On thread- OGH is right- this election in only heading in one direction- and a comfortable Tory majority....
Which is exactly what they said at exactly this time two years ago.
In fact, Labour's position viz a viz the tories is better this time around.
This time two years ago the Tories had a cardboard cutout in charge. This time they have a showman.
Two years ago, we did not appreciate how institutionally racist the Labour Party would turn out to be
I agree with Mike. The Tories will win this, probably with a smallish majority, but a majority nonetheless. The LibDems will come second too often and reduce the Labour vote so Boris and the Tories will benefit from that.
The real question is, will even a majority solve the problem? If the people being elected this time are still unwilling to follow party policy, we may be back in the same place. Normally I'm in favour of independent-minded MPs, but I've no desire to see this drawn out any longer than is necessary.
Anne - If Boris gets a majority it may solve the current Brexit problem, but as I used to tell people when I was in the consulting business, when you solve your number one problem, you promote your number two problem.
Once we are technically "out" we still be in until at least 2021 and I am not sure how many Leavers have realised that. Freedom of Movement will still apply. It will at that point that many will go "They can still come here even though we are out?" and there will be more political drama.
I am unsure if Johnson's govt will actually last very long.
The swing appears to be mainly from Cs to PP and Vox.
How well I remember that period when we were told Cs were a cuddly bunch of centrist liberals rather than a home for crypto Falangists and Spanish nationalists.
Rivera's decision to take C’s to the right has proved utterly disastrous. It’s only two years ago the party was ahead in the polling and PSOE was nowhere.
Shooting any living thing for sport could easily disappear, but shooting things for food will last a lot longer. I suspect the life of a pheasant is an improvement on the life of a chicken. We are evolved to be meat (but mostly not dairy) eaters.
Yes, I know a lot of vegans who are pretty relaxed about shooting or fishing for your own food (though disgusted when it's done for sport), and think it far better than eating intensive farm produce. There are some nasty intensive aspects to game bird rearing, though.
The interesting development here though is the explosion of research into lab-grown alternatives which are tweaked to resemble meat exactly (in texture, taste, etc.) with no animals involved. It's thought that we're just a few years away from this being much cheaper than meat (since you don't have all the hassle of rearing the animals), and some predict that it will then displace meat as the standard that most people eat within a decade - after all, if it really does taste the same, why pay double and kill something for an identical result?
On thread- OGH is right- this election in only heading in one direction- and a comfortable Tory majority....
Which is exactly what they said at exactly this time two years ago.
In fact, Labour's position viz a viz the tories is better this time around.
This time two years ago the Tories had a cardboard cutout in charge. This time they have a showman.
Two years ago, we did not appreciate how institutionally racist the Labour Party would turn out to be
I agree with Mike. The Tories will win this, probably with a smallish majority, but a majority nonetheless. The LibDems will come second too often and reduce the Labour vote so Boris and the Tories will benefit from that.
The real question is, will even a majority solve the problem? If the people being elected this time are still unwilling to follow party policy, we may be back in the same place. Normally I'm in favour of independent-minded MPs, but I've no desire to see this drawn out any longer than is necessary.
Anne - If Boris gets a majority it may solve the current Brexit problem, but as I used to tell people when I was in the consulting business, when you solve your number one problem, you promote your number two problem.
Once we are technically "out" we still be in until at least 2021 and I am not sure how many Leavers have realised that. Freedom of Movement will still apply. It will at that point that many will go "They can still come here even though we are out?" and there will be more political drama.
I am unsure if Johnson's govt will actually last very long.
If it is a slim majority, not that long I suspect. If it is a very big one, it can survive any number of disappointments and u-turns, which was of course why May and Boris both risked everything at the prospect of that majority - life will be very hard without it.
Going by YouGov (GB) figures for the Con lead over Lab in the last three polls before an election was called and the first few polls afterwards and comparing 2017 with 2019, the picture looks good for Labour:
Do we have fieldwork dates? Will be interesting to see how much of it was after the news of the ex-Labour MPs advocating a vote for Johnson.
Edit: See now it was 6-8 Nov, so some of it would have been pre-Ian Austin, but lots not.
I’ve talked with quite a few Labour voting friends about the Austin drama . The reaction has been total disgust that he would say vote Tory . I’m not a Corbyn fan but I share the disgust ! Saying he couldn’t vote Labour is one thing , but he crossed the line after that .
The swing appears to be mainly from Cs to PP and Vox.
How well I remember that period when we were told Cs were a cuddly bunch of centrist liberals rather than a home for crypto Falangists and Spanish nationalists.
Rivera's decision to take C’s to the right has proved utterly disastrous. It’s only two years ago the party was ahead in the polling and PSOE was nowhere.
What was their (demented) reasoning for that sharp rightward lurch? Can’t see why the rise of Vox would have hurt them as a centrist force? Perhaps Catalonia?
The swing appears to be mainly from Cs to PP and Vox.
How well I remember that period when we were told Cs were a cuddly bunch of centrist liberals rather than a home for crypto Falangists and Spanish nationalists.
Following on from my visit to Barcelona a couple of weeks ago, just started reading Antony Beevor's "The Battle for Spain", his treatment of the Spanish Civil War.
These numbers, at least the C/Lab ones, remind me of the 2010 campaign. Does anyone remember the final score then?
The Tories started and finished the campaign about 7-8% ahead of Labour. 41/29 will deliver the majority that 37/30 did not.
You know as well as the rest of us that at this stage in 2017, the tories were between 15% and 24% ahead of Labour. They never started only 7-8% ahead.
Edit. Ooops I see you were casting back to 2010. My apologies.
In 2010- the Tories were routinely 10plus ahead of Labour- and were heavy favourites for a majority on the spreads and betting markets on voting day
These numbers, at least the C/Lab ones, remind me of the 2010 campaign. Does anyone remember the final score then?
The Tories started and finished the campaign about 7-8% ahead of Labour. 41/29 will deliver the majority that 37/30 did not.
You think it will remain at that level then?
Personally I expect it to shrink further in the seats where it matters. It's quite hard for the LibDems on figures like these to try to claim they're poised to win in seats where they were third, and I think a chunk of the LibDem vote today is pretty motivated to stop a Johnson overall majority, especially where there's a well-liked local Labour MP, cf. my earlier notes from Portsmouth South. By contrast, there's not much Brexit vote left for the Tories to squeeze.
Interesting that all the stuff about candidates resigning and shambolic campaigns is having no visible effect.
These numbers, at least the C/Lab ones, remind me of the 2010 campaign. Does anyone remember the final score then?
The Tories started and finished the campaign about 7-8% ahead of Labour. 41/29 will deliver the majority that 37/30 did not.
You know as well as the rest of us that at this stage in 2017, the tories were between 15% and 24% ahead of Labour. They never started only 7-8% ahead.
Edit. Ooops I see you were casting back to 2010. My apologies.
In 2010- the Tories were routinely 10plus ahead of Labour- and were heavy favourites for a majority on the spreads and betting markets on voting day
Yep not sure 2010 is comparable. Gordon Brown was bringing to an end 13 years of Labour.
On thread- OGH is right- this election in only heading in one direction- and a comfortable Tory majority....
Which is exactly what they said at exactly this time two years ago.
In fact, Labour's position viz a viz the tories is better this time around.
This time two years ago the Tories had a cardboard cutout in charge. This time they have a showman.
Two years ago, we did not appreciate how institutionally racist the Labour Party would turn out to be
I agree with Mike. The Tories will win this, probably with a smallish majority, but a majority nonetheless. The LibDems will come second too often and reduce the Labour vote so Boris and the Tories will benefit from that.
The real question is, will even a majority solve the problem? If the people being elected this time are still unwilling to follow party policy, we may be back in the same place. Normally I'm in favour of independent-minded MPs, but I've no desire to see this drawn out any longer than is necessary.
Anne - If Boris gets a majority it may solve the current Brexit problem, but as I used to tell people when I was in the consulting business, when you solve your number one problem, you promote your number two problem.
Once we are technically "out" we still be in until at least 2021 and I am not sure how many Leavers have realised that. Freedom of Movement will still apply. It will at that point that many will go "They can still come here even though we are out?" and there will be more political drama.
I am unsure if Johnson's govt will actually last very long.
If it is a slim majority, not that long I suspect. If it is a very big one, it can survive any number of disappointments and u-turns, which was of course why May and Boris both risked everything at the prospect of that majority - life will be very hard without it.
I agree. The size of the majority will be key and will probably depend more on Labour and the LDs than the Tories.
The other factor will be the Brexit Party vote. I do not think it will affect the Tories as much as many think.
Do we have fieldwork dates? Will be interesting to see how much of it was after the news of the ex-Labour MPs advocating a vote for Johnson.
Edit: See now it was 6-8 Nov, so some of it would have been pre-Ian Austin, but lots not.
I’ve talked with quite a few Labour voting friends about the Austin drama . The reaction has been total disgust that he would say vote Tory . I’m not a Corbyn fan but I share the disgust ! Saying he couldn’t vote Labour is one thing , but he crossed the line after that .
Well that's just silly. If someone cannot vote Labour for such strong reasons of course they can consider voting for other people, including Tories. It's seeing crossing lines like that as disgusting which is such a major problem in this country, the pathetic tribalism of left and right that no matter how bad things get you cannot be permitted to consider opposing your own (previous) side, at worst you must just not vote for anyone or only for some approved alternative. People make a judgement call of picking the least worst option all the time, Labour and the Tories thrive on it in particular, so it seems like rank hypocrisy for any party relying on that to decide someone else cannot make the same call, but against you instead of for you.
These numbers, at least the C/Lab ones, remind me of the 2010 campaign. Does anyone remember the final score then?
The Tories started and finished the campaign about 7-8% ahead of Labour. 41/29 will deliver the majority that 37/30 did not.
You know as well as the rest of us that at this stage in 2017, the tories were between 15% and 24% ahead of Labour. They never started only 7-8% ahead.
Edit. Ooops I see you were casting back to 2010. My apologies.
In 2010- the Tories were routinely 10plus ahead of Labour- and were heavy favourites for a majority on the spreads and betting markets on voting day
I will correct myself slightly because the Cleggasm narrowed things slightly during the campaign to the 7/8 percent that Sean it referring to from memory....
These numbers, at least the C/Lab ones, remind me of the 2010 campaign. Does anyone remember the final score then?
The Tories started and finished the campaign about 7-8% ahead of Labour. 41/29 will deliver the majority that 37/30 did not.
You know as well as the rest of us that at this stage in 2017, the tories were between 15% and 24% ahead of Labour. They never started only 7-8% ahead.
Edit. Ooops I see you were casting back to 2010. My apologies.
In 2010- the Tories were routinely 10plus ahead of Labour- and were heavy favourites for a majority on the spreads and betting markets on voting day
I will correct myself slightly because the Cleggasm narrowed things slightly during the campaign to the 7/8 percent that Sean it referring to from memory....
The LDs led in one poll after the debates. It was very close and variable until polling day
The swing appears to be mainly from Cs to PP and Vox.
How well I remember that period when we were told Cs were a cuddly bunch of centrist liberals rather than a home for crypto Falangists and Spanish nationalists.
Rivera's decision to take C’s to the right has proved utterly disastrous. It’s only two years ago the party was ahead in the polling and PSOE was nowhere.
What was their (demented) reasoning for that sharp rightward lurch? Can’t see why the rise of Vox would have hurt them as a centrist force? Perhaps Catalonia?
Totally Catalonia. There’s actually been a lot of churn in Spain. C’s has lost votes to the Socialists (especially in Catalonia), but primarily to PP, who have in turn lost votes to Vox. It looks like the new Parliament will be as deadlocked as the last. Turnout could be crucial. It’s possible that the thought of Vox doing well may drive down abstention rates on the left. We’ll see.
three matches tomorrow. I've bet on all draws (doubt all will come off, although the accumulator's about 47, but the odds seem too long given all the teams seem evenly matched).
That's: Wolves, Villa 3.6 Liverpool, Man City, 3.5 Man U, Brighton 3.75
It is interesting to note that Anne Hobbs, the Labour candidate for Cannock Chase, is a superannuated councillor from Stafford. Her one big thing in the last 15 years is she petitioned against Stafford Hospital being downrated and tried to suppress the inquiry into it. That’s quite a shift in quality from 2015 (local if ineffectual councillor) and 2017 (computer programmer and 7/7 hero).
It looks to me as though this is the gig nobody wanted for Labour, which given they held the seat less than a decade ago and everyone including me thought they would retake it in 2015 is a shocking indictment of their collapse in the Midlands.
Do we have fieldwork dates? Will be interesting to see how much of it was after the news of the ex-Labour MPs advocating a vote for Johnson.
Edit: See now it was 6-8 Nov, so some of it would have been pre-Ian Austin, but lots not.
I’ve talked with quite a few Labour voting friends about the Austin drama . The reaction has been total disgust that he would say vote Tory . I’m not a Corbyn fan but I share the disgust ! Saying he couldn’t vote Labour is one thing , but he crossed the line after that .
Yes, I was thinking about that. At first thought it seemed an extreme step.
Now it makes some sense. Vote Tory once, to purge Labour of the Corbyn parasite and then one can return to Labour. If you vote Lib Dem, though, then you create a challenge for Labour's position as the Opposition.
These numbers, at least the C/Lab ones, remind me of the 2010 campaign. Does anyone remember the final score then?
The Tories started and finished the campaign about 7-8% ahead of Labour. 41/29 will deliver the majority that 37/30 did not.
You know as well as the rest of us that at this stage in 2017, the tories were between 15% and 24% ahead of Labour. They never started only 7-8% ahead.
Edit. Ooops I see you were casting back to 2010. My apologies.
In 2010- the Tories were routinely 10plus ahead of Labour- and were heavy favourites for a majority on the spreads and betting markets on voting day
Yep not sure 2010 is comparable. Gordon Brown was bringing to an end 13 years of Labour.
These numbers, at least the C/Lab ones, remind me of the 2010 campaign. Does anyone remember the final score then?
The Tories started and finished the campaign about 7-8% ahead of Labour. 41/29 will deliver the majority that 37/30 did not.
You think it will remain at that level then?
Personally I expect it to shrink further in the seats where it matters. It's quite hard for the LibDems on figures like these to try to claim they're poised to win in seats where they were third, and I think a chunk of the LibDem vote today is pretty motivated to stop a Johnson overall majority, especially where there's a well-liked local Labour MP, cf. my earlier notes from Portsmouth South. By contrast, there's not much Brexit vote left for the Tories to squeeze.
Interesting that all the stuff about candidates resigning and shambolic campaigns is having no visible effect.
I think that’s right. Johnson’s push for BXP votes is likely to persuade a lot of anti-Tories to do all they can to stop him.
Do we have fieldwork dates? Will be interesting to see how much of it was after the news of the ex-Labour MPs advocating a vote for Johnson.
Edit: See now it was 6-8 Nov, so some of it would have been pre-Ian Austin, but lots not.
I’ve talked with quite a few Labour voting friends about the Austin drama . The reaction has been total disgust that he would say vote Tory . I’m not a Corbyn fan but I share the disgust ! Saying he couldn’t vote Labour is one thing , but he crossed the line after that .
Well that's just silly. If someone cannot vote Labour for such strong reasons of course they can consider voting for other people, including Tories. It's seeing crossing lines like that as disgusting which is such a major problem in this country, the pathetic tribalism of left and right that no matter how bad things get you cannot be permitted to consider opposing your own (previous) side, at worst you must just not vote for anyone or only for some approved alternative. People make a judgement call of picking the least worst option all the time, Labour and the Tories thrive on it in particular, so it seems like rank hypocrisy for any party relying on that to decide someone else cannot make the same call, but against you instead of for you.
So an ex Labour MP who allegedly was Labour to his core is advocating voting for the party of gutting public services , causing absolute despair amongst many disabled people etc .
For those of you thinking about Cheltenham. I am convinced that part of Martin Horwoods downfall was because every Focus seemed to have the message "Martin fighting hard to save XXX health service in Cheltenham." Yet in his tenure Battledown Childrens Hospital closed (can it get worse for an MP than the closure of a Childrens Hospital) and we had a large crisis in A&E on a Saturday morning, featured on Sky News. I can remember my reaction to these and it was "This is Cheltenham, these things do not happen here."
So Mr Chalk has been on his own "I will save the NHS in Cheltenham", the local trust wants to move A&E to Gloucester and close Cheltenham. I seems Mr Chalk has won, just in time for the GE (what a surprise).
Miller is going to publish both her site’s methodology and data, to ensure as much transparency as possible. Her site’s research suggests that the Tories are currently on course to win a majority, with 347 seats. However, it says that, with a tactical voting drive, a narrow majority for a coalition of Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP could deliver a second referendum. Her model – which uses polling that is then combined with demographic data and past voting to come up with recommendations – suggests tactical voting could reduce the Tories to 309 seats, with Labour on 233 and the Lib Dems on 33 seats.
For those of you thinking about Cheltenham. I am convinced that part of Martin Horwoods downfall was because every Focus seemed to have the message "Martin fighting hard to save XXX health service in Cheltenham." Yet in his tenure Battledown Childrens Hospital closed (can it get worse for an MP than the closure of a Childrens Hospital) and we had a large crisis in A&E on a Saturday morning, featured on Sky News. I can remember my reaction to these and it was "This is Cheltenham, these things do not happen here."
So Mr Chalk has been on his own "I will save the NHS in Cheltenham", the local trust wants to move A&E to Gloucester and close Cheltenham. I seems Mr Chalk has won, just in time for the GE (what a surprise).
Chalk will get this message out and I think it could be significant, vote Tory keep your healthcare.
It has always struck me as daft that Gloucester and Cheltenham have two hospitals on cramped, inaccessible and badly located sites when you could build a vast new hospital at Churchdown or Elmbridge Court complete with things like car parks and a proper helipad to serve the whole of northern Gloucestershire.
But, every time it has been proposed it has been shot down.
HYUFD said: "Yes having done austerity at least the Tories look more credible easing off it"
Seems that "austerity" narrative has been picked up and run with. Austerity was an Osborne term, post credit crunch, and I`m sure I recall Hammond/May announcing the end of austerity years ago. Of course Labour has continued to batter the Tories with it, but I`m surprised that the Tories don`t defend this more vigorously.
I`d be interested in your perspective on this. Prudent doesn`t = austerity.
Having said that, IMO the spending pledges coming out from the Tories at the moment have a whiff of imprudency about them.
Spending was close to 50% of gdp in 2010, it is now back nearer 40% or just under so the hard work has been done to cut the deficit.
Osborne's target of getting it down to just 35% was not realistic politically, that is an even lower spending rate than the USA
Do we have fieldwork dates? Will be interesting to see how much of it was after the news of the ex-Labour MPs advocating a vote for Johnson.
Edit: See now it was 6-8 Nov, so some of it would have been pre-Ian Austin, but lots not.
I’ve talked with quite a few Labour voting friends about the Austin drama . The reaction has been total disgust that he would say vote Tory . I’m not a Corbyn fan but I share the disgust ! Saying he couldn’t vote Labour is one thing , but he crossed the line after that .
Well that's just silly. If someone cannot vote Labour for such strong reasons of course they can consider voting for other people, including Tories. It's seeing crossing lines like that as disgusting which is such a major problem in this country, the pathetic tribalism of left and right that no matter how bad things get you cannot be permitted to consider opposing your own (previous) side, at worst you must just not vote for anyone or only for some approved alternative. People make a judgement call of picking the least worst option all the time, Labour and the Tories thrive on it in particular, so it seems like rank hypocrisy for any party relying on that to decide someone else cannot make the same call, but against you instead of for you.
So an ex Labour MP who allegedly was Labour to his core is advocating voting for the party of gutting public services , causing absolute despair amongst many disabled people etc .
In my darker moments I worry that the only thing that will cure people of the urge to vote Labour regardless will be if they actually elect a Far Left Government, and it then screws up the economy so totally and irredeemably that there won't be any money left to pay for the NHS they've spent so many decades mithering about. Or anything else, for that matter.
Do we have fieldwork dates? Will be interesting to see how much of it was after the news of the ex-Labour MPs advocating a vote for Johnson.
Edit: See now it was 6-8 Nov, so some of it would have been pre-Ian Austin, but lots not.
I’ve talked . I’m not a Corbyn fan but I share the disgust ! Saying he couldn’t vote Labour is one thing , but he crossed the line after that .
Well that's just silly. If someone cannot vote Labour for such strong reasons of course they can consider voting for other people, including Tories. It's seeing crossing lines like that as disgusting which is such a major problem in this country, the pathetic tribalism of left and right that no matter how bad things get you cannot be permitted to consider opposing your own (previous) side, at worst you must just not vote for anyone or only for some approved alternative. People make a judgement call of picking the least worst option all the time, Labour and the Tories thrive on it in particular, so it seems like rank hypocrisy for any party relying on that to decide someone else cannot make the same call, but against you instead of for you.
So an ex Labour MP who allegedly was Labour to his core is advocating voting for the party of gutting public services , causing absolute despair amongst many disabled people etc .
Disagreement with someone taking a path we dislike on their own poltiical journey is very different from being disgusted that someone dare go on that political journey, particularly when ignoring why they are on that journey.
It speaks of little more than instinctive tribalism, of affront that someone dare leave the tribe. It's pathetic whichever side it comes from. If it were merely that people think he's making the wrong choice that'd be one thing, but it's the sense of a line being crossed because someone opposes party X now that shows the truth of the matter, the tribal heart of it, that shows it is not merely that there is severe disagreement, but emotional, personal hurt because of them leaving the tribe. When people are viscerally disgusted that someone who used to be on their side no longer is, it's usually pretty clear that they'd react that way no matter why the person left, or who the other side was.
The heresy of their action is what is disgusting in such situations, the specifics are pretty irrelevant. Don't believe me? I'd bet good money the same reaction would have been had if the Tories were not led by Johnson but by someone less odious.
These numbers, at least the C/Lab ones, remind me of the 2010 campaign. Does anyone remember the final score then?
The Tories started and finished the campaign about 7-8% ahead of Labour. 41/29 will deliver the majority that 37/30 did not.
You know as well as the rest of us that at this stage in 2017, the tories were between 15% and 24% ahead of Labour. They never started only 7-8% ahead.
Edit. Ooops I see you were casting back to 2010. My apologies.
In 2010- the Tories were routinely 10plus ahead of Labour- and were heavy favourites for a majority on the spreads and betting markets on voting day
Yep not sure 2010 is comparable. Gordon Brown was bringing to an end 13 years of Labour.
Best thing he ever did.
In 2010 you met plenty of voters who gave Gordon Brown credit for saving the world economy.
Seriously.
Corbyn doesn't have any superpowers to sell to the voters.
It's thought that we're just a few years away from this being much cheaper than meat (since you don't have all the hassle of rearing the animals), and some predict that it will then displace meat as the standard that most people eat within a decade - after all, if it really does taste the same, why pay double and kill something for an identical result?
These new foods will undoubtedly be patented which grants a huge level of control over supply, distibution and pricing. Like any new patent-protected product, these will be very expensive until the patent expires and that is 20 or 25 years IIRC.
Cast your own mind back to video recorders or flat screens or microwave ovens. Their popularity soared and the price dropped when the patent expired. I recall buying one microwave for about £300. A few years later I bought its replacement for £35
These numbers, at least the C/Lab ones, remind me of the 2010 campaign. Does anyone remember the final score then?
The Tories started and finished the campaign about 7-8% ahead of Labour. 41/29 will deliver the majority that 37/30 did not.
You know as well as the rest of us that at this stage in 2017, the tories were between 15% and 24% ahead of Labour. They never started only 7-8% ahead.
Edit. Ooops I see you were casting back to 2010. My apologies.
In 2010- the Tories were routinely 10plus ahead of Labour- and were heavy favourites for a majority on the spreads and betting markets on voting day
Yep not sure 2010 is comparable. Gordon Brown was bringing to an end 13 years of Labour.
Best thing he ever did.
In 2010 you met plenty of voters who gave Gordon Brown credit for saving the world economy.
Seriously.
Corbyn doesn't have any superpowers to sell to the voters.
The swing appears to be mainly from Cs to PP and Vox.
How well I remember that period when we were told Cs were a cuddly bunch of centrist liberals rather than a home for crypto Falangists and Spanish nationalists.
Rivera's decision to take C’s to the right has proved utterly disastrous. It’s only two years ago the party was ahead in the polling and PSOE was nowhere.
What was their (demented) reasoning for that sharp rightward lurch? Can’t see why the rise of Vox would have hurt them as a centrist force? Perhaps Catalonia?
Totally Catalonia. There’s actually been a lot of churn in Spain. C’s has lost votes to the Socialists (especially in Catalonia), but primarily to PP, who have in turn lost votes to Vox. It looks like the new Parliament will be as deadlocked as the last. Turnout could be crucial. It’s possible that the thought of Vox doing well may drive down abstention rates on the left. We’ll see.
The obvious way forward in Spain is for the PS to form a grand coalition with the PP. They are arch rivals but both within the parameters of normal. Won’t happen of course.
For those of you thinking about Cheltenham. I am convinced that part of Martin Horwoods downfall was because every Focus seemed to have the message "Martin fighting hard to save XXX health service in Cheltenham." Yet in his tenure Battledown Childrens Hospital closed (can it get worse for an MP than the closure of a Childrens Hospital) and we had a large crisis in A&E on a Saturday morning, featured on Sky News. I can remember my reaction to these and it was "This is Cheltenham, these things do not happen here."
So Mr Chalk has been on his own "I will save the NHS in Cheltenham", the local trust wants to move A&E to Gloucester and close Cheltenham. I seems Mr Chalk has won, just in time for the GE (what a surprise).
Chalk will get this message out and I think it could be significant, vote Tory keep your healthcare.
It has always struck me as daft that Gloucester and Cheltenham have two hospitals on cramped, inaccessible and badly located sites when you could build a vast new hospital at Churchdown or Elmbridge Court complete with things like car parks and a proper helipad to serve the whole of northern Gloucestershire.
But, every time it has been proposed it has been shot down.
This is the problem when we stop treating the NHS as a healthcare system and start treating it as a religion.
Who wants their local temple closing down? They would be deprived of their personal connection to God.
The fact that one big central hospital might provide a better bloody health service than two (not very good) medium sized ones is neither here nor there.
For those of you thinking about Cheltenham. I am convinced that part of Martin Horwoods downfall was because every Focus seemed to have the message "Martin fighting hard to save XXX health service in Cheltenham." Yet in his tenure Battledown Childrens Hospital closed (can it get worse for an MP than the closure of a Childrens Hospital) and we had a large crisis in A&E on a Saturday morning, featured on Sky News. I can remember my reaction to these and it was "This is Cheltenham, these things do not happen here."
So Mr Chalk has been on his own "I will save the NHS in Cheltenham", the local trust wants to move A&E to Gloucester and close Cheltenham. I seems Mr Chalk has won, just in time for the GE (what a surprise).
Chalk will get this message out and I think it could be significant, vote Tory keep your healthcare.
It has always struck me as daft that Gloucester and Cheltenham have two hospitals on cramped, inaccessible and badly located sites when you could build a vast new hospital at Churchdown or Elmbridge Court complete with things like car parks and a proper helipad to serve the whole of northern Gloucestershire.
But, every time it has been proposed it has been shot down.
They may only be a motorway between Cheltenham and Gloucester but the divide is much greater than that, it is i have to say class based or money based.
For those of you thinking about Cheltenham. I am convinced that part of Martin Horwoods downfall was because every Focus seemed to have the message "Martin fighting hard to save XXX health service in Cheltenham." Yet in his tenure Battledown Childrens Hospital closed (can it get worse for an MP than the closure of a Childrens Hospital) and we had a large crisis in A&E on a Saturday morning, featured on Sky News. I can remember my reaction to these and it was "This is Cheltenham, these things do not happen here."
So Mr Chalk has been on his own "I will save the NHS in Cheltenham", the local trust wants to move A&E to Gloucester and close Cheltenham. I seems Mr Chalk has won, just in time for the GE (what a surprise).
Chalk will get this message out and I think it could be significant, vote Tory keep your healthcare.
It has always struck me as daft that Gloucester and Cheltenham have two hospitals on cramped, inaccessible and badly located sites when you could build a vast new hospital at Churchdown or Elmbridge Court complete with things like car parks and a proper helipad to serve the whole of northern Gloucestershire.
But, every time it has been proposed it has been shot down.
This is the problem when we stop treating the NHS as a healthcare system and start treating it as a religion.
Who wants their local temple closing down? They would be deprived of their personal connection to God.
The fact that one big central hospital might provide a better bloody health service than two (not very good) medium sized ones is neither here nor there.
It’s even crazier as they already do operate as in effect one hospital. They do not have overlapping services. Not sure if it’s still the same but it always used to be Cheltenham did cardiac services, for example.
These numbers, at least the C/Lab ones, remind me of the 2010 campaign. Does anyone remember the final score then?
The Tories started and finished the campaign about 7-8% ahead of Labour. 41/29 will deliver the majority that 37/30 did not.
You know as well as the rest of us that at this stage in 2017, the tories were between 15% and 24% ahead of Labour. They never started only 7-8% ahead.
Edit. Ooops I see you were casting back to 2010. My apologies.
In 2010- the Tories were routinely 10plus ahead of Labour- and were heavy favourites for a majority on the spreads and betting markets on voting day
I will correct myself slightly because the Cleggasm narrowed things slightly during the campaign to the 7/8 percent that Sean it referring to from memory....
Given the way things are these days, I suspect a Jorgasm won't be allowed. It does sound pretty smutty.
For those of you thinking about Cheltenham. I am convinced that part of Martin Horwoods downfall was because every Focus seemed to have the message "Martin fighting hard to save XXX health service in Cheltenham." Yet in his tenure Battledown Childrens Hospital closed (can it get worse for an MP than the closure of a Childrens Hospital) and we had a large crisis in A&E on a Saturday morning, featured on Sky News. I can remember my reaction to these and it was "This is Cheltenham, these things do not happen here."
So Mr Chalk has been on his own "I will save the NHS in Cheltenham", the local trust wants to move A&E to Gloucester and close Cheltenham. I seems Mr Chalk has won, just in time for the GE (what a surprise).
Chalk will get this message out and I think it could be significant, vote Tory keep your healthcare.
It has always struck me as daft that Gloucester and Cheltenham have two hospitals on cramped, inaccessible and badly located sites when you could build a vast new hospital at Churchdown or Elmbridge Court complete with things like car parks and a proper helipad to serve the whole of northern Gloucestershire.
But, every time it has been proposed it has been shot down.
They may only be a motorway between Cheltenham and Gloucester but the divide is much greater than that, it is i have to say class based or money based.
Well, yes. Gloucester’s the grotty working class city and Cheltenham’s where all the poshos and Corbynistas hang out.
Well that's just silly. If someone cannot vote Labour for such strong reasons of course they can consider voting for other people, including Tories. It's seeing crossing lines like that as disgusting which is such a major problem in this country, the pathetic tribalism of left and right that no matter how bad things get you cannot be permitted to consider opposing your own (previous) side, at worst you must just not vote for anyone or only for some approved alternative. People make a judgement call of picking the least worst option all the time, Labour and the Tories thrive on it in particular, so it seems like rank hypocrisy for any party relying on that to decide someone else cannot make the same call, but against you instead of for you.
Sure, MPs are allowed to change their minds just like everyone else. it's irritating if they then pour scorn on their former colleagues, though.
Frank Field did it the right way - he decided he no longer agreed with the party and moved to become independent, without (so far as I know) expressing any particular view on what other MPs or indeed voters should do.
The Guardian says a Corbyn government virtually impossible, even tactical voting only gets Labour to 233 seats.
However it says tactical voting could make the difference between a Tory majority on 347 seats as now and the Tories on just 309 seats in another hung parliament with Labour and the LDs and SNP combined having enough votes for EUref2
The Guardian says a Corbyn government virtually impossible, even tactical voting only gets Labour to 233 seats.
However it says tactical voting could make the difference between a Tory majority on 347 seats as now and the Tories on just 309 seats in another hung parliament with Labour and the LDs and SNP combined having enough votes for EUref2
I remember reading about the 309 figure about 10 days ago when the election was first called. The problem is Gina Miller's recommendations are clearly unhelpful because voting Labour in South Cambridgeshire is not going to help stop the Tory candidate in that seat.
If Boris wins a general election we should have an online petition to send Gina Miller to Brussels, receive Belgian citizenship and send her there for good. The woman is a bloody menace.
I remember many years ago Billy Bragg who was a big Labour supporter ran an anti-Tory tactical voting site which achieved precisely the square root of zero.
If Boris wins a general election we should have an online petition to send Gina Miller to Brussels, receive Belgian citizenship and send her there for good. The woman is a bloody menace.
I think those of us strongly in favour of Leave should still be proud that we live in a country where she has been able to do what she has done, and where nobody is above the law.
It's thought that we're just a few years away from this being much cheaper than meat (since you don't have all the hassle of rearing the animals), and some predict that it will then displace meat as the standard that most people eat within a decade - after all, if it really does taste the same, why pay double and kill something for an identical result?
These new foods will undoubtedly be patented which grants a huge level of control over supply, distibution and pricing. Like any new patent-protected product, these will be very expensive until the patent expires and that is 20 or 25 years IIRC.
Cast your own mind back to video recorders or flat screens or microwave ovens. Their popularity soared and the price dropped when the patent expired. I recall buying one microwave for about £300. A few years later I bought its replacement for £35
You cast your own mind back to video recorders or flat screens or microwave ovens. Was it the case when they were introduced that they more or less exactly mimicked cheaply available existing products and that the only patentable thing about them was the radically different process by which they were produced? And if that *had* been the case, don't you think they would have had to be a bit cheaper?
The Guardian says a Corbyn government virtually impossible, even tactical voting only gets Labour to 233 seats.
However it says tactical voting could make the difference between a Tory majority on 347 seats as now and the Tories on just 309 seats in another hung parliament with Labour and the LDs and SNP combined having enough votes for EUref2
Well, mercifully at least the prospect of a Corbyn majority seems truly remote. I also think that Labour will go backwards. They would need to make a meaningful number of net gains from the Conservatives, given the likelihood of calamity in Scotland, to do such a thing. Therefore they'll be too weak to form a majority just by buying off Nicola Sturgeon with a second referendum.
A rainbow coalition means nothing gets done except an EU referendum, if the EU27 allow the time. If not it's a revocation. Then another General Election. Where that would leave us is anybody's guess.
For those of you thinking about Cheltenham. I am convinced that part of Martin Horwoods downfall was because every Focus seemed to have the message "Martin fighting hard to save XXX health service in Cheltenham." Yet in his tenure Battledown Childrens Hospital closed (can it get worse for an MP than the closure of a Childrens Hospital) and we had a large crisis in A&E on a Saturday morning, featured on Sky News. I can remember my reaction to these and it was "This is Cheltenham, these things do not happen here."
So Mr Chalk has been on his own "I will save the NHS in Cheltenham", the local trust wants to move A&E to Gloucester and close Cheltenham. I seems Mr Chalk has won, just in time for the GE (what a surprise).
Chalk will get this message out and I think it could be significant, vote Tory keep your healthcare.
It has always struck me as daft that Gloucester and Cheltenham have two hospitals on cramped, inaccessible and badly located sites when you could build a vast new hospital at Churchdown or Elmbridge Court complete with things like car parks and a proper helipad to serve the whole of northern Gloucestershire.
But, every time it has been proposed it has been shot down.
This is the problem when we stop treating the NHS as a healthcare system and start treating it as a religion.
Who wants their local temple closing down? They would be deprived of their personal connection to God.
The fact that one big central hospital might provide a better bloody health service than two (not very good) medium sized ones is neither here nor there.
It’s even crazier as they already do operate as in effect one hospital. They do not have overlapping services. Not sure if it’s still the same but it always used to be Cheltenham did cardiac services, for example.
They do share services Cheltenham A&E is not 24hr. It stops at 10 pm and so for that period you go to Glos. Also if Cheltenham is full or the other way around you would go to the other place.
On thread- OGH is right- this election in only heading in one direction- and a comfortable Tory majority....
Which is exactly what they said at exactly this time two years ago.
In fact, Labour's position viz a viz the tories is better this time around.
This time two years ago the Tories had a cardboard cutout in charge. This time they have a showman.
Two years ago, we did not appreciate how institutionally racist the Labour Party would turn out to be
I agree with Mike. The Tories will win this, probably with a smallish majority, but a majority nonetheless. The LibDems will come second too often and reduce the Labour vote so Boris and the Tories will benefit from that.
The real question is, will even a majority solve the problem? If the people being elected this time are still unwilling to follow party policy, we may be back in the same place. Normally I'm in favour of independent-minded MPs, but I've no desire to see this drawn out any longer than is necessary.
Anne - If Boris gets a majority it may solve the current Brexit problem, but as I used to tell people when I was in the consulting business, when you solve your number one problem, you promote your number two problem.
Once we are technically "out" we still be in until at least 2021 and I am not sure how many Leavers have realised that. Freedom of Movement will still apply. It will at that point that many will go "They can still come here even though we are out?" and there will be more political drama.
I am unsure if Johnson's govt will actually last very long.
I've always been very much in favour of a slow detachment.
As to promoting one's number two problem, well naturally. Leaving my biggest problem untackled because a secondary problem will become more obvious doesn't seem a sensible option to me.
I realise that on this particular problem you would probably prefer to give up, but surely that's because giving up would be a genuine solution of a sort. As a general rule, giving up the attempt to resolve problems doesn't strike me very favourably.
The Guardian says a Corbyn government virtually impossible, even tactical voting only gets Labour to 233 seats.
However it says tactical voting could make the difference between a Tory majority on 347 seats as now and the Tories on just 309 seats in another hung parliament with Labour and the LDs and SNP combined having enough votes for EUref2
I remember reading about the 309 figure about 10 days ago when the election was first called. The problem is Gina Miller's recommendations are clearly unhelpful because voting Labour in South Cambridgeshire is not going to help stop the Tory candidate in that seat.
Indeed, disunity amongst Remainers and largely unity amongst Leavers helps Boris under FPTP
It's seeing crossing lines like that as disgusting which is such a major problem in this country, the pathetic tribalism of left and right that no matter how bad things get you cannot be permitted to consider opposing your own (previous) side, at worst you must just not vote for anyone or only for some approved alternative. People make a judgement call of picking the least worst option all the time, Labour and the Tories thrive on it in particular, so it seems like rank hypocrisy for any party relying on that to decide someone else cannot make the same call, but against you instead of for you.
Sure, MPs are allowed to change their minds just like everyone else. it's irritating if they then pour scorn on their former colleagues, though.
Frank Field did it the right way - he decided he no longer agreed with the party and moved to become independent, without (so far as I know) expressing any particular view on what other MPs or indeed voters should do.
Why is that the right way? That's awfully entitled, to expect that once they no longer agree with the party they should just move on without saying what they think other MPs and the voters should do, if that is to vote for someone else. I find this attitude astonishing.
I don't doubt it is irritating what Austin and Woodcock have done. I don't doubt many will think what they have done is awful, that they are ignoring important values by endorsing voting in a particular way, ignoring the harm of a Boris majority. We may think that is right. But they believe that the best option for the country is that people vote against the Labour party, and if that is what they think, even if they are wrong, they should not hold back from saying so out of loyalty to a party they no longer belong to, they should not hold back from saying so because it will irrirate former colleagues.
In the same way any former Tory now advocating LD (I don't know of any suggesting voting Labour) should do so if that is what they feel is the best thing. Would it be the 'right way' that they just fade away or stand as an indy (as many are indeed doing), not try to influence the national debate in anyway?
This is no different to being mad at another political party, like the LDs, for getting in the way of a Tory/Labour fight, when they belong to a different party for a reason, they don't own either of the big two anything, and Austin and co are doing what they think is best as well. By all means people should get mad at them for what they think is best, and irritated at what former comrades are doing, but 'disgusted' for not doing it 'the right way'? Must they only oppose their former party in a way which is preapproved by that party? Must all those former Cons now saying vote LD not be doing so? Why?
The Guardian says a Corbyn government virtually impossible, even tactical voting only gets Labour to 233 seats.
However it says tactical voting could make the difference between a Tory majority on 347 seats as now and the Tories on just 309 seats in another hung parliament with Labour and the LDs and SNP combined having enough votes for EUref2
Well, mercifully at least the prospect of a Corbyn majority seems truly remote. I also think that Labour will go backwards. They would need to make a meaningful number of net gains from the Conservatives, given the likelihood of calamity in Scotland, to do such a thing. Therefore they'll be too weak to form a majority just by buying off Nicola Sturgeon with a second referendum.
A rainbow coalition means nothing gets done except an EU referendum, if the EU27 allow the time. If not it's a revocation. Then another General Election. Where that would leave us is anybody's guess.
Indeed given the LDs would back an EUref2 amendment but not Corbyn as PM
The Guardian says a Corbyn government virtually impossible, even tactical voting only gets Labour to 233 seats.
However it says tactical voting could make the difference between a Tory majority on 347 seats as now and the Tories on just 309 seats in another hung parliament with Labour and the LDs and SNP combined having enough votes for EUref2
I remember reading about the 309 figure about 10 days ago when the election was first called. The problem is Gina Miller's recommendations are clearly unhelpful because voting Labour in South Cambridgeshire is not going to help stop the Tory candidate in that seat.
It's possible that tactical voting attempts will do more harm than good. If one-third of the anti-Tory voters vote tactically for a party other than their first choice, but they do so randomly rather than with an accurate view of who is best-placed to defeat the Tories then mathematically it's inevitable that it makes it easier for the Tories to win.
If Boris wins a general election we should have an online petition to send Gina Miller to Brussels, receive Belgian citizenship and send her there for good. The woman is a bloody menace.
Shooting any living thing for sport could easily disappear, but shooting things for food will last a lot longer. I suspect the life of a pheasant is an improvement on the life of a chicken. We are evolved to be meat (but mostly not dairy) eaters.
Yes, I know a lot of vegans who are pretty relaxed about shooting or fishing for your own food (though disgusted when it's done for sport), and think it far better than eating intensive farm produce. There are some nasty intensive aspects to game bird rearing, though.
The interesting development here though is the explosion of research into lab-grown alternatives which are tweaked to resemble meat exactly (in texture, taste, etc.) with no animals involved. It's thought that we're just a few years away from this being much cheaper than meat (since you don't have all the hassle of rearing the animals), and some predict that it will then displace meat as the standard that most people eat within a decade - after all, if it really does taste the same, why pay double and kill something for an identical result?
I wonder if it will be like cheese (bear with me for a tortured analogy). Day to day, the mass produced supermarket cheddar, and even cheese strings and cheese slices feed the public; and they are almost lab grown. But many of us like to treat ourselves to a decent Stilton or cave aged Cheddar; especially at Christmas.
This is no different to being mad at another political party, like the LDs, for getting in the way of a Tory/Labour fight, when they belong to a different party for a reason, they don't own either of the big two anything, and Austin and co are doing what they think is best as well. By all means people should get mad at them for what they think is best, and irritated at what former comrades are doing, but 'disgusted' for not doing it 'the right way'? Must they only oppose their former party in a way which is preapproved by that party? Must all those former Cons now saying vote LD not be doing so? Why?
If Boris wins a general election we should have an online petition to send Gina Miller to Brussels, receive Belgian citizenship and send her there for good. The woman is a bloody menace.
I think those of us strongly in favour of Leave should still be proud that we live in a country where she has been able to do what she has done, and where nobody is above the law.
Yep, the fact that we are willing to tolerate someone as annoying, smug and arrogant as her shows what an amazingly tolerant country we are. We should wear her like a badge.
For those of you thinking about Cheltenham. I am convinced that part of Martin Horwoods downfall was because every Focus seemed to have the message "Martin fighting hard to save XXX health service in Cheltenham." Yet in his tenure Battledown Childrens Hospital closed (can it get worse for an MP than the closure of a Childrens Hospital) and we had a large crisis in A&E on a Saturday morning, featured on Sky News. I can remember my reaction to these and it was "This is Cheltenham, these things do not happen here."
So Mr Chalk has been on his own "I will save the NHS in Cheltenham", the local trust wants to move A&E to Gloucester and close Cheltenham. I seems Mr Chalk has won, just in time for the GE (what a surprise).
Chalk will get this message out and I think it could be significant, vote Tory keep your healthcare.
It has always struck me as daft that Gloucester and Cheltenham have two hospitals on cramped, inaccessible and badly located sites when you could build a vast new hospital at Churchdown or Elmbridge Court complete with things like car parks and a proper helipad to serve the whole of northern Gloucestershire.
But, every time it has been proposed it has been shot down.
This is the problem when we stop treating the NHS as a healthcare system and start treating it as a religion.
Who wants their local temple closing down? They would be deprived of their personal connection to God.
The fact that one big central hospital might provide a better bloody health service than two (not very good) medium sized ones is neither here nor there.
It's much simpler in that most people are risk-averse and have a strong preference for bad healthcare to loss of life due to being far from a hospital. Local lobbying for well-paid professional jobs also plays some role.
The swing appears to be mainly from Cs to PP and Vox.
How well I remember that period when we were told Cs were a cuddly bunch of centrist liberals rather than a home for crypto Falangists and Spanish nationalists.
Rivera's decision to take C’s to the right has proved utterly disastrous. It’s only two years ago the party was ahead in the polling and PSOE was nowhere.
What was their (demented) reasoning for that sharp rightward lurch? Can’t see why the rise of Vox would have hurt them as a centrist force? Perhaps Catalonia?
It looks like the new Parliament will be as deadlocked as the last.
As the right wing press are telling Farage to stand down I still think the BP standing and properly campaigning will hurt Labour more .
Agreed.
So far the BP seem to be in a no mans land of seeing what Farage is going to do . The media seem to have ignored what happened in 2017 , the UKIP vote collapsed and stopped the Tories winning a majority . In 2015 they were strong and Labour suffered . Some Labour Leavers will never vote Tory but would support the BP.
It's thought that we're just a few years away from this being much cheaper than meat (since you don't have all the hassle of rearing the animals), and some predict that it will then displace meat as the standard that most people eat within a decade - after all, if it really does taste the same, why pay double and kill something for an identical result?
These new foods will undoubtedly be patented which grants a huge level of control over supply, distibution and pricing. Like any new patent-protected product, these will be very expensive until the patent expires and that is 20 or 25 years IIRC.
Cast your own mind back to video recorders or flat screens or microwave ovens. Their popularity soared and the price dropped when the patent expired. I recall buying one microwave for about £300. A few years later I bought its replacement for £35
You cast your own mind back to video recorders or flat screens or microwave ovens. Was it the case when they were introduced that they more or less exactly mimicked cheaply available existing products and that the only patentable thing about them was the radically different process by which they were produced? And if that *had* been the case, don't you think they would have had to be a bit cheaper?
These ‘MP/PPC who no one has ever heard of resigns for saying something horrible’ have no effect on public opinion IMO. Nor ‘former MP who no one has ever heard of urges vote for rival party’. I don’t think anyone cares much.
If Boris wins a general election we should have an online petition to send Gina Miller to Brussels, receive Belgian citizenship and send her there for good. The woman is a bloody menace.
I love Gina Miller . An absolute heroine IMO.
She has done nothing wrong, however much it will irritate some. Her motivations are irrelevant to the outcome of any legal proceedings she has launched - those with merit succeed, those without do not. I was still advocating leave when her A50 challenge was in progress, and the settling of that legal question was quite useful.
The Guardian says a Corbyn government virtually impossible, even tactical voting only gets Labour to 233 seats.
However it says tactical voting could make the difference between a Tory majority on 347 seats as now and the Tories on just 309 seats in another hung parliament with Labour and the LDs and SNP combined having enough votes for EUref2
Well, mercifully at least the prospect of a Corbyn majority seems truly remote. I also think that Labour will go backwards. They would need to make a meaningful number of net gains from the Conservatives, given the likelihood of calamity in Scotland, to do such a thing. Therefore they'll be too weak to form a majority just by buying off Nicola Sturgeon with a second referendum.
A rainbow coalition means nothing gets done except an EU referendum, if the EU27 allow the time. If not it's a revocation. Then another General Election. Where that would leave us is anybody's guess.
Indeed given the LDs would back an EUref2 amendment but not Corbyn as PM
Only Corbyn would be the Prime Minister, because he wouldn't step aside. All the Lib Dems talk of not putting him into power is just so much guff to try to fool Tory waverers into voting for them.
The choice in another Hung Parliament would be Johnson vs Corbyn. So Swinson would install Corbyn to get her preferred option on Europe. It's as simple as that.
Do we have fieldwork dates? Will be interesting to see how much of it was after the news of the ex-Labour MPs advocating a vote for Johnson.
Edit: See now it was 6-8 Nov, so some of it would have been pre-Ian Austin, but lots not.
I’ve talked with quite a few Labour voting friends about the Austin drama . The reaction has been total disgust that he would say vote Tory . I’m not a Corbyn fan but I share the disgust ! Saying he couldn’t vote Labour is one thing , but he crossed the line after that .
Well that's just silly. If someone cannot vote Labour for such strong reasons of course they can consider voting for other people, including Tories. It's seeing crossing lines like that as disgusting which is such a major problem in this country, the pathetic tribalism of left and right that no matter how bad things get you cannot be permitted to consider opposing your own (previous) side, at worst you must just not vote for anyone or only for some approved alternative. People make a judgement call of picking the least worst option all the time, Labour and the Tories thrive on it in particular, so it seems like rank hypocrisy for any party relying on that to decide someone else cannot make the same call, but against you instead of for you.
Basically, it comes down to the forced choice - it will be either Boris or Corbyn in No.10. So if you think Corbyn is an extremist who would be a danger to this country, you have to vote Boris and encourage others to do so, albeit through gritted teeth and a heavy heart. That's what Austin did.
This time two years ago the Tories had a cardboard cutout in charge. This time they have a showman.
Two years ago, we did not appreciate how institutionally racist the Labour Party would turn out to be
I agree with Mike. The Tories will win this, probably with a smallish majority, but a majority nonetheless. The LibDems will come second too often and reduce the Labour vote so Boris and the Tories will benefit from that.
The real question is, will even a majority solve the problem? If the people being elected this time are still unwilling to follow party policy, we may be back in the same place. Normally I'm in favour of independent-minded MPs, but I've no desire to see this drawn out any longer than is necessary.
Anne - If Boris gets a majority it may solve the current Brexit problem, but as I used to tell people when I was in the consulting business, when you solve your number one problem, you promote your number two problem.
Once we are technically "out" we still be in until at least 2021 and I am not sure how many Leavers have realised that. Freedom of Movement will still apply. It will at that point that many will go "They can still come here even though we are out?" and there will be more political drama.
I am unsure if Johnson's govt will actually last very long.
I've always been very much in favour of a slow detachment.
As to promoting one's number two problem, well naturally. Leaving my biggest problem untackled because a secondary problem will become more obvious doesn't seem a sensible option to me.
I realise that on this particular problem you would probably prefer to give up, but surely that's because giving up would be a genuine solution of a sort. As a general rule, giving up the attempt to resolve problems doesn't strike me very favourably.
I do not know how you read that into what I said. I was talking about the issues facing Boris and his new govt when they fail to deliver the rather simplistic expectations of many Leavers. Only political anoraks and geeks worry about the detail. The average person in the street tends to have a more black and white view. They have been promised an exit and when they get it, it may not be what they expect.
So Boris delivers Brexit (number 1 problem) and we are still "in" (number 2 problem). That is when many will realise that it is not over with. All this talk of "Let's get Brexit done" will ring hollow and when many people finally figure out that we have years of negotiations ahead, I doubt many will be elated about the whole thing.
As for me - I gave up on the whole shambles ages ago. I really could not care less any more.
The Guardian says a Corbyn government virtually impossible, even tactical voting only gets Labour to 233 seats.
However it says tactical voting could make the difference between a Tory majority on 347 seats as now and the Tories on just 309 seats in another hung parliament with Labour and the LDs and SNP combined having enough votes for EUref2
I remember reading about the 309 figure about 10 days ago when the election was first called. The problem is Gina Miller's recommendations are clearly unhelpful because voting Labour in South Cambridgeshire is not going to help stop the Tory candidate in that seat.
It's possible that tactical voting attempts will do more harm than good. If one-third of the anti-Tory voters vote tactically for a party other than their first choice, but they do so randomly rather than with an accurate view of who is best-placed to defeat the Tories then mathematically it's inevitable that it makes it easier for the Tories to win.
It will be fascinating to see Gina Miller's method.
To predict the best choice for a tactical voter is equivalent to predicting the election result in the absence of tactical voting.
So, Miller would have to have something at least as sophisticated as YouGov's MRP with 50,000 respondents.
If money is no object, she should pay YouGov to do exactly that, and base recommendations on that on her site.
As it is, her site is going to be overwhelmed with criticism once she publishes her methodology, which looks as though someone mathematical illiterate (ScottP ?) has been placed in charge of it.
(I don't know how this would count against electoral spending limits).
This is no different to being mad at another political party, like the LDs, for getting in the way of a Tory/Labour fight, when they belong to a different party for a reason, they don't own either of the big two anything, and Austin and co are doing what they think is best as well. By all means people should get mad at them for what they think is best, and irritated at what former comrades are doing, but 'disgusted' for not doing it 'the right way'? Must they only oppose their former party in a way which is preapproved by that party? Must all those former Cons now saying vote LD not be doing so? Why?
Yes, I see what you mean - perhaps you're right.
I apologise if I seemed a bit stern about it, obviously I cannot quite conceive of the level of feeling there will be within a political movement when former comrades in arms split, I do not mean to demean that feeling, however much I think it can go over the top as I describe.
Labour on 29 seems.much more realistic than all those polls that have then down in low 20s. Not convinced tories will break 40 though.
35/36 vs 30 seems a more likely result.
Boris is a very charismatic politician. He's got a weak jaw though, so hopefully Corbyn and Farage can land plenty of jabs in the next month.
Corbyn at least has a good line in populist rhetoric, simple memorable stuff. Boris's waffling entertaining manner may not be as easy to recall.
But, people like Boris more than Corbyn,
That's true, but Boris needs to be in front by enough to win clearly. Corbyn closing the gap could be enough, never mind Corbyn overtaking Boris, which is less likely.
The Guardian says a Corbyn government virtually impossible, even tactical voting only gets Labour to 233 seats.
However it says tactical voting could make the difference between a Tory majority on 347 seats as now and the Tories on just 309 seats in another hung parliament with Labour and the LDs and SNP combined having enough votes for EUref2
Anne - If Boris gets a majority it may solve the current Brexit problem, but as I used to tell people when I was in the consulting business, when you solve your number one problem, you promote your number two problem.
Once we are technically "out" we still be in until at least 2021 and I am not sure how many Leavers have realised that. Freedom of Movement will still apply. It will at that point that many will go "They can still come here even though we are out?" and there will be more political drama.
I am unsure if Johnson's govt will actually last very long.
Leaver angst is driven by the possibility of remainers overturning the referendum result.
Once the answer to the question "Can Brexit be stopped?" is an unequivocal "No" then that will be considered the battle won with just the administrative loose ends to be tied up.
For those of you thinking about Cheltenham. I am convinced that part of Martin Horwoods downfall was because every Focus seemed to have the message "Martin fighting hard to save XXX health service in Cheltenham." Yet in his tenure Battledown Childrens Hospital closed (can it get worse for an MP than the closure of a Childrens Hospital) and we had a large crisis in A&E on a Saturday morning, featured on Sky News. I can remember my reaction to these and it was "This is Cheltenham, these things do not happen here."
So Mr Chalk has been on his own "I will save the NHS in Cheltenham", the local trust wants to move A&E to Gloucester and close Cheltenham. I seems Mr Chalk has won, just in time for the GE (what a surprise).
Chalk will get this message out and I think it could be significant, vote Tory keep your healthcare.
It has always struck me as daft that Gloucester and Cheltenham have two hospitals on cramped, inaccessible and badly located sites when you could build a vast new hospital at Churchdown or Elmbridge Court complete with things like car parks and a proper helipad to serve the whole of northern Gloucestershire.
But, every time it has been proposed it has been shot down.
This is the problem when we stop treating the NHS as a healthcare system and start treating it as a religion.
Who wants their local temple closing down? They would be deprived of their personal connection to God.
The fact that one big central hospital might provide a better bloody health service than two (not very good) medium sized ones is neither here nor there.
It's much simpler in that most people are risk-averse and have a strong preference for bad healthcare to loss of life due to being far from a hospital. Local lobbying for well-paid professional jobs also plays some role.
That's the thick electorate for you. They assume it's essential to have a hospital five minutes away because, in the unlikely event of a massive heart attack, they have a vastly better chance of surviving if they don't have to spend five extra minutes in the back of an ambulance. Which is, of course, bollocks. It wouldn't make much difference, and they'd most likely die regardless.
A large, well-equipped, modern facility half-an-hour away will almost invariably be better for your personal health outcomes and those of your family than an understaffed, tumbledown dump at the bottom of the street. Regardless of how many raffles to buy new bits of machinery for it that you've bought tickets for.
For those of you thinking about Cheltenham. I am convinced that part of Martin Horwoods downfall was because every Focus seemed to have the message "Martin fighting hard to save XXX health service in Cheltenham." Yet in his tenure Battledown Childrens Hospital closed (can it get worse for an MP than the closure of a Childrens Hospital) and we had a large crisis in A&E on a Saturday morning, featured on Sky News. I can remember my reaction to these and it was "This is Cheltenham, these things do not happen here."
So Mr Chalk has been on his own "I will save the NHS in Cheltenham", the local trust wants to move A&E to Gloucester and close Cheltenham. I seems Mr Chalk has won, just in time for the GE (what a surprise).
Chalk will get this message out and I think it could be significant, vote Tory keep your healthcare.
It has always struck me as daft that Gloucester and Cheltenham have two hospitals on cramped, inaccessible and badly located sites when you could build a vast new hospital at Churchdown or Elmbridge Court complete with things like car parks and a proper helipad to serve the whole of northern Gloucestershire.
But, every time it has been proposed it has been shot down.
They may only be a motorway between Cheltenham and Gloucester but the divide is much greater than that, it is i have to say class based or money based.
Well, yes. Gloucester’s the grotty working class city and Cheltenham’s where all the poshos and Corbynistas hang out.
But it’s still daft.
Well apart from Hesters Way.....the birthplace of the Chav.
Anne - If Boris gets a majority it may solve the current Brexit problem, but as I used to tell people when I was in the consulting business, when you solve your number one problem, you promote your number two problem.
Once we are technically "out" we still be in until at least 2021 and I am not sure how many Leavers have realised that. Freedom of Movement will still apply. It will at that point that many will go "They can still come here even though we are out?" and there will be more political drama.
I am unsure if Johnson's govt will actually last very long.
Leaver angst is driven by the possibility of remainers overturning the referendum result.
Once the answer to the question "Can Brexit be stopped?" is an unequivocal "No" then that will be considered the battle won with just the administrative loose ends to be tied up.
Indeed - all Boris has to deliver is the formal 'leave' and irreconcilable remainers will do all the hard work selling it to leavers for him regardless of the utterly unchanged facts on the ground
only lefties and the public sector read the Guardian and its Sunday sister paper so this headline is little more than tomorrow's chip paper. The little runt Bercow opening is gob before the election is over is of more concern. Personally I wouldn't give the little shit the time of day let alone a peerage.
Comments
Edit: See now it was 6-8 Nov, so some of it would have been pre-Ian Austin, but lots not.
Once we are technically "out" we still be in until at least 2021 and I am not sure how many Leavers have realised that. Freedom of Movement will still apply. It will at that point that many will go "They can still come here even though we are out?" and there will be more political drama.
I am unsure if Johnson's govt will actually last very long.
The interesting development here though is the explosion of research into lab-grown alternatives which are tweaked to resemble meat exactly (in texture, taste, etc.) with no animals involved. It's thought that we're just a few years away from this being much cheaper than meat (since you don't have all the hassle of rearing the animals), and some predict that it will then displace meat as the standard that most people eat within a decade - after all, if it really does taste the same, why pay double and kill something for an identical result?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/04/inside-little-known-world-flavorists-who-are-trying-make-plant-based-meat-taste-like-real-thing/
If Newcastle had drawn too all my bets would've come off. Still green, though.
2017
18%
17%
21%
election called
24%
19%
23%
...
result: 2%
2019
15%
15%
14%
election called
15%
12%
13%
11%
...
result: ?
Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats looks as good a billing at Theresa May's Conservatives.
Learning: Before you launch a presidential style campaign, obtain a presidential candidate.
The should have stuck with my all time favourite slogan:
Liberal Democrats. Britain Deserves Better.
Interesting that all the stuff about candidates resigning and shambolic campaigns is having no visible effect.
The other factor will be the Brexit Party vote. I do not think it will affect the Tories as much as many think.
Lab made advances since LD receded
Lab will not do anywhere near as SO predicts/hopes
In fact I see a very close election.
Never underestimate JC Let alone for a 4th time.
I had to smile at the 'Who will replace JC' thread. I'm sure we had the same thing in 2017.
Con 391
Lab 178
LDem 23
Brex 0
Green 1
Con Maj 132
Well it's fun even if not really credible!
three matches tomorrow. I've bet on all draws (doubt all will come off, although the accumulator's about 47, but the odds seem too long given all the teams seem evenly matched).
That's:
Wolves, Villa 3.6
Liverpool, Man City, 3.5
Man U, Brighton 3.75
As always, I know nothing about football.
35/36 vs 30 seems a more likely result.
It looks to me as though this is the gig nobody wanted for Labour, which given they held the seat less than a decade ago and everyone including me thought they would retake it in 2015 is a shocking indictment of their collapse in the Midlands.
Now it makes some sense. Vote Tory once, to purge Labour of the Corbyn parasite and then one can return to Labour. If you vote Lib Dem, though, then you create a challenge for Labour's position as the Opposition.
Only the BBC find them newsworthy.
Lab is galvonised if my local experience is anything to go by.
Left/Right marching in step with the single purpose of evicting Johnsons lot.
So Mr Chalk has been on his own "I will save the NHS in Cheltenham", the local trust wants to move A&E to Gloucester and close Cheltenham. I seems Mr Chalk has won, just in time for the GE (what a surprise).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-50157157
Chalk will get this message out and I think it could be significant, vote Tory keep your healthcare.
But, every time it has been proposed it has been shot down.
Osborne's target of getting it down to just 35% was not realistic politically, that is an even lower spending rate than the USA
But by then, of course, it'll be too bloody late.
It speaks of little more than instinctive tribalism, of affront that someone dare leave the tribe. It's pathetic whichever side it comes from. If it were merely that people think he's making the wrong choice that'd be one thing, but it's the sense of a line being crossed because someone opposes party X now that shows the truth of the matter, the tribal heart of it, that shows it is not merely that there is severe disagreement, but emotional, personal hurt because of them leaving the tribe. When people are viscerally disgusted that someone who used to be on their side no longer is, it's usually pretty clear that they'd react that way no matter why the person left, or who the other side was.
The heresy of their action is what is disgusting in such situations, the specifics are pretty irrelevant. Don't believe me? I'd bet good money the same reaction would have been had if the Tories were not led by Johnson but by someone less odious.
Seriously.
Corbyn doesn't have any superpowers to sell to the voters.
These new foods will undoubtedly be patented which grants a huge level of control over supply, distibution and pricing. Like any new patent-protected product, these will be very expensive until the patent expires and that is 20 or 25 years IIRC.
Cast your own mind back to video recorders or flat screens or microwave ovens. Their popularity soared and the price dropped when the patent expired. I recall buying one microwave for about £300. A few years later I bought its replacement for £35
Who wants their local temple closing down? They would be deprived of their personal connection to God.
The fact that one big central hospital might provide a better bloody health service than two (not very good) medium sized ones is neither here nor there.
Con 391
Lab 167
SNP 41
LD 29
PC 3
Grn 1
https://flavible.co.uk/userprediction/gb/41/29/15/6/2/3.1/0/0.7
Usually Flavible and ElectoralCalculus produce different numbers with the same inputs but this time they're obviously very similar.
But it’s still daft.
Frank Field did it the right way - he decided he no longer agreed with the party and moved to become independent, without (so far as I know) expressing any particular view on what other MPs or indeed voters should do.
However it says tactical voting could make the difference between a Tory majority on 347 seats as now and the Tories on just 309 seats in another hung parliament with Labour and the LDs and SNP combined having enough votes for EUref2
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/09/remain-united-tactical-voting-site-gina-miller
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/09/flood-waters-receding-but-anger-rises-in-weary-doncaster
A rainbow coalition means nothing gets done except an EU referendum, if the EU27 allow the time. If not it's a revocation. Then another General Election. Where that would leave us is anybody's guess.
As to promoting one's number two problem, well naturally. Leaving my biggest problem untackled because a secondary problem will become more obvious doesn't seem a sensible option to me.
I realise that on this particular problem you would probably prefer to give up, but surely that's because giving up would be a genuine solution of a sort. As a general rule, giving up the attempt to resolve problems doesn't strike me very favourably.
I don't doubt it is irritating what Austin and Woodcock have done. I don't doubt many will think what they have done is awful, that they are ignoring important values by endorsing voting in a particular way, ignoring the harm of a Boris majority. We may think that is right. But they believe that the best option for the country is that people vote against the Labour party, and if that is what they think, even if they are wrong, they should not hold back from saying so out of loyalty to a party they no longer belong to, they should not hold back from saying so because it will irrirate former colleagues.
In the same way any former Tory now advocating LD (I don't know of any suggesting voting Labour) should do so if that is what they feel is the best thing. Would it be the 'right way' that they just fade away or stand as an indy (as many are indeed doing), not try to influence the national debate in anyway?
This is no different to being mad at another political party, like the LDs, for getting in the way of a Tory/Labour fight, when they belong to a different party for a reason, they don't own either of the big two anything, and Austin and co are doing what they think is best as well. By all means people should get mad at them for what they think is best, and irritated at what former comrades are doing, but 'disgusted' for not doing it 'the right way'? Must they only oppose their former party in a way which is preapproved by that party? Must all those former Cons now saying vote LD not be doing so? Why?
The choice in another Hung Parliament would be Johnson vs Corbyn. So Swinson would install Corbyn to get her preferred option on Europe. It's as simple as that.
So Boris delivers Brexit (number 1 problem) and we are still "in" (number 2 problem). That is when many will realise that it is not over with. All this talk of "Let's get Brexit done" will ring hollow and when many people finally figure out that we have years of negotiations ahead, I doubt many will be elated about the whole thing.
As for me - I gave up on the whole shambles ages ago. I really could not care less any more.
To predict the best choice for a tactical voter is equivalent to predicting the election result in the absence of tactical voting.
So, Miller would have to have something at least as sophisticated as YouGov's MRP with 50,000 respondents.
If money is no object, she should pay YouGov to do exactly that, and base recommendations on that on her site.
As it is, her site is going to be overwhelmed with criticism once she publishes her methodology, which looks as though someone mathematical illiterate (ScottP ?) has been placed in charge of it.
(I don't know how this would count against electoral spending limits).
Wiser heads will be able to advise me on the following, as I have no idea:
If SNP's primary aim is to gain a second indy referendum, is that made more or less likely by Brexit?
If SNP's secondary aim is to win independence from a second indy referendum, is that made more or less likely by Brexit?
Once the answer to the question "Can Brexit be stopped?" is an unequivocal "No" then that will be considered the battle won with just the administrative loose ends to be tied up.
A large, well-equipped, modern facility half-an-hour away will almost invariably be better for your personal health outcomes and those of your family than an understaffed, tumbledown dump at the bottom of the street. Regardless of how many raffles to buy new bits of machinery for it that you've bought tickets for.
https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1193273937448316928