That's looking like a LOT of Brexit Party lost deposits.....
Tonight's polling has the BXP consistently down by 1%, 3% and 5% respectively in the Panelbase, Opinium and Deltapoll polls, and in single figures in each. That seems to be the key shift, and I think it indicates that the message that a vote for the Brexit Party could derail Brexit is cutting through with Leave supporters. Tory vote shares at 40%+ are the natural consequence.
Farage will be well pissed off. Prima donna that he is, if this polling continues he might prefer to unilaterally stand down many candidates in order to be able to spin a line that his doing so was the key factor that enabled Johnson to deliver a form of Brexit, rather than show his irrelevance if Johnson wins anyway in spite of him.
Though Eastleigh went pretty darn safe looking in 2017 despite its LD past.
According to Wikipedia she's a divorced mother who was a councillor in mid-Sussex before winning Eastleigh. This looks more like a family-related decision than a politically expedient one.
The scandal over Boris Johnson’s friendship with technology entrepreneur Jennifer Arcuri was reignited on Saturday after the Observer revealed that the independent police watchdog has delayed its announcement on whether the PM should face an investigation into possible criminal misconduct until after the election.
People only believe the watchdog is independent when it does what they want or delivers the outcome they want, shocker. I bet Boris's people were saying the same things as those outraged by the watchdog's decision when it was suggested it had a role at all.
I know most politicians of various hues are either dim or dishonest, but I would have hoped they would look at the remit of the IOPC before questioning it's role in this case. It is quite clear from it's site that it has the power to investigate the role of someone exercising a policing role, whether as a sworn constable or in some other context (such as Mayor).
Very likely after the ever revolving statements of the amazing flip-flopping Mims. The LDs must be laughing all the way to the ballot boxes given that this one looked a tough task until she had her meltdown.
Yes been a very disappointing evening for polls considering there's an election campaign going on as we speak!
Polls cost money and in recent years the polls have been as accurate as an American war film.
The Deer Hunter- the whole Russian roulette stuff was just made up....
Oh wow. I thought that film was a documentary on the Vietnam War.
Actually, re-watching the Deer Hunter now, the depiction of the VietCong was completely fabricated. Possibly you can justify this kind of narrative on occasion for cinematic effect, but when millions of Vietnamese died pointlessly in this terrible venture, it is hard to justify.
Morally, the Deer Hunter is one of the most dubious films I have ever seen- it presents itself as an anti war movie, but when you watch it you are desperate to see the Yanks kick the inhuman Gook butts....
I think you're taking it and yourself a little too seriously. It's a film. It's rather good at portraying the human cost in 4 ordinary American lives. At the time it came out, 1978, that was probably a message worth telling.
But, yeah, if you want a great version of what the American War (as it's called over there) was all about then the Ken Burns and Lynn Novick 18-hour ten episode series is a masterpiece.
Agreed about the American War series.... The Deer Hunter- the film that dehumanised the Viet Cong was followed by Apocalypse Now which was probably even more morally ambiguous by depicting the Americans as too soft to fight the war. The point of Apocalypse Now wasn't the fact that the US shouldn't have been there, but they were not brutal enough.
And then we had terrible films like Back Hawk Down, American Sniper and Hacksaw Ridge.....
The greatest 3 American War films I have ever seen have all been made by Stanley Kubrick- one about the first world war, one about Vietnam and one about WW3.
Good American war films are a rarity. Apocalypse Now is a bit more ambiguous though. It is really a journey into moral insanity, rather than a physical journey.
I've just had a look at the quote and comments....what are all these Jezziah's going to do when they find that they are shellaxed, and looking at the worst Labour seat tally since the 1930's.....
While I don't think that is going to happen, I imagine there will be a great outcry about legitimacy of Boris winning from sudden converts to PR and that, in spirit, Labour did much better.
And like the first cuckoo in Spring, it will be time for Poly Toynbee's annual reminder to the Labour Party that PR is a good idea.
Although I believe La Toynbee thinks that PR stands for Pienzan Restaurants.
The man is either dishonest or an absolute fool, if he genuinely thinks his pitch of 'I will see Labour and Remain win if you do not give me what I want, so you better given in' would ever convince the Tories, rather than have them say 'Well you f*cking stand down then if you want to avoid that, you're the one on 5-10%'.
The scandal over Boris Johnson’s friendship with technology entrepreneur Jennifer Arcuri was reignited on Saturday after the Observer revealed that the independent police watchdog has delayed its announcement on whether the PM should face an investigation into possible criminal misconduct until after the election.
People only believe the watchdog is independent when it does what they want or delivers the outcome they want, shocker. I bet Boris's people were saying the same things as those outraged by the watchdog's decision when it was suggested it had a role at all.
I know most politicians of various hues are either dim or dishonest, but I would have hoped they would look at the remit of the IOPC before questioning it's role in this case.
They question the role of courts when they don't like its rulings, and if HYUFD is any indication will seek to politicise them as a result, I doubt they care about actual remit of any body.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
These Bercow 'revelations' should be interesting, because if none of what he 'really thinks' as the papes put it, about policies or politicians is a surprise to anyone, then it will rather prove the point that his actions demonstrated what he thought anyway. So if there are opinions of his which are surprising that would be good for him.
The dome started out amidst great controversy over its expense and usefulness, but it came good in the end.
And I'm sure that building a double-sized copy of it in Glasgow and painting it all over with enormous Union Jacks would help to unite everyone in a spirit of celebration.
Surely the same is true whenever the Tories attack Labour spending plans at an election? I think the difference here is that since the Tories are not offering anything restrained themselves, will the accusation Labour's splurging is outrageous whilst their own splurging is reasonable, be blunted, given it is harder to claim that massive increased spending is bad.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
Can't blame Tories for being worried after what happened in 2017, even though the chances of the same thing happening again are pretty low IMO.
Labour now 32 on smarkets to win an overall majority, after nine years of so-called austerity and a 'cruel and heartless' government. That's astonishing, even taking Corbyn into account.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
Can't blame Tories for being worried after what happened in 2017, even though the chances of the same thing happening again are pretty low IMO.
Also Labour's organization on the ground is undeniably better.
The dome started out amidst great controversy over its expense and usefulness, but it came good in the end.
And I'm sure that building a double-sized copy of it in Glasgow and painting it all over with enormous Union Jacks would help to unite everyone in a spirit of celebration.
I visited the Dome 4 times in the year 2000. It was very impressive.
The media hated it because of an incident that happened on the evening of 31st December 1999 where a lot of top media bigwigs were kept waiting in the cold at Stratford (or West Ham) tube station after a fault prevented the station being used for a while, and they rather pettily decided to rubbish the Dome after that.
Yes been a very disappointing evening for polls considering there's an election campaign going on as we speak!
Polls cost money and in recent years the polls have been as accurate as an American war film.
The Deer Hunter- the whole Russian roulette stuff was just made up....
Oh wow. I thought that film was a documentary on the Vietnam War.
A
I think you're taking it and yourself a little too seriously. It's a film. It's rather good at portraying the human cost in 4 ordinary American lives. At the time it came out, 1978, that was probably a message worth telling.
But, yeah, if you want a great version of what the American War (as it's called over there) was all about then the Ken Burns and Lynn Novick 18-hour ten episode series is a masterpiece.
Agreed about the American War series.... The Deer Hunter- the film that dehumanised the Viet Cong was followed by Apocalypse Now which was probably even more morally ambiguous by depicting the Americans as too soft to fight the war. The point of Apocalypse Now wasn't the fact that the US shouldn't have been there, but they were not brutal enough.
And then we had terrible films like Back Hawk Down, American Sniper and Hacksaw Ridge.....
The greatest 3 American War films I have ever seen have all been made by Stanley Kubrick- one about the first world war, one about Vietnam and one about WW3.
Good American war films are a rarity. Apocalypse Now is a bit more ambiguous though. It is really a journey into moral insanity, rather than a physical journey.
I like Black Hawk Down. It always makes me think of the pointless tragedy of it all given the continued chaos in the country in the decades after its events. I seem to recall the focus on the american soldiers versus the mostly faceless somalian antagonists of the film sat ill with people at the time, but it's not glorifying, and the way events have actually gone since the film was released just make the futility of the individual heroics seem more pronounced.
Labour now 32 on smarkets to win an overall majority, after nine years of so-called austerity and a 'cruel and heartless' government. That's astonishing, even taking Corbyn into account.
All they had to do was choose Yvette Cooper as leader and they'd be heading for government right now.
The man is either dishonest or an absolute fool, if he genuinely thinks his pitch of 'I will see Labour and Remain win if you do not give me what I want, so you better given in' would ever convince the Tories, rather than have them say 'Well you f*cking stand down then if you want to avoid that, you're the one on 5-10%'.
I'm going for dishonest.
Farage is deliberately offering an impossible deal, because he wants Labour and Remain to win. He cares far more about his status and relevance than leaving the EU.
@foxinsoxuk I agree- Apocalypse Now is much more than just a war film. But it's references to how the war was being fought are uncompromising....Kurtz's soliloquy about the brutality of the Vietcong who amputated the arms of Vietnamese children who were vaccinated by the Americans wasn't an anti war statement- it was to incite the Americans to fight even more viciously....
It is a wonderful movie though. The Deer Hunter is contrived and dates badly, though the first hour is still outstanding.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
PhiIip_Thompson said: "100% agree with her on that. If there was a way to guarantee only those guilty of cop or child killing were to get the death penalty then I could sympathise with that, but it isn't possible, and form of death penalty risks executing the innocent which is unacceptable. So I will never back the death penalty because of that and nor does Patel quite rightly."
I can see where you are coming from but 1) why is it worse to kill a cop ahead of any other adult? and 2) it would require some state-sanctioned person to press the button, inject the needle - whatever - and this is problematic to me.
I, only half jokingly, think that lifers should be able to choose to end their own lives in prison with a Dignitas-like arrangement.
Capital punishment doesn't bother me in principle (it seems a tad hypocritical to me to agonise over executing convicted murderers, while incinerating innocent people in war). It just seems more trouble than it's worth, given the endless appeals, and the fact that's it's pretty ritualistic. You end up maybe executing 2% of the people who are actually convicted of murder each year, and it becomes a bit of a lottery.
The issue is the state is the servant of the people and it should not have the power of life and death over them
Labour now 32 on smarkets to win an overall majority, after nine years of so-called austerity and a 'cruel and heartless' government. That's astonishing, even taking Corbyn into account.
All they had to do was choose Yvette Cooper as leader and they'd be heading for government right now.
Or Keir, or Andy, or Tom, or Sadiq, or Emily, or or or...or anyone except Corbyn, possibly the worst rated leader of a major party in UK polling history
Surely the same is true whenever the Tories attack Labour spending plans at an election? I think the difference here is that since the Tories are not offering anything restrained themselves, will the accusation Labour's splurging is outrageous whilst their own splurging is reasonable, be blunted, given it is harder to claim that massive increased spending is bad.
Kle4, I agree with you on this. I personally believe it is a big mistake getting into a bidding war with a party that has no concept of economic sanity whatsoever. If the Tories promised to spend a trillion quid, Labour would double it, and so on. Fighting an election on John McDonnell's terms is a serious mistake. Also, the public actually do vote for parties that believe in economic competence, which is why Labour haven't been in power for nearly 10 years.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
I'm in a terrible bind, as a wobbly anti-Brexit league is the only way I get what I would prefer, but Corbyn is still very terrible. Granted, in a safe seat it doesn't matter which way I vote (I could have voted LD like usual last time and avoided responsibility for this incompetent government, but felt I should put my vote where my mouth was, Brexit wise, to accept responsibility for it), and a big Tory win is bad for plenty of reasons, but that wobbly league could end up with so many bad things happening.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
I'm in a terrible bind, as a wobbly anti-Brexit league is the only way I get what I would prefer, but Corbyn is still very terrible. Granted, in a safe seat it doesn't matter which way I vote (I could have voted LD like usual last time and avoided responsibility for this incompetent government, but felt I should put my vote where my mouth was, Brexit wise, to accept responsibility for it), and a big Tory win is bad for plenty of reasons, but that wobbly league could end up with so many bad things happening.
I feel similar. I support the government on Brexit up until the point we Leave, then I will want a Rejoin platform. On economic and social policy I am centre-left, which suggests the Lib Dems, but they aren't talking about anything but Brexit and have taken in the likes of Philip Lee. And overriding everything is how much I want the Corbynites to be completely expelled from politics. But I have an instinctive repulsion to voting Tory.
Jeremy Corbyn supporting union boss behind Christmas rail strikes is filmed calling Jewish activist a 'Nazi' in rant about Israel
Video footage shows the militant Jeremy Corbyn supporter shouting at a defender of Israel, Richard Millett: 'You're an absolute disgrace to the Jewish people. You are a modern-day fascist, you are a modern-day Nazi, by supporting those policies that oppress a… minority in your own state.'
@foxinsoxuk I agree- Apocalypse Now is much more than just a war film. But it's references to how the war was being fought are uncompromising....Kurtz's soliloquy about the brutality of the Vietcong who amputated the arms of Vietnamese children who were vaccinated by the Americans wasn't an anti war statement- it was to incite the Americans to fight even more viciously....
It is a wonderful movie though. The Deer Hunter is contrived and dates badly, though the first hour is still outstanding.
I think that the "goodies vs baddies" of American film doesn't adequately Deal with the moral issues of war. For that European film is more nuanced. I saw this recently for example and much impressed:
Surely the same is true whenever the Tories attack Labour spending plans at an election? I think the difference here is that since the Tories are not offering anything restrained themselves, will the accusation Labour's splurging is outrageous whilst their own splurging is reasonable, be blunted, given it is harder to claim that massive increased spending is bad.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
I'm in a terrible bind, as a wobbly anti-Brexit league is the only way I get what I would prefer, but Corbyn is still very terrible. Granted, in a safe seat it doesn't matter which way I vote (I could have voted LD like usual last time and avoided responsibility for this incompetent government, but felt I should put my vote where my mouth was, Brexit wise, to accept responsibility for it), and a big Tory win is bad for plenty of reasons, but that wobbly league could end up with so many bad things happening.
I sympathise with your Brexit versus Corbyn moral dilemma, but handing real power to the latter is a vastly worse prospect to contemplate than the former. Almost anything that weakens the Labour Party is to be welcomed at this moment in time.
Apparently the sun have asked the bbc bods that tweet the front pages not to do include their paper from now on. Interesting decision / timing.
Have they given a reason?
Tony Gallagher's wanted to be able to direct traffic to The Sun's website.
Ah, right, so someone posting a link here to the Sun front page story would have to link to their website, rather than a twitter feed from a BBC journo. That makes sense.
Are there going to be enough people left in the country to stand as candidates at this rate?
The parties need to find candidates with no embarrassing digital detritus to unearth. This rules out virtually all social media users and, by extension, almost everyone under 35.
Surely the same is true whenever the Tories attack Labour spending plans at an election? I think the difference here is that since the Tories are not offering anything restrained themselves, will the accusation Labour's splurging is outrageous whilst their own splurging is reasonable, be blunted, given it is harder to claim that massive increased spending is bad.
Kle4, I agree with you on this. I personally believe it is a big mistake getting into a bidding war with a party that has no concept of economic sanity whatsoever. If the Tories promised to spend a trillion quid, Labour would double it, and so on. Fighting an election on John McDonnell's terms is a serious mistake. Also, the public actually do vote for parties that believe in economic competence, which is why Labour haven't been in power for nearly 10 years.
Wrong, the polls show the public are fed up of austerity after 9 years of it. That is why the Tories lost their majority in 2017. If the Tories did not have a charismatic leader like Boris running on a populist message of spending more on core public services and tax cuts and delivering Brexit but ran a rehash of the 2017 campaign promising more austerity, higher taxes and with a Remainer not seen as committed to Brexit there is every chance Corbyn would be the next PM
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
I'm in a terrible bind, as a wobbly anti-Brexit league is the only way I get what I would prefer, but Corbyn is still very terrible. Granted, in a safe seat it doesn't matter which way I vote (I could have voted LD like usual last time and avoided responsibility for this incompetent government, but felt I should put my vote where my mouth was, Brexit wise, to accept responsibility for it), and a big Tory win is bad for plenty of reasons, but that wobbly league could end up with so many bad things happening.
I sympathise with your Brexit versus Corbyn moral dilemma, but handing real power to the latter is a vastly worse prospect to contemplate than the former. Almost anything that weakens the Labour Party is to be welcomed at this moment in time.
I'd prefer no brexit now, but would be fine if a deal did go through, it was my supported outcome until about 9 months ago, I just cannot pretend the former does not come with great risks of Corbyn just as the latter means, at this point, Boris. As I say, it's good that my vote won't matter on this at least.
LOL. He looks a right prat in the context of tonight's polls.
He who laughs last, etc.
I've not seen anything yet in this weekend's polls to shift my prediction, which is currently Con 333 Lab 216 SNP 45 LD 31 Others 24. That's only a Tory majority of 16 (though I'm sure Johnson would take it.)
That doesn't leave a lot of leeway for the hurlyburly of the campaign. Some of you might be mocking Farage now, but if he does keep his troops in the fight, he could easily score some blows against Boris over the next month. In any argument about Brexit, Johnson is a pygmy compared to Farage.
And that's before we start thinking about whether Corbyn and Swinson are going to have good campaigns.
Surely the same is true whenever the Tories attack Labour spending plans at an election? I think the difference here is that since the Tories are not offering anything restrained themselves, will the accusation Labour's splurging is outrageous whilst their own splurging is reasonable, be blunted, given it is harder to claim that massive increased spending is bad.
Kle4, I agree with you on this. I personally believe it is a big mistake getting into a bidding war with a party that has no concept of economic sanity whatsoever. If the Tories promised to spend a trillion quid, Labour would double it, and so on. Fighting an election on John McDonnell's terms is a serious mistake. Also, the public actually do vote for parties that believe in economic competence, which is why Labour haven't been in power for nearly 10 years.
Wrong, the polls show the public are fed up of austerity. That is why the Tories lost their majority in 2017. If the Tories did not have a charismatic leader like Boris running on a populist message of spending more on core public services and tax cuts and delivering Brexit but ran a rehash of the 2017 campaign promising more austerity, higher taxes and with a Remainer not seen as committed to Brexit there is every chance Corbyn would be the next PM
That would rather suggest you don't think Boris is as charismatic as you claim, since May came close to a majority despite lacking charisma, not being a true Brexiter and promise of more austerity. Given Boris is a true Brexiter and has charisma, why are you so sure he would fail without splurging the cash? I thought you believed in him.
@foxinsoxuk I agree- Apocalypse Now is much more than just a war film. But it's references to how the war was being fought are uncompromising....Kurtz's soliloquy about the brutality of the Vietcong who amputated the arms of Vietnamese children who were vaccinated by the Americans wasn't an anti war statement- it was to incite the Americans to fight even more viciously....
It is a wonderful movie though. The Deer Hunter is contrived and dates badly, though the first hour is still outstanding.
I think that the "goodies vs baddies" of American film doesn't adequately Deal with the moral issues of war. For that European film is more nuanced. I saw this recently for example and much impressed:
Labour now 32 on smarkets to win an overall majority, after nine years of so-called austerity and a 'cruel and heartless' government. That's astonishing, even taking Corbyn into account.
All they had to do was choose Yvette Cooper as leader and they'd be heading for government right now.
Or Keir, or Andy, or Tom, or Sadiq, or Emily, or or or...or anyone except Corbyn, possibly the worst rated leader of a major party in UK polling history
I disagree, hypothetical polling putting a Starmer led Labour v a Boris led Tories have it neck and neck, Leavers would still vote for Boris but it would be closer as more centrist Remainers currently voting LD or sticking with the Tories to keep out Corbyn would vote Labour
Are there going to be enough people left in the country to stand as candidates at this rate?
The parties need to find candidates with no embarrassing digital detritus to unearth. This rules out virtually all social media users and, by extension, almost everyone under 35.
Sounds like a plan to me.
It is rather stupid. As I said the other night, one or two idiotic / offensive tweets from years ago, I really don't care about.
It is if there is a clear consistent pattern of behaviour. Even Jarad O'Mara, a lot of his social media stuff I don't think should necessarily exclude him from being an MP (although there was a hell of a lot of nasty stuff). But in his case, it was not just that, in real life his behaviour was in anything even worse (and it was really recent). Thus, as a package, he should obviously get the ban hammer.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
Awferfucksakes, are you my twin? Do we share a brain? Stop repeating my nightmares back to me, would you!
Anyway, the polls didn't turn out quite as badly as we feared today (thank you YouGov!), and every day that happens is a win in my book.
Surely the same is true whenever the Tories attack Labour spending plans at an election? I think the difference here is that since the Tories are not offering anything restrained themselves, will the accusation Labour's splurging is outrageous whilst their own splurging is reasonable, be blunted, given it is harder to claim that massive increased spending is bad.
Kle4, I agree with you on this. I personally believe it is a big mistake getting into a bidding war with a party that has no concept of economic sanity whatsoever. If the Tories promised to spend a trillion quid, Labour would double it, and so on. Fighting an election on John McDonnell's terms is a serious mistake. Also, the public actually do vote for parties that believe in economic competence, which is why Labour haven't been in power for nearly 10 years.
Wrong, the polls show the public are fed up of austerity after 9 years of it. That is why the Tories lost their majority in 2017. If the Tories did not have a charismatic leader like Boris running on a populist message of spending more on core public services and tax cuts and delivering Brexit but ran a rehash of the 2017 campaign promising more austerity, higher taxes and with a Remainer not seen as committed to Brexit there is every chance Corbyn would be the next PM
I agree with you on this one. Running an austerity campaign against Corbyn once more would be disastrous. Given the public mood, a Tory platform that says "We hear you, we're going to end austerity but not go insane like Labour would" strikes a decent balance in 2019.
I'd prefer no brexit now, but would be fine if a deal did go through, it was my supported outcome until about 9 months ago, I just cannot pretend the former does not come with great risks of Corbyn just as the latter means, at this point, Boris. As I say, it's good that my vote won't matter on this at least.
Neither does mine. I can lend my vote to the Lib Dems in the virtually certain knowledge that the local Tory will win for the squillionth time on the bounce.
Faced with having to make a direct and meaningful choice between the Corbyn-McDonnell Revolutionary Front and Boris Johnson, however, I'd back Boris. Every single time. We need to force Labour back into the cities and keep it penned in there until it cleanses itself or is replaced by something better - and I'm not banking on the former ever happening. How long the latter might take God alone knows.
Surely the same is true whenever the Tories attack Labour spending plans at an election? I think the difference here is that since the Tories are not offering anything restrained themselves, will the accusation Labour's splurging is outrageous whilst their own splurging is reasonable, be blunted, given it is harder to claim that massive increased spending is bad.
Kle4, I agree with you on this. I personally believe it is a big mistake getting into a bidding war with a party that has no concept of economic sanity whatsoever. If the Tories promised to spend a trillion quid, Labour would double it, and so on. Fighting an election on John McDonnell's terms is a serious mistake. Also, the public actually do vote for parties that believe in economic competence, which is why Labour haven't been in power for nearly 10 years.
Wrong, the polls show the public are fed up of austerity. That is why the Tories lost their majority in 2017. If the Tories did not have a charismatic leader like Boris running on a populist message of spending more on core public services and tax cuts and delivering Brexit but ran a rehash of the 2017 campaign promising more austerity, higher taxes and with a Remainer not seen as committed to Brexit there is every chance Corbyn would be the next PM
That would rather suggest you don't think Boris is as charismatic as you claim, since May came close to a majority despite lacking charisma, not being a true Brexiter and promise of more austerity. Given Boris is a true Brexiter and has charisma, why are you so sure he would fail without splurging the cash? I thought you believed in him.
May lost her majority, on current polling Boris will reclaim that majority. May led Labour by 2% and then trailed Labour when she left office, Boris now has a 12% to 13% Tory lead over Labour in the 3 polls tonight.
A true Brexiteer and charisma is needed to win, so is tax cuts and more money for public services as well
I'd prefer no brexit now, but would be fine if a deal did go through, it was my supported outcome until about 9 months ago, I just cannot pretend the former does not come with great risks of Corbyn just as the latter means, at this point, Boris. As I say, it's good that my vote won't matter on this at least.
Neither does mine. I can lend my vote to the Lib Dems in the virtually certain knowledge that the local Tory will win for the squillionth time on the bounce.
Faced with having to make a direct and meaningful choice between the Corbyn-McDonnell Revolutionary Front and Boris Johnson, however, I'd back Boris. Every single time. We need to force Labour back into the cities and keep it penned in there until it cleanses itself or is replaced by something better - and I'm not banking on the former ever happening. How long the latter might take God alone knows.
The latter likely needs an ex Labour LD leader like Chuka Umunna or Luciana Berger not an ex coalition with the Tories LD leader like Jo Swinson or Ed Davey
Surely the same is true whenever the Tories attack Labour spending plans at an election? I think the difference here is that since the Tories are not offering anything restrained themselves, will the accusation Labour's splurging is outrageous whilst their own splurging is reasonable, be blunted, given it is harder to claim that massive increased spending is bad.
Kle4, I agree with you on this. I personally believe it is a big mistake getting into a bidding war with a party that has no concept of economic sanity whatsoever. If the Tories promised to spend a trillion quid, Labour would double it, and so on. Fighting an election on John McDonnell's terms is a serious mistake. Also, the public actually do vote for parties that believe in economic competence, which is why Labour haven't been in power for nearly 10 years.
Wrong, the polls show the public are fed up of austerity. That is why the Tories lost their majority in 2017. If the Tories did not have a charismatic leader like Boris running on a populist message of spending more on core public services and tax cuts and delivering Brexit but ran a rehash of the 2017 campaign promising more austerity, higher taxes and with a Remainer not seen as committed to Brexit there is every chance Corbyn would be the next PM
That would rather suggest you don't think Boris is as charismatic as you claim, since May came close to a majority despite lacking charisma, not being a true Brexiter and promise of more austerity. Given Boris is a true Brexiter and has charisma, why are you so sure he would fail without splurging the cash? I thought you believed in him.
May lost her majority, on current polling Boris will reclaim that majority. May led Labour by 2% and then trailed Labour when she left office, Boris now has a 12% to 13% Tory lead over Labour in the 3 polls tonight.
A true Brexiteer and charisma is needed to win, so is tax cuts and more money for public services as well
But why is the latter needed? You dont think Boris could have added 2-3% more of a lead to the May campaign if hed been running it? Apparently his charisma has more limits than you've admitted to before.
Surely the same is true whenever the Tories attack Labour spending plans at an election? I think the difference here is that since the Tories are not offering anything restrained themselves, will the accusation Labour's splurging is outrageous whilst their own splurging is reasonable, be blunted, given it is harder to claim that massive increased spending is bad.
Kle4, I agree with you on this. I personally believe it is a big mistake getting into a bidding war with a party that has no concept of economic sanity whatsoever. If the Tories promised to spend a trillion quid, Labour would double it, and so on. Fighting an election on John McDonnell's terms is a serious mistake. Also, the public actually do vote for parties that believe in economic competence, which is why Labour haven't been in power for nearly 10 years.
Wrong, the polls show the public are fed up of austerity after 9 years of it. That is why the Tories lost their majority in 2017. If the Tories did not have a charismatic leader like Boris running on a populist message of spending more on core public services and tax cuts and delivering Brexit but ran a rehash of the 2017 campaign promising more austerity, higher taxes and with a Remainer not seen as committed to Brexit there is every chance Corbyn would be the next PM
I agree with you on this one. Running an austerity campaign against Corbyn once more would be disastrous. Given the public mood, a Tory platform that says "We hear you, we're going to end austerity but not go insane like Labour would" strikes a decent balance in 2019.
Exactly.
If Corbyn got in, heaven forbid, that would be the time to pick a serious fiscal conservative given the economic disaster a Corbyn government would be.
To keep Corbyn out of power in the first place a more populist but still economically sane campaign is needed
Surely the same is true whenever the Tories attack Labour spending plans at an election? I think the difference here is that since the Tories are not offering anything restrained themselves, will the accusation Labour's splurging is outrageous whilst their own splurging is reasonable, be blunted, given it is harder to claim that massive increased spending is bad.
Kle4, I agree with you on this. I personally believe it is a big mistake getting into a bidding war with a party that has no concept of economic sanity whatsoever. If the Tories promised to spend a trillion quid, Labour would double it, and so on. Fighting an election on John McDonnell's terms is a serious mistake. Also, the public actually do vote for parties that believe in economic competence, which is why Labour haven't been in power for nearly 10 years.
Wrong, the polls show the public are fed up of austerity. That is why the Tories lost their majority in 2017. If the Tories did not have a charismatic leader like Boris running on a populist message of spending more on core public services and tax cuts and delivering Brexit but ran a rehash of the 2017 campaign promising more austerity, higher taxes and with a Remainer not seen as committed to Brexit there is every chance Corbyn would be the next PM
That would rather suggest you don't think Boris is as charismatic as you claim, since May came close to a majority despite lacking charisma, not being a true Brexiter and promise of more austerity. Given Boris is a true Brexiter and has charisma, why are you so sure he would fail without splurging the cash? I thought you believed in him.
May lost her majority, on current polling Boris will reclaim that majority. May led Labour by 2% and then trailed Labour when she left office, Boris now has a 12% to 13% Tory lead over Labour in the 3 polls tonight.
A true Brexiteer and charisma is needed to win, so is tax cuts and more money for public services as well
But why is the latter needed? You dont think Boris could have added 2-3% more of a lead to the May campaign if hed been running it? Apparently his charisma has more limits than you've admitted to before.
The one lesson the May campaign should have taught the Tories is that even when the polls show you winning, you need to campaign as if you're neck-and-neck.
In other words, better to go all out and win a big majority if the polls are right, than to lose one altogether if they're wrong.
Are there going to be enough people left in the country to stand as candidates at this rate?
The parties need to find candidates with no embarrassing digital detritus to unearth. This rules out virtually all social media users and, by extension, almost everyone under 35.
Sounds like a plan to me.
It is rather stupid. As I said the other night, one or two idiotic / offensive tweets from years ago, I really don't care about.
It is if there is a clear consistent pattern of behaviour. Even Jarad O'Mara, a lot of his social media stuff I don't think should necessarily exclude him from being an MP (although there was a hell of a lot of nasty stuff). But in his case, it was not just that, in real life his behaviour was in anything even worse (and it was really recent). Thus, as a package, he should obviously get the ban hammer.
Raking everything people ever said before entering into public life is a terrible idea. Because we've all said or done stupid stuff, made the occasional tasteless joke or off colour remark. As you say, it's when it becomes a pattern that it's a problem.
The trouble is when you try to "cancel" people for a single slip up, what you eventually get is politicians like Donald Trump. Who are lauded for their brass necks and their ability to brazen it out. Not just because "he's our guy" but because the whole idea of saying something offensive is devalued in a world that finds everything offensive.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
Awferfucksakes, are you my twin? Do we share a brain? Stop repeating my nightmares back to me, would you!
Anyway, the polls didn't turn out quite as badly as we feared today (thank you YouGov!), and every day that happens is a win in my book.
There are still nearly five weeks to go. Give Labour time. The recovery is inevitable.
@foxinsoxuk I agree- Apocalypse Now is much more than just a war film. But it's references to how the war was being fought are uncompromising....Kurtz's soliloquy about the brutality of the Vietcong who amputated the arms of Vietnamese children who were vaccinated by the Americans wasn't an anti war statement- it was to incite the Americans to fight even more viciously....
It is a wonderful movie though. The Deer Hunter is contrived and dates badly, though the first hour is still outstanding.
I found the Deer Hunter dreadfully dull. I am sure I have seen Apocalypse Now at some point but I cannot remember anything about it.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
Awferfucksakes, are you my twin? Do we share a brain? Stop repeating my nightmares back to me, would you!
Anyway, the polls didn't turn out quite as badly as we feared today (thank you YouGov!), and every day that happens is a win in my book.
There are still nearly five weeks to go. Give Labour time. The recovery is inevitable.
Are there going to be enough people left in the country to stand as candidates at this rate?
The parties need to find candidates with no embarrassing digital detritus to unearth. This rules out virtually all social media users and, by extension, almost everyone under 35.
Sounds like a plan to me.
It is rather stupid. As I said the other night, one or two idiotic / offensive tweets from years ago, I really don't care about.
It is if there is a clear consistent pattern of behaviour. Even Jarad O'Mara, a lot of his social media stuff I don't think should necessarily exclude him from being an MP (although there was a hell of a lot of nasty stuff). But in his case, it was not just that, in real life his behaviour was in anything even worse (and it was really recent). Thus, as a package, he should obviously get the ban hammer.
Raking everything people ever said before entering into public life is a terrible idea. Because we've all said or done stupid stuff, made the occasional tasteless joke or off colour remark. As you say, it's when it becomes a pattern that it's a problem.
The trouble is when you try to "cancel" people for a single slip up, what you eventually get is politicians like Donald Trump. Who are lauded for their brass necks and their ability to brazen it out. Not just because "he's our guy" but because the whole idea of saying something offensive is devalued in a world that finds everything offensive.
The problem, of course, is that when people said stupid crap or made tasteless jokes in the past there was seldom anybody hovering around them with a dictaphone recording it all for posterity. Whereas nowadays the population, and especially the younger part of it, consists largely of persons who broadcast the unfiltered contents of their minds to the entire world 24 hours a day without even thinking about it. And yes, in the end the only way that is sustainable is if people cease to be offended by anything, or they become.offended by everything and the only survivors end up being the totally bland and the totally brazen.
Anti-social media really is a first order disaster. Is that why there is no evidence of other intelligent life in the universe? Every previous civilisation self-destructed shortly after it invented Twitter?
@foxinsoxuk I agree- Apocalypse Now is much more than just a war film. But it's references to how the war was being fought are uncompromising....Kurtz's soliloquy about the brutality of the Vietcong who amputated the arms of Vietnamese children who were vaccinated by the Americans wasn't an anti war statement- it was to incite the Americans to fight even more viciously....
It is a wonderful movie though. The Deer Hunter is contrived and dates badly, though the first hour is still outstanding.
I found the Deer Hunter dreadfully dull. I am sure I have seen Apocalypse Now at some point but I cannot remember anything about it.
Helicopters? Ride of the Valkyries? "I love the smell of napalm in the morning...."?
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
Awferfucksakes, are you my twin? Do we share a brain? Stop repeating my nightmares back to me, would you!
Anyway, the polls didn't turn out quite as badly as we feared today (thank you YouGov!), and every day that happens is a win in my book.
There are still nearly five weeks to go. Give Labour time. The recovery is inevitable.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
Awferfucksakes, are you my twin? Do we share a brain? Stop repeating my nightmares back to me, would you!
Anyway, the polls didn't turn out quite as badly as we feared today (thank you YouGov!), and every day that happens is a win in my book.
There are still nearly five weeks to go. Give Labour time. The recovery is inevitable.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
Awferfucksakes, are you my twin? Do we share a brain? Stop repeating my nightmares back to me, would you!
Anyway, the polls didn't turn out quite as badly as we feared today (thank you YouGov!), and every day that happens is a win in my book.
There are still nearly five weeks to go. Give Labour time. The recovery is inevitable.
I'd prefer no brexit now, but would be fine if a deal did go through, it was my supported outcome until about 9 months ago, I just cannot pretend the former does not come with great risks of Corbyn just as the latter means, at this point, Boris. As I say, it's good that my vote won't matter on this at least.
Neither does mine. I can lend my vote to the Lib Dems in the virtually certain knowledge that the local Tory will win for the squillionth time on the bounce.
Faced with having to make a direct and meaningful choice between the Corbyn-McDonnell Revolutionary Front and Boris Johnson, however, I'd back Boris. Every single time. We need to force Labour back into the cities and keep it penned in there until it cleanses itself or is replaced by something better - and I'm not banking on the former ever happening. How long the latter might take God alone knows.
My seat used to be marginal but now the Tories are on 64% so can't possibly lose. In a way that's give me more freedom as to who to vote for, knowing my vote won't affect who wins the seat.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls. It seems to me that Labour supporters manage to stay relatively chirpy, even polling at just 30% after nine years of opposition and having the worst leader in their history. Yet I often see Tory supporters wobble at the slightest narrowing of a gap in a single opinion poll. The Tory vote has held up remarkably well considering how the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
Awferfucksakes, are you my twin? Do we share a brain? Stop repeating my nightmares back to me, would you!
Anyway, the polls didn't turn out quite as badly as we feared today (thank you YouGov!), and every day that happens is a win in my book.
There are still nearly five weeks to go. Give Labour time. The recovery is inevitable.
The dynamics are so very different this time around. Don’t assume lightening will strike twice for Labour.
That strange machine noise in the distance. That's the Labour androids marching over the hill. I can almost make out their eerie, mindless, hollow cries, echoing in unison through the cold, dark night...
"I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour..."
Politicians de-select candidates with offensive records because they think it is a net vote loser. If people already know you, that might be different, but most people don't have a weekly TV show like Donald Trump or Hugo Chávez. This far out from an election, the main beneficiary of offensive-Tweet-resignations is a rival from one's own party who gets to be a candidate. So I would assume they are sources of many of these stories - whereas the election opponent would rather the offensive candidate be in situ first.
Politicians de-select candidates with offensive records because they think it is a net vote loser. If people already know you, that might be different, but most people don't have a weekly TV show like Donald Trump or Hugo Chávez. This far out from an election, the main beneficiary of offensive-Tweet-resignations is a rival from one's own party who gets to be a candidate. So I would assume they are sources of many of these stories - whereas the election opponent would rather the offensive candidate be in situ first.
Hmm.
But take that Conservative candidate who said people on the TV show Benefits Street should be "put down".
If the evil, heartless Tories are as evil and heartless as the left claim, then surely potential voters will agree with the sentiment of that statement (i.e. people on benefits are horrible and lazy, rather than literally require extermination).
The point is I don't think the candidate was really calling for a cull of the poor, but surely that kind of confected outrage doesn't do a damn thing to put off potential voters.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinionhow the campaign started, and even more remarkably, so has the Labour vote. But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
Awferfucksakes, are you my twin? Do we share a brain? Stop repeating my nightmares back to me, would you!
Anyway, the polls didn't turn out quite as badly as we feared today (thank you YouGov!), and every day that happens is a win in my book.
There are still nearly five weeks to go!
Yes. Sorry.
The dynamics are so very different this time around. Don’t assume lightening will strike twice for Labour.
That strange machine noise in the distance. That's the Labour androids marching over the hill. I can almost make out their eerie, mindless, hollow cries, echoing in unison through the cold, dark night...
"I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour..."
Oh, the humanity!
In the Labour rotten boroughs yes. Nothing can stop that. And it doesn’t matter. Let them build huge majorities in their safe seats. Pile them up. Who cares?
If they can’t win in the Stevenage’s and Swindon’s they’re going nowhere. And they won’t.
People keep saying Boris is a buffoon. He isn’t. Despite a very difficult start to the campaign for the cons the polls show negligible movements.
Tories could even climb much higher. Corbyn isn’t the fresh face he was (politically). His ratings are in the toilet. Forget the tribes.
Are there going to be enough people left in the country to stand as candidates at this rate?
The parties need to find candidates with no embarrassing digital detritus to unearth. This rules out virtually all social media users and, by extension, almost everyone under 35.
Sounds like a plan to me.
It is rather stupid. As I said the other night, one or two idiotic / offensive tweets from years ago, I really don't care about.
It is if there is a clear consistent pattern of behaviour. Even Jarad O'Mara, a lot of his social media stuff I don't think should necessarily exclude him from being an MP (although there was a hell of a lot of nasty stuff). But in his case, it was not just that, in real life his behaviour was in anything even worse (and it was really recent). Thus, as a package, he should obviously get the ban hammer.
Raking everything people ever said before entering into public life is a terrible idea. Because we've all said or done stupid stuff, made the occasional tasteless joke or off colour remark. As you say, it's when it becomes a pattern that it's a problem.
The trouble is when you try to "cancel" people for a single slip up, what you eventually get is politicians like Donald Trump. Who are lauded for their brass necks and their ability to brazen it out. Not just because "he's our guy" but because the whole idea of saying something offensive is devalued in a world that finds everything offensive.
The problem, of course, is that when people said stupid crap or made tasteless jokes in the past there was seldom anybody hovering around them with a dictaphone recording it all for posterity. Whereas nowadays the population, and especially the younger part of it, consists largely of persons who broadcast the unfiltered contents of their minds to the entire world 24 hours a day without even thinking about it. And yes, in the end the only way that is sustainable is if people cease to be offended by anything, or they become.offended by everything and the only survivors end up being the totally bland and the totally brazen.
Anti-social media really is a first order disaster. Is that why there is no evidence of other intelligent life in the universe? Every previous civilisation self-destructed shortly after it invented Twitter?
It could be the opposite effect. The universe is teeming with civilization, but they are able to read our social media from afar and regard us as termites they don't want infection from.
It's interesting, isn't it, to compare the different mindset and attitudes between Labour and Tory reactions to opinion polls.But Labour are 10 points behind, not the Tories.
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
That's logical. The Labourites (those supportive of or at least sanguine about the Revolution) are relieved not to be doing worse. The Tories, and more broadly anyone wanting to keep the Far Left away from power, is frightened of a repeat of 2017. I'm in the anti-Labour camp and am utterly convinced that they're going to get close enough to 2017 to have a real chance of getting into office at the head of a wobbly anti-Brexit league, and I'm going to keep thinking that until it actually happens. Or doesn't. Except that it will happen. Because it not happening would be too good to be true, and if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
Awferfucksakes, are you my twin? Do we share a brain? Stop repeating my nightmares back to me, would you!
Anyway, the polls didn't turn out quite as badly as we feared today (thank you YouGov!), and every day that happens is a win in my book.
There are still nearly five weeks to go. Give Labour time. The recovery is inevitable.
The dynamics are so very different this time around. Don’t assume lightening will strike twice for Labour.
That strange machine noise in the distance. That's the Labour androids marching over the hill. I can almost make out their eerie, mindless, hollow cries, echoing in unison through the cold, dark night...
"I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour..."
Oh, the humanity!
In a just universe, although our heroes might find it impossible to halt the androids' onward march, they would manage to ever-so-slightly alter their programming so that they all turned up to vote on Friday 13th...
Comments
Farage will be well pissed off. Prima donna that he is, if this polling continues he might prefer to unilaterally stand down many candidates in order to be able to spin a line that his doing so was the key factor that enabled Johnson to deliver a form of Brexit, rather than show his irrelevance if Johnson wins anyway in spite of him.
Another double digit tory lead!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😊
https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1193291610336976902
A dog with no bite.
BXP down big tonight.
I think this is pretty much going to be result on the night- Tories 40/ Lab 27
It's strange looking at Betfair tonight because the Tories have moved out slightly...odd!!
Exclusive: Ex-Speaker says Brexit referendum was called to quell ‘chuntering’ in the Tories"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/09/john-bercow-david-cameron-born-to-rule-brexit-referendum
I'm going for dishonest.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/05/government-pushes-ahead-plans-festival-of-brexit
Does anyone think it a good idea ?
Labour's only strategy now is to present a blank cheque to the public and they'd be happy bankrupting the country to get Boris out of office and/or to stop Brexit.
And I'm sure that building a double-sized copy of it in Glasgow and painting it all over with enormous Union Jacks would help to unite everyone in a spirit of celebration.
The media hated it because of an incident that happened on the evening of 31st December 1999 where a lot of top media bigwigs were kept waiting in the cold at Stratford (or West Ham) tube station after a fault prevented the station being used for a while, and they rather pettily decided to rubbish the Dome after that.
I agree- Apocalypse Now is much more than just a war film. But it's references to how the war was being fought are uncompromising....Kurtz's soliloquy about the brutality of the Vietcong who amputated the arms of Vietnamese children who were vaccinated by the Americans wasn't an anti war statement- it was to incite the Americans to fight even more viciously....
It is a wonderful movie though. The Deer Hunter is contrived and dates badly, though the first hour is still outstanding.
I may abstain for the first time in my life.
Video footage shows the militant Jeremy Corbyn supporter shouting at a defender of Israel, Richard Millett: 'You're an absolute disgrace to the Jewish people. You are a modern-day fascist, you are a modern-day Nazi, by supporting those policies that oppress a… minority in your own state.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7668423/Union-boss-Corbyn-supporter-filmed-calling-Jewish-activist-Nazi-rant-Israel.html
https://player.bfi.org.uk/rentals/film/watch-in-the-fog-2012-online
No one answer that.
Pleasant night to all
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-candidate-suspended-over-food-bank-comments-gn6wrlfsq
Are there going to be enough people left in the country to stand as candidates at this rate?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10313313/sajid-javid-john-mcdonnell-labour-spending/
Except it bears a startling resemblance to the Conservative Party's report on Labour's spending plans outlined in the Telegraph. Oops.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/09/jeremy-corbyns-reckless-12-trillion-spending-splurge-revealed/
Sounds like a plan to me.
I've not seen anything yet in this weekend's polls to shift my prediction, which is currently Con 333 Lab 216 SNP 45 LD 31 Others 24. That's only a Tory majority of 16 (though I'm sure Johnson would take it.)
That doesn't leave a lot of leeway for the hurlyburly of the campaign. Some of you might be mocking Farage now, but if he does keep his troops in the fight, he could easily score some blows against Boris over the next month. In any argument about Brexit, Johnson is a pygmy compared to Farage.
And that's before we start thinking about whether Corbyn and Swinson are going to have good campaigns.
It is if there is a clear consistent pattern of behaviour. Even Jarad O'Mara, a lot of his social media stuff I don't think should necessarily exclude him from being an MP (although there was a hell of a lot of nasty stuff). But in his case, it was not just that, in real life his behaviour was in anything even worse (and it was really recent). Thus, as a package, he should obviously get the ban hammer.
Anyway, the polls didn't turn out quite as badly as we feared today (thank you YouGov!), and every day that happens is a win in my book.
Faced with having to make a direct and meaningful choice between the Corbyn-McDonnell Revolutionary Front and Boris Johnson, however, I'd back Boris. Every single time. We need to force Labour back into the cities and keep it penned in there until it cleanses itself or is replaced by something better - and I'm not banking on the former ever happening. How long the latter might take God alone knows.
A true Brexiteer and charisma is needed to win, so is tax cuts and more money for public services as well
If Corbyn got in, heaven forbid, that would be the time to pick a serious fiscal conservative given the economic disaster a Corbyn government would be.
To keep Corbyn out of power in the first place a more populist but still economically sane campaign is needed
In other words, better to go all out and win a big majority if the polls are right, than to lose one altogether if they're wrong.
The trouble is when you try to "cancel" people for a single slip up, what you eventually get is politicians like Donald Trump. Who are lauded for their brass necks and their ability to brazen it out. Not just because "he's our guy" but because the whole idea of saying something offensive is devalued in a world that finds everything offensive.
Anti-social media really is a first order disaster. Is that why there is no evidence of other intelligent life in the universe? Every previous civilisation self-destructed shortly after it invented Twitter?
"I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour. I'm voting Labour cos I've always voted Labour..."
Oh, the humanity!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q1NzDdro77WgglG7dhlE6c8ORK6xjWOfx0i1L5FUkPk/edit#gid=0
http://vote-2012.proboards.com
But take that Conservative candidate who said people on the TV show Benefits Street should be "put down".
If the evil, heartless Tories are as evil and heartless as the left claim, then surely potential voters will agree with the sentiment of that statement (i.e. people on benefits are horrible and lazy, rather than literally require extermination).
The point is I don't think the candidate was really calling for a cull of the poor, but surely that kind of confected outrage doesn't do a damn thing to put off potential voters.