.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/eureferendum_constitunecy.xlsx
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/parliament-and-elections/elections-elections/brexit-votes-by-constituency/
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
There may be other links that combine them better, but target seats are more Brexity than non-target seats on average. A Brexit election won't result in greater swings in safe seats [and I don't see why a non-Brexit election would either] since that goes against the data available.
If this is an election about Brexit then the swing will logically be to the Tories more in more Brexity seats and away from the Tories more in more Remainery seats. Which means a swing more to the Tories in marginals and away from them in safe seats. The polar opposite of your claim.
The vast majority, who are in work, have yet to be put on it, even in areas where it has been rolled out. If and when it is, which means a month with no WTC or CTC HB CB and CTC, then a large drop in income permanently will result.
Right now, it is targeting the sick, disabled and unemployable, largely by migrating people off ESA onto UC. Basically saying you are too sick or disabled to work, so find work or be penalised.
Those in reasonable employment claiming WTC and CTC are unaffected. So far.
Ultimately, though,it will affect almost all working age people if they are mad enough to go through with it.
2. that assumes that these leave constituencies are still pro Brexit which is by no means guaranteed
3. that assumes pro Brexit people are even going to vote for the Conservatives. They could easily vote for Brexit Party, UKIP or other independents
4. that assumes leaves will be more motivated than remainers in marginals
My hypothesis is based on local observations. You call it cherry picking but the North East was a major bastion for Leave and if Boris gets higher than average swing here to no benefit he gets lower elsewhere.
What about those who can work though? What about those who can be employed? What about those who think if they work more than 16 hours they'll lose their benefits? That's more people than you're talking about in my experience.
If people who can't work are being told they have to work then that is inappropriate regardless of system. That is inappropriate regardess of whether we are speaking about UC, JSA or WTC. Do you disagree?
https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1167949176946053122?s=20
If there's an issue with those who can't then that should be dealt with, I don't think we disagree on that. Although I mean if people genuinely can't work - my next door neighbour a decade ago [before UC] made no secret of the fact he was signed off unable to work and claiming benefits while working a job cash in hand. People who take advantage like that make it harder for those who really need the help.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1167918146025443328?s=20
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7414911/Boris-Johnsons-allies-plot-topple-John-Bercow-election.html
Senior Tories have war-gamed how to react if Remain MPs pass laws forcing Mr Johnson to demand a Brexit extension. Under one scenario, he would duly ask for a delay beyond October 31 – but then use the UK's veto in the EU to kill his own request;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7415007/Youre-scared-election-bring-Boris-Johnson-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-tells-Remainer-rabble.html
The Prime Minister's suspension of Parliament during the party conference period is certainly gamesmanship, and open to criticism. Prorogations, even quite long ones, are not unusual.
But this one is unusually long and will create extra difficulties for opponents of Brexit, though it still leaves them remarkable room to make trouble, which no real dictator or despot would have permitted.
Some on Boris Johnson's own side no doubt have reservations about the suspension. But it is also a perfectly reasonable response to openly declared plans by Remainers to try to bring down the Government or obstruct its single most important and urgent policy objective.
What sort of Prime Minister sits and does nothing in the face of such efforts? It would be weak and ineffectual for Mr Johnson to fail to react, and it would also persuade the EU leaders that he did not mean business.
He must act firmly at home if he is to be able to negotiate firmly abroad.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7415007/Youre-scared-election-bring-Boris-Johnson-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-tells-Remainer-rabble.html
I was forced to watch the first two episodes of a dire tv show called ‘The Island’ this week. Jeeepers creepers! What a bunch of total and utter pussies and mental retards. My favourites were a former (ahem) “soldier” who started whining after about 5 seconds, and the (ahem) “doctor” who forced half the contestants to drink stagnant (!!!!) water. FFS. The thicko “doctor” couldn’t work out why everyone was puking. Most primary school kids would’ve been smarter.
Now I realise that it was in the interests of the show’s producers to pick a bunch of fundamentally weak, thick and flawed personalities: it makes for “good tv” (I thought it was absolute shit tv, but I’m not the target audience), but even so: one came away with the impression that the English are absaflippinlootley useless... really, really useless... at putting up with even the slightest hint of hardship.
I’m coming round to the argument that we just let BoZo the Clown get on with it: let them No Deal at Halloween. Let them do it, and let them own it. Let them own it 100%. I have no doubt whatsoever that it’ll fundamentally cripple the Conservative and Unionist movement for half a century, which is plenty of time for its opponents to fundamentally dismantle the entire infrastructure supporting the shits.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnson-tells-tory-rebels-its-me-or-corbyn-chaos-zw0jjkcsk
Labour’s key weakness is that your leader is a Cold War relic. He is just so far out of date he looks out of place on colour tv. He is a black and white personality in an multifaceted world.
I don’t personally dislike the guy. He is a survivor, and stamina is important in a leader, but I’m a bit of a polling nerd (like you and many others here), and the numbers on Corbyn are not good. Not good at all. In fact they are bloody awful. Voters just do not take to him.
Such deeply unpopular leaders do not win elections. They cannot; no matter how appalling the sitting government has been.
The Tories are demonstrably incompetent and evil, Labour is unclear and led by a profoundly unpopular crank; and the Lib Dem leader lacks the calibre to run a small local authority. And then there’s the Brexit Party. I feel genuinely sorry for English voters: most of you are going to be struggling to find a name worth crossing on the ballot paper.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk
" The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."