Canterbury will be a solid Labour hold, I reckon, with or without the Lib Dems' co-operation. I live in the constituency and see/feel nothing to suggest otherwise.
They have a 187 vote majority if they are on for a solid hold then we should all be lumping on Corbyn as next PM
Not so. It's in Leaver seats in the North that the Tories will be looking to turn in a majority winning performance. The South is much tougher, especially if the LD vote holds up.
Labour are down by over 10 points, that is nationwide. Nothing suggests their vote will hold up in the SE in seats like this. Even if the Tories also go backwards 'solid hold' is hopelessly optimistic against the national picture as it stands. It's a hyper marginal.
It's certainly a hypermarginal but it's equally certainly not the easy Con win you might imagine given a ten point lead nationally - for all the reasons given above and below.
As I said, 'solid hold' is hopelessly optimistic in the face of the current evidence. Narrow hold or loss possible, yes. Solid hold suggests a 2000 plus majority which would be a swing to labour of a notable amount
Terminological differences. Let's put some numbers on it. Ladbrokes go 8/11 Conservatives. You a backer or layer?
Question. Tory Leavers are orgasmic when Nigel stands down his MPs to give their chaps a free run. But when a few Lib Dems decide to do something similar it's turpitude. Why is that?
Speaking as a Tory, leaver, I don't give two hoots what Nigel Farage does or doesn't do. But to answer your question, it's because the Brexit Party aren't claiming to be a serious political party with a broad domestic agenda and ambition to givern to fulfil it: they're unambiguously a single issue protest vote movement that exists solely to force through Brexit; after which they will effectively cease to exist.
Are the Lib Dems a serious political party with a broad domestic agenda?
The seem to be a single issue 'bollocks to Brexit' protest vote movement themselves too.
Problem for Gauke is no one on either side of the argument now trusts him. He'll earn his £22k and get some nice corporate gigs and possibly keep his deposit.
Things will have changed if Johnson gets a working majority on Brexit: 1. Up to now I think the EU have been predictably taking a very hard negotiating stance because there was a real possibility that the UK could change its mind if they did, and the UK changing its mind was their preferred outcome. The likes of Blair were lobbying for them not to offer anything. The option of the UK changing its mind will be off the table in future negotiations. 2. They will also know that without the constraints of a Benn Act Mk2 he will have the option of walking away and they will have to regard that as a real rather than imaginary threat.
So it is folly to make a simplistic assumption that future negotiations will be as difficult as what went before, because the context will have changed.
The bottom line is that the EU wants to preserve its export markets in the UK and once it has accepted that we have left it will not be prepared to put those at risk, even if what it ends up with is in its eyes sub-optimal.
Leavers in Sep 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks! Leavers in Oct 2019: Foolish Remainers! Obviously Boris did not intend no deal! Leavers in Nov 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks!
All entirely consistent.
You have to seriously be prepared to threaten to walk away with no deal in order to get a good deal, that doesn't mean you intend no deal.
Just the same as you spend on your military in order to have peace. The Romans had an expression: Si vis pacem, para bellum that logic was known thousands of years ago is still relevant today.
PS if you wanted no deal you wouldn't threaten it, you'd just prepare for it and walk away without engaging in negotiations.
There's a much simpler deduction that is much more consistent with the available facts: the government is clueless. Why else would it have gone through so many handbrake turns to end up lamely agreeing to a deal that is disastrous for the country's economy and cuts the nation in two?
JFK, Carter, Clinton and Obama all got in after 8 years of a GOP President and only Carter faced the incumbent president. In 2020 the Democrats will have to beat an incumbent president after only one one term and 4 years in power.
Clinton also faced an incumbent President.
OK him too but after 12 years of GOP presidents again not 4
Your statement was still inaccurate - I was simply pointing that out.
I agree that defeating an incumbent (even a fairly unpopular one) is harder than winning an election with no incumbent. However, it's not a particularly original idea, and there are several examples of candidates doing just that.
Only Reagan since WW2 has beaten an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House
Can I ask other PBers what bets they have going on for the UK election at the moment, intrigued to get the feel of where you think it is going.
Not sure it would help you much, MP. Most punters on here are shrewd enough to be backing value rather than outcomes. For example, I backed the LDs in The Cotswolds today at 17/2, not because I think they will win - they probably won't - but because the odds looked too long.
Timing is also a factor because facts change, so my portfolio might reflect good calls at the time but look a bit dumb now, or vice versa.
Problem for Gauke is no one on either side of the argument now trusts him. He'll earn his £22k and get some nice corporate gigs and possibly keep his deposit.
He may do the former, not now sure about the latter
He's a Labour cheerleader so he'll say this even in the worst of times. If the votes are holding up then all the polls are wrong. I imagine what is happening is there is no collapse, just a trickle effect that would lose Labour 30-40 seats.
Can I ask other PBers what bets they have going on for the UK election at the moment, intrigued to get the feel of where you think it is going.
Are you a Cummings bot?
A Conservative yes, but a remainer, so most likely voting Lib Dem
That wasn't the question.
Someone new comes on here and asks us all how we feel things are going.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .....
I may not post a huge amount but my account is around 4 years old, so I dont really think I class as that new to be fair.
Ah okay. Mea culpa. I'm just wary of the Cummings Ruskies.
No problem at all, more just personal intrigue from my part, as I am tempted to bet on a far better Labour position that polls are currently suggesting.
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
Also living up to my name, but it does seem like 2017 is repeating itself in all too horrific a way, leading to a repeat of the phenomenon that led to a hung Parliament then: an election campaign makes Labour Leavers forget about Brexit and return to their home party, whereas in the same campaign Tory Remainers don't forget about Brexit and don't return home...
ARRGHRGRHRGRHGHRH!
And you are surprised by that?
Boris has gone out of his way to make Tory Remainers unwelcome (by sacking 27 of them to begin with) while Corbyn really isn't that bothered if we leave or remain.
I'm surprised to the extent that the electorate can't see that a hung Parliament will mean years of national paralysis, and that Corbynite Labour needs a good electoral kicking if we're to avoid a socialist future in this country.
This election should be a no-brainer. But sadly all it will prove is that the electorate indeed has no brain...
I'm surprised to the extent that the electorate can't see that a Tory majority will mean years of an unscrupulous politician defying the law, and that Johnsonite Conservatism needs a good electoral kicking if we're to avoid an authoritarian future in this country.
This election should be a no-brainer. But sadly all it will prove is that the electorate indeed has no brain...
[
It's not a no-brainer as the other side is equally unappealing.
Also living up to my name, but it does seem like 2017 is repeating itself in all too horrific a way, leading to a repeat of the phenomenon that led to a hung Parliament then: an election campaign makes Labour Leavers forget about Brexit and return to their home party, whereas in the same campaign Tory Remainers don't forget about Brexit and don't return home...
ARRGHRGRHRGRHGHRH!
2017 is not repeating itself...
I certainly don't want it to, but (1) The Tory lead started at a much lower level than last time; (2) Labour is already creeping up, with a month left to go; (3) The Lib Dems are being squeezed by Lab; (4) The Lab manifesto will contain enough gigantic giveaways to sway a lot of people; (5) The debates are a wild card, but perhaps the calm reasonableness with which Corbyn spins his utopian dream will be effective; (6) The winning message of "Get Brexit Done" seems to be weakening.
There's a much simpler deduction that is much more consistent with the available facts: the government is clueless. Why else would it have gone through so many handbrake turns to end up lamely agreeing to a deal that is disastrous for the country's economy and cuts the nation in two?
The government's not gone through any handbrake turns. The government agreed a good deal that is better for the UK, that has no backstop as pledged and which gives democratic control of Northern Ireland's future to Northern Ireland voters rather than trying to foist a solution on them without them getting an ongoing say. Win, win.
The fact this deal is close to what the EU originally proposed just shows how appallingly Theresa May negotiated. She was faced with an unacceptable NI backstop with no unilateral exit and decided the solution was to make that an all-UK backstop with no unilateral exit. Boris instead went back to an NI-only solution and negotiated for NI voters a unilateral exit. Far smarter and far better solution.
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
I agree with this. From any objective perspective it's surely a correct analysis.
But they (Labour) are pitted against the most vitriolic, gunned-up, right wing media onslaught I can remember in my lifetime.
A big question is: does the printed press still hold power? Or will twitter and facebook, which seem much more virulently anti Johnson & chums, have big influence?
What do people expect to happen in the event of a hung parliament, with Labour (or tories) needing SNP and Lib Dem support to form a government? Seems like there are several options, some more plausible than others:
1. Lab minority government, would require Swinson to either vote for Corbyn or possibly abstain depending on the numbers. Would guarantee ref2, would Swinson also demand electoral reform to PR as price of support (she should).
2. Swinson sticks to her word and votes against Corbyn government, could lead to either 2a, alternative GNU caretaker type proposed and Labour MPs decide en masse to support it, would probably need Corbyns tacit approval to have numbers. If Corbyn goes backwards in the election then he will have very little clout so this could well happen 2b, no alternative emerges so second election needed in mid January (probably leading to tory majority)
3. Swinson supports a Tory minority government ine xchange for ref2 on Boris deal - is there any world in which this could happen?
1 seems by far the most likely to me, but many seem to think Swinson really won't allow a Corbyn government even if that's the only route to ref2
But don`t forget the party angle. If an MP takes the Labout whip, then she has to do as she is told. In the case of Labour, this is sometime being in favour of Remaining, and sometimes in favour of Leaving. I certainly would not want anybody to stand aside for a Labour candidate.
So the MP will have to support a second referendum, Labour's policy. That's apparently good enough to allow Greens, SNP and PC into the Remain Alliance so I can see why some LD activists are confused about why they're being told to help a Tory get elected in that seat instead.
Can I ask other PBers what bets they have going on for the UK election at the moment, intrigued to get the feel of where you think it is going.
Are you a Cummings bot?
A Conservative yes, but a remainer, so most likely voting Lib Dem
That wasn't the question.
Someone new comes on here and asks us all how we feel things are going.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .....
I may not post a huge amount but my account is around 4 years old, so I dont really think I class as that new to be fair.
Ah okay. Mea culpa. I'm just wary of the Cummings Ruskies.
No problem at all, more just personal intrigue from my part, as I am tempted to bet on a far better Labour position that polls are currently suggesting.
I've done that very thing but I'm nervous about my position.
He's a Labour cheerleader so he'll say this even in the worst of times. If the votes are holding up then all the polls are wrong. I imagine what is happening is there is no collapse, just a trickle effect that would lose Labour 30-40 seats.
In 1997 Tory MPs said their vote was holding up better than expected too
Pretax. The French tax system will have dragged them back again.
Whoah. Hold on.
The French tax system has many faults. But it also has some extraordinary features that make assessing how well people have done hard. French tax free allowances stack. So, if there is a family with a husband, a wife and two children, then there are four tax free allowances. Said Frenchman will be paying no income tax, and his healthcare will be included.
In the US, by contrast, healthcare is not included. And while the tax might be lower for a single man, it is not for a family of two, three or four.
Swinson's vehement anti-Corbyn / pro-Europe centre message running into the far more pro Labour left wing activist base of the Lib Dems.
If the activists are pro-Labour then shouldn't they just join the Labour Party?
I think the "far more pro-Labour left wing activist base" is a concept a decade old, and those who were going to go left ages ago. If not in the Coalition years, then when Corbyn was elected Labour leader.
The Lib Dem activist base is now predominantly old skool liberals and newer members who are vehement Remainers but not especially left wing. Not to say there aren't some people on the left who left under Clegg but have come back. However, they are not THAT left wing (because, as I say, those that were gravitated to Corbyn's Labour).
The argument used to run that Labour - ideology aside - could not afford to allow Scotland to become independent because they'd never form a majority government in Westminster again without their huge block of Scottish MPs.
If they can't rely on Scottish voters to provide those MPs, then their practical objections may fall away. Which could be why Jeremy Corbyn sounds so much more relaxed about an independence referendum than any of his predecessors.
Corbyn ruled out indyref2 in the first term of a Labour government today, though Labour will come 4th in Scotland anyway
Does it really matter what Corbyn rules in or out at this present moment? To be handed the keys of number 10, even for a short while before yet another election, he would promise anything to anyone, I guarantee you. Of course he'd off the SNP a 2nd referendum.
He's a Labour cheerleader so he'll say this even in the worst of times. If the votes are holding up then all the polls are wrong. I imagine what is happening is there is no collapse, just a trickle effect that would lose Labour 30-40 seats.
In 1997 Tory MPs said their vote was holding up better than expected too
No they didn't. I was working for one of them and he certainly didn't think that and nor did his colleagues.
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
Does backloading actually work? The evidence seems to say not. And why not have enough material to load the whole campaign equally - it's only 5 weeks, FGS!
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
Tories heading for their biggest landslide win and Labour for its biggest trouncing since Thatcher's 1983 win with the latest Yougov
Question. Tory Leavers are orgasmic when Nigel stands down his MPs to give their chaps a free run. But when a few Lib Dems decide to do something similar it's turpitude. Why is that?
Maybe because Swinson said that under no circumstances would the lib dems prop up a Corbyn government? Standing down LDs to favour Labour Remainers is doing the exact opposite, wouldn't you say?
As a general rule I'd be wary of dismissing the kind of message Lewis has tweeted. He's not a Labour cheerleader, by the way either. If he thought the tide was against Corbyn he'd have no hesitation in reporting it.
I think what he has heard ties in with the uptick in Labour support. Will it be enough? I'm not at all sure.
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
I agree with this. From any objective perspective it's surely a correct analysis.
But they (Labour) are pitted against the most vitriolic, gunned-up, right wing media onslaught I can remember in my lifetime.
A big question is: does the printed press still hold power? Or will twitter and facebook, which seem much more virulently anti Johnson & chums, have big influence?
"But they (Labour) are pitted against the most vitriolic, gunned-up, right wing media onslaught I can remember in my lifetime."
It wouldn't be vitriolic enough at 10x the current level!
He's a Labour cheerleader so he'll say this even in the worst of times. If the votes are holding up then all the polls are wrong. I imagine what is happening is there is no collapse, just a trickle effect that would lose Labour 30-40 seats.
So Labour wins approx 230 seats, thereby with all the support from its cronies, denying the Tories an overall majority ... job done from Corbyn's perspective. Brexit is denied and we face another GE next year. Is this really your expectation?
Pretax. The French tax system will have dragged them back again.
Whoah. Hold on.
The French tax system has many faults. But it also has some extraordinary features that make assessing how well people have done hard. French tax free allowances stack. So, if there is a family with a husband, a wife and two children, then there are four tax free allowances. Said Frenchman will be paying no income tax, and his healthcare will be included.
In the US, by contrast, healthcare is not included. And while the tax might be lower for a single man, it is not for a family of two, three or four.
Uh oh, what's this. Actual knowledge and facts? No no no, much better to do reflexive knee jerk nonsense instead rcs.
You have to seriously be prepared to threaten to walk away with no deal in order to get a good deal, that doesn't mean you intend no deal.
Just the same as you spend on your military in order to have peace. The Romans had an expression: Si vis pacem, para bellum that logic was known thousands of years ago is still relevant today.
PS if you wanted no deal you wouldn't threaten it, you'd just prepare for it and walk away without engaging in negotiations.
Day after Johnson won the Tory leadership -
"Hello, Brussels Sprouts, Boris here. PM." "Boris! How goes it?" "Fine, fine. Look, you know that deal you offered us two years ago?" "Ah yes, the one where NI stays but GB leaves?" "That's the one. It was your first choice, in fact, wasn't it?" "Oui oui." "Terrific. So can we still have it?" "Course you can, mon ami!"
The argument used to run that Labour - ideology aside - could not afford to allow Scotland to become independent because they'd never form a majority government in Westminster again without their huge block of Scottish MPs.
If they can't rely on Scottish voters to provide those MPs, then their practical objections may fall away. Which could be why Jeremy Corbyn sounds so much more relaxed about an independence referendum than any of his predecessors.
Corbyn ruled out indyref2 in the first term of a Labour government today, though Labour will come 4th in Scotland anyway
Does it really matter what Corbyn rules in or out at this present moment? To be handed the keys of number 10, even for a short while before yet another election, he would promise anything to anyone, I guarantee you. Of course he'd off the SNP a 2nd referendum.
Probably, at least if the SNP won a majority at Holyrood 2021.
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
Tories heading for their biggest landslide win
Betting warning.
The above post comes from a man who said Orban would veto the Johnson extension. And then Macron would. And a thousand other blindfold predictions on here. He did once stick the tail on the donkey's backside though.
Also living up to my name, but it does seem like 2017 is repeating itself in all too horrific a way, leading to a repeat of the phenomenon that led to a hung Parliament then: an election campaign makes Labour Leavers forget about Brexit and return to their home party, whereas in the same campaign Tory Remainers don't forget about Brexit and don't return home...
ARRGHRGRHRGRHGHRH!
2017 is not repeating itself...
I certainly don't want it to, but (1) The Tory lead started at a much lower level than last time; (2) Labour is already creeping up, with a month left to go; (3) The Lib Dems are being squeezed by Lab; (4) The Lab manifesto will contain enough gigantic giveaways to sway a lot of people; (5) The debates are a wild card, but perhaps the calm reasonableness with which Corbyn spins his utopian dream will be effective; (6) The winning message of "Get Brexit Done" seems to be weakening.
I'm flipping terrified.
Agreed. The debates could be deadly. If Corbyn comes across as a dull-but-dependable time-and-motion inspector - and not the hideous Marxist monster of Daily Express legend - then people might think about giving him ago as opposed to Boris's randomness. I suspect Boris will find an excuse to cancel - the risk is just too great.
Question. Tory Leavers are orgasmic when Nigel stands down his MPs to give their chaps a free run. But when a few Lib Dems decide to do something similar it's turpitude. Why is that?
Maybe because Swinson said that under no circumstances would the lib dems prop up a Corbyn government? Standing down LDs to favour Labour Remainers is doing the exact opposite, wouldn't you say?
YOu can see from Swinson's reaction to Canterbury that the libs are very keen to prevent their southern targets getting the feeling they will prop up Corbyn. Which of course they will.
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
Tories heading for their biggest landslide win
Betting warning.
The above post comes from a man who said Orban would veto the Johnson extension. And then Macron would. And a thousand other blindfold predictions on here. He did once stick the tail on the donkey's backside though.
Macron would without a GE or EUref2, we are in a GE.
Swinson's vehement anti-Corbyn / pro-Europe centre message running into the far more pro Labour left wing activist base of the Lib Dems.
If the activists are pro-Labour then shouldn't they just join the Labour Party?
I think the "far more pro-Labour left wing activist base" is a concept a decade old, and those who were going to go left ages ago. If not in the Coalition years, then when Corbyn was elected Labour leader.
The Lib Dem activist base is now predominantly old skool liberals and newer members who are vehement Remainers but not especially left wing. Not to say there aren't some people on the left who left under Clegg but have come back. However, they are not THAT left wing (because, as I say, those that were gravitated to Corbyn's Labour).
I'm not sure. Just anecdata, but the Lib Dem activists I see on Facebook and Reddit are almost universally hostile to Swinson's Canterbury stance.
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
Does backloading actually work? The evidence seems to say not. And why not have enough material to load the whole campaign equally - it's only 5 weeks, FGS!
No, I don't think it works, and I personally think the Tories' distinctly underwhelming campaign so far is not part of some grand design, CCHQ is just crap, as shown in 2017. I'd be very worried that with four weeks *still* to go, the lead is shrinking bit by bit. Have the Tories got anything that can change the narrative? After 9 years in power it's very difficult to get a hearing with the electorate.
Canterbury will be a solid Labour hold, I reckon, with or without the Lib Dems' co-operation. I live in the constituency and see/feel nothing to suggest otherwise.
They have a 187 vote majority if they are on for a solid hold then we should all be lumping on Corbyn as next PM
Not so. It's in Leaver seats in the North that the Tories will be looking to turn in a majority winning performance. The South is much tougher, especially if the LD vote holds up.
Labour are down by over 10 points, that is nationwide. Nothing suggests their vote will hold up in the SE in seats like this. Even if the Tories also go backwards 'solid hold' is hopelessly optimistic against the national picture as it stands. It's a hyper marginal.
It's certainly a hypermarginal but it's equally certainly not the easy Con win you might imagine given a ten point lead nationally - for all the reasons given above and below.
As I said, 'solid hold' is hopelessly optimistic in the face of the current evidence. Narrow hold or loss possible, yes. Solid hold suggests a 2000 plus majority which would be a swing to labour of a notable amount
Terminological differences. Let's put some numbers on it. Ladbrokes go 8/11 Conservatives. You a backer or layer?
Backer. Just.
Shadsy knows his onions. Personally I'd go 10/11 the two, but as you suggest, no meaningful margin, so no bet.
JFK, Carter, Clinton and Obama all got in after 8 years of a GOP President and only Carter faced the incumbent president. In 2020 the Democrats will have to beat an incumbent president after only one one term and 4 years in power.
Clinton also faced an incumbent President.
OK him too but after 12 years of GOP presidents again not 4
Your statement was still inaccurate - I was simply pointing that out.
I agree that defeating an incumbent (even a fairly unpopular one) is harder than winning an election with no incumbent. However, it's not a particularly original idea, and there are several examples of candidates doing just that.
Only Reagan since WW2 has beaten an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House
Not sure historical norms matters much with Trump, he is a unique proposition - you could equally argue the other way that Democrats will be taking on the President who right now has the worst Net Approval rating in history* for an incumbent at this point in the cycle, so if they cant beat him they cant beat anyone. But we are through the looking glass.
Also living up to my name, but it does seem like 2017 is repeating itself in all too horrific a way, leading to a repeat of the phenomenon that led to a hung Parliament then: an election campaign makes Labour Leavers forget about Brexit and return to their home party, whereas in the same campaign Tory Remainers don't forget about Brexit and don't return home...
ARRGHRGRHRGRHGHRH!
2017 is not repeating itself...
I certainly don't want it to, but (1) The Tory lead started at a much lower level than last time; (2) Labour is already creeping up, with a month left to go; (3) The Lib Dems are being squeezed by Lab; (4) The Lab manifesto will contain enough gigantic giveaways to sway a lot of people; (5) The debates are a wild card, but perhaps the calm reasonableness with which Corbyn spins his utopian dream will be effective; (6) The winning message of "Get Brexit Done" seems to be weakening.
I'm flipping terrified.
Agreed. The debates could be deadly. If Corbyn comes across as a dull-but-dependable time-and-motion inspector - and not the hideous Marxist monster of Daily Express legend - then people might think about giving him ago as opposed to Boris's randomness. I suspect Boris will find an excuse to cancel - the risk is just too great.
Agree all round.
Frankly I'm astonished Johnson is going into the debates. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.
The argument used to run that Labour - ideology aside - could not afford to allow Scotland to become independent because they'd never form a majority government in Westminster again without their huge block of Scottish MPs.
If they can't rely on Scottish voters to provide those MPs, then their practical objections may fall away. Which could be why Jeremy Corbyn sounds so much more relaxed about an independence referendum than any of his predecessors.
JFK, Carter, Clinton and Obama all got in after 8 years of a GOP President and only Carter faced the incumbent president. In 2020 the Democrats will have to beat an incumbent president after only one one term and 4 years in power.
Clinton also faced an incumbent President.
OK him too but after 12 years of GOP presidents again not 4
Your statement was still inaccurate - I was simply pointing that out.
I agree that defeating an incumbent (even a fairly unpopular one) is harder than winning an election with no incumbent. However, it's not a particularly original idea, and there are several examples of candidates doing just that.
Only Reagan since WW2 has beaten an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House
You have to seriously be prepared to threaten to walk away with no deal in order to get a good deal, that doesn't mean you intend no deal.
Just the same as you spend on your military in order to have peace. The Romans had an expression: Si vis pacem, para bellum that logic was known thousands of years ago is still relevant today.
PS if you wanted no deal you wouldn't threaten it, you'd just prepare for it and walk away without engaging in negotiations.
Day after Johnson won the Tory leadership -
"Hello, Brussels Sprouts, Boris here. PM." "Boris! How goes it?" "Fine, fine. Look, you know that deal you offered us two years ago?" "Ah yes, the one where NI stays but GB leaves?" "That's the one. It was your first choice, in fact, wasn't it?" "Oui oui." "Terrific. So can we still have it?" "Course you can, mon ami!"
He could have done that.
But that deal had no democratic control in it. In fact we were repeatedly told that there could be no unilateral exit from the backstop or there was no backstop. Plus in the original deal NI wouldn't have benefited from the UK's trade deals while under Boris's deal it does. So two pretty massive changes from the original proposal.
But absolutely it was a great idea to junk Theresa May's ludicrous concessions and go back to a saner starting point.
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
Does backloading actually work? The evidence seems to say not. And why not have enough material to load the whole campaign equally - it's only 5 weeks, FGS!
No, I don't think it works, and I personally think the Tories' distinctly underwhelming campaign so far is not part of some grand design, CCHQ is just crap, as shown in 2017. I'd be very worried that with four weeks *still* to go, the lead is shrinking bit by bit. Have the Tories got anything that can change the narrative? After 9 years in power it's very difficult to get a hearing with the electorate.
The Tory lead is NOT shrinking according to the latest poll. Jesus!
JFK, Carter, Clinton and Obama all got in after 8 years of a GOP President and only Carter faced the incumbent president. In 2020 the Democrats will have to beat an incumbent president after only one one term and 4 years in power.
Clinton also faced an incumbent President.
OK him too but after 12 years of GOP presidents again not 4
Your statement was still inaccurate - I was simply pointing that out.
I agree that defeating an incumbent (even a fairly unpopular one) is harder than winning an election with no incumbent. However, it's not a particularly original idea, and there are several examples of candidates doing just that.
Only Reagan since WW2 has beaten an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House
Not sure historical norms matters much with Trump, he is a unique proposition - you could equally argue the other way that Democrats will be taking on the President who right now has the worst Net Approval rating in history* for an incumbent at this point in the cycle, so if they cant beat him they cant beat anyone. But we are through the looking glass.
Also living up to my name, but it does seem like 2017 is repeating itself in all too horrific a way, leading to a repeat of the phenomenon that led to a hung Parliament then: an election campaign makes Labour Leavers forget about Brexit and return to their home party, whereas in the same campaign Tory Remainers don't forget about Brexit and don't return home...
ARRGHRGRHRGRHGHRH!
2017 is not repeating itself...
I certainly don't want it to, but (1) The Tory lead started at a much lower level than last time; (2) Labour is already creeping up, with a month left to go; (3) The Lib Dems are being squeezed by Lab; (4) The Lab manifesto will contain enough gigantic giveaways to sway a lot of people; (5) The debates are a wild card, but perhaps the calm reasonableness with which Corbyn spins his utopian dream will be effective; (6) The winning message of "Get Brexit Done" seems to be weakening.
I'm flipping terrified.
Agreed. The debates could be deadly. If Corbyn comes across as a dull-but-dependable time-and-motion inspector - and not the hideous Marxist monster of Daily Express legend - then people might think about giving him ago as opposed to Boris's randomness. I suspect Boris will find an excuse to cancel - the risk is just too great.
Agree all round.
Frankly I'm astonished Johnson is going into the debates. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.
May was excoriated for dodging them. BJ had little choice.
It's high risk. No Corbyn fan but I think he's good at that kind of thing. Not sure about BJ.
Canterbury will be a solid Labour hold, I reckon, with or without the Lib Dems' co-operation. I live in the constituency and see/feel nothing to suggest otherwise.
They have a 187 vote majority if they are on for a solid hold then we should all be lumping on Corbyn as next PM
Not so. It's in Leaver seats in the North that the Tories will be looking to turn in a majority winning performance. The South is much tougher, especially if the LD vote holds up.
Labour are down by over 10 points, that is nationwide. Nothing suggests their vote will hold up in the SE in seats like this. Even if the Tories also go backwards 'solid hold' is hopelessly optimistic against the national picture as it stands. It's a hyper marginal.
It's certainly a hypermarginal but it's equally certainly not the easy Con win you might imagine given a ten point lead nationally - for all the reasons given above and below.
As I said, 'solid hold' is hopelessly optimistic in the face of the current evidence. Narrow hold or loss possible, yes. Solid hold suggests a 2000 plus majority which would be a swing to labour of a notable amount
Terminological differences. Let's put some numbers on it. Ladbrokes go 8/11 Conservatives. You a backer or layer?
Backer. Just.
Shadsy knows his onions. Personally I'd go 10/11 the two, but as you suggest, no meaningful margin, so no bet.
Try The Cotswolds!
I think the general picture fractionally favours the Tories but yeah it's not one I'm lumping on
I see there's a new Georgia poll out showing Trump behind all the potential Dem candidates. It's interesting because the assumption was the easiest path to Dems winning the Electoral College would be flipping Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvia (plus keeping everything they won in 2016). But in some recent polls Trump is doing OK in those states, he could easily hold on to one (or more) leaving the Dems needing somewhere else. Maybe Georgia will be easier than Florida in 2020.
For a certain definition of OK. I.e. Cherry pick the polls that have him not bring crushed.
In Wisconsin out of 43 match ups Trump leads in 4 of them. In Michigan out of 50 match ups Trump leads in 9 of them. In Pennsylvania out of 29 match ups Trump leads in 7 of them.
If that's OK I'd hate to see what doing badly looks like.
ok, so you've looked at the polls, but I think you're being a bit disingenuous. In Pennsylvania those 29 match-ups are from just 8 polls from March to November this year. There's only 2 matchups where the Dem is "crushing" Trump - if you define crushing as a double-digit poll lead: a poll showing Biden 11 ahead in May, another showing Biden 10 ahead in March. Biden is the only Dem candidate consistently leading Trump, and the latest Pennsylvania poll has Biden just 1 ahead amongst likely voters and 3 ahead with registered voters (and he still does better than Warren and Sanders). This latest poll is also the only one from a pollster with the highest pollster rating from fivethirtyeight, fwiw (they also claim that this pollster has a +0.3 Republican bias)
If you look at what the betting says is the likeliest Dem candidate, Warren ranges from 5% ahead of Trump in March to 2 behind (LV, even RV) in the latest poll.
I really can't see how that can really be described as "being crushed". It shows Trump doing depressingly well at the moment in those states, he only needs to hold on to one of them plus keep the rest that he won in 2016 to win in the electoral college again.
but, like I say, listen to the podcast if you want to hear an alternative argument from people who know a lot more than I do.
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
Does backloading actually work? The evidence seems to say not. And why not have enough material to load the whole campaign equally - it's only 5 weeks, FGS!
No, I don't think it works, and I personally think the Tories' distinctly underwhelming campaign so far is not part of some grand design, CCHQ is just crap, as shown in 2017. I'd be very worried that with four weeks *still* to go, the lead is shrinking bit by bit. Have the Tories got anything that can change the narrative? After 9 years in power it's very difficult to get a hearing with the electorate.
The Tory lead is NOT shrinking according to the latest poll. Jesus!
Re: Kantar, isn't changing your polling methodology in the _middle_ of an election campaign deeply suspect? Although it still shows a 10-point Tory lead, the 3-point cuts just feeds into the narrative of Labour closing the gap and therefore affects the perception of the election campaign itself?
No, no, no! They do this every election. When an election is announced they go with the existing methodology and then tweak it about a month out. This last-minute fucking around is the reason why YouGov's normal 2017 poll (not it's MRP one) was inaccurate in the last few weeks - they overcorrected. It's annoying, but it's not sinister.
Not all young people are this stupid and wish to pit generation against generation.
Bit rich even for you! People who have pushed Brexit are the ones that "pit generation against generation", and as for stupidity, well, I think it has long been established that the more educated are not in favour of the stupidity called Brexit. In this instance it is the youngest who are most wise.
More young back remain and more old back Brexit, we all know this, but trying to amplify generational differences, escalate anger and contempt, is wrong no matter which side it comes from. And 'they started it' is an excuse we are taught is dumb as children, when used as justification for poor behaviour.
Discussing why different groups have different views on Brexit is essential to the country moving forward. Yes language can get out of hand on both sides, but the conversation whilst difficult must be had between the generations.
A conversation is not what many are after. They want to demonize the old or insult the young. You're right that generations understanding if disagreeing with the majority view of the other is important, but I dont think we get much understanding being sought, just 'you stole our future/you're youth idiots', if not in those exact words.
Those are the starting viewpoints for many within each group, they should be expressed honestly. To get away from those viewpoints you need a dialogue not pretending there isnt a huge discrepancy that is causing division between the generations.
Nobody is pretending there isn't. What I dispute is that people are seeking dialogue at all to progress in any way, they are seeking affirmation. Indeed, people try to magnify it.
Can I ask other PBers what bets they have going on for the UK election at the moment, intrigued to get the feel of where you think it is going.
Are you a Cummings bot?
A Conservative yes, but a remainer, so most likely voting Lib Dem
That wasn't the question.
Someone new comes on here and asks us all how we feel things are going.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .....
I may not post a huge amount but my account is around 4 years old, so I dont really think I class as that new to be fair.
Ah okay. Mea culpa. I'm just wary of the Cummings Ruskies.
No problem at all, more just personal intrigue from my part, as I am tempted to bet on a far better Labour position that polls are currently suggesting.
I've done that very thing but I'm nervous about my position.
Sporting index currently has buy on 206 labour seats, that's 1983 level of poor result for Labour. I just cant see that. Personally I dont think Corbyn can get near a majority but 250/260 seems very realistic to me
Also living up to my name, but it does seem like 2017 is repeating itself in all too horrific a way, leading to a repeat of the phenomenon that led to a hung Parliament then: an election campaign makes Labour Leavers forget about Brexit and return to their home party, whereas in the same campaign Tory Remainers don't forget about Brexit and don't return home...
ARRGHRGRHRGRHGHRH!
2017 is not repeating itself...
I certainly don't want it to, but (1) The Tory lead started at a much lower level than last time; (2) Labour is already creeping up, with a month left to go; (3) The Lib Dems are being squeezed by Lab; (4) The Lab manifesto will contain enough gigantic giveaways to sway a lot of people; (5) The debates are a wild card, but perhaps the calm reasonableness with which Corbyn spins his utopian dream will be effective; (6) The winning message of "Get Brexit Done" seems to be weakening.
I'm flipping terrified.
Agreed. The debates could be deadly. If Corbyn comes across as a dull-but-dependable time-and-motion inspector - and not the hideous Marxist monster of Daily Express legend - then people might think about giving him ago as opposed to Boris's randomness. I suspect Boris will find an excuse to cancel - the risk is just too great.
Agree all round.
Frankly I'm astonished Johnson is going into the debates. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.
May was excoriated for dodging them. BJ had little choice.
It's high risk. No Corbyn fan but I think he's good at that kind of thing. Not sure about BJ.
BJ seems to um and err when presented with anything he isn't prepared for. Equally he seems to say whatever comes into his mouth.
It may go fine but if BJ is presented with questions which require facts he hasn't got it could be a complete disaster...
That is CENTRAL tax take. France is highly centralised. The US is highly decentralised.
Not only that, but knowing the total tax take tells you nothing about how it is shared between the various income segments.
Although that said, state taxes are a small proportion of federal. New York is one of the highest taxing states and our highest marginal income tax rate is just 7% compared to a highest federal marginal rate of 37%.
The problem is, how can we import goods from the US that the EU won't allow exported into the EU without huge bureaucracy? The US want us to be the gateway into the EU for all their goods, and the EU want to protect their goods and standards. With both pulling in opposite directions, getting a deal that satisfies both will be very difficult. Getting a deal that satisfies both AND the British public would be almost impossible.
You've never heard of Country of Origin?
We're not inventing the wheel here. Many countries and regions [including the EU itself of course] have multiple trade agreements. Country of Origin is well established and already works within EU systems.
Things will have changed if Johnson gets a working majority on Brexit: 1. Up to now I think the EU have been predictably taking a very hard negotiating stance because there was a real possibility that the UK could change its mind if they did, and the UK changing its mind was their preferred outcome. The likes of Blair were lobbying for them not to offer anything. The option of the UK changing its mind will be off the table in future negotiations. 2. They will also know that without the constraints of a Benn Act Mk2 he will have the option of walking away and they will have to regard that as a real rather than imaginary threat.
So it is folly to make a simplistic assumption that future negotiations will be as difficult as what went before, because the context will have changed.
The bottom line is that the EU wants to preserve its export markets in the UK and once it has accepted that we have left it will not be prepared to put those at risk, even if what it ends up with is in its eyes sub-optimal.
Leavers in Sep 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks! Leavers in Oct 2019: Foolish Remainers! Obviously Boris did not intend no deal! Leavers in Nov 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks!
All entirely consistent.
You have to seriously be prepared to threaten to walk away with no deal in order to get a good deal, that doesn't mean you intend no deal.
Just the same as you spend on your military in order to have peace. The Romans had an expression: Si vis pacem, para bellum that logic was known thousands of years ago is still relevant today.
PS if you wanted no deal you wouldn't threaten it, you'd just prepare for it and walk away without engaging in negotiations.
I responded to this on the previous post. I'm on the tablet and I don't know how to cut-and-paste, so I'm going to have to leave it there.
I see there's a new Georgia poll out showing Trump behind all the potential Dem candidates. It's interesting because the assumption was the easiest path to Dems winning the Electoral College would be flipping Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvia (plus keeping everything they won in 2016). But in some recent polls Trump is doing OK in those states, he could easily hold on to one (or more) leaving the Dems needing somewhere else. Maybe Georgia will be easier than Florida in 2020.
For a certain definition of OK. I.e. Cherry pick the polls that have him not bring crushed.
In Wisconsin out of 43 match ups Trump leads in 4 of them. In Michigan out of 50 match ups Trump leads in 9 of them. In Pennsylvania out of 29 match ups Trump leads in 7 of them.
If that's OK I'd hate to see what doing badly looks like.
is the only Dem candidate consistently leading Trump, and the latest Pennsylvania poll has Biden just 1 ahead amongst likely voters and 3 ahead with registered voters (and he still does better than Warren and Sanders). This latest poll is also the only one from a pollster with the highest pollster rating from fivethirtyeight, fwiw (they also claim that this pollster has a +0.3 Republican bias)
If you look at what the betting says is the likeliest Dem candidate, Warren ranges from 5% ahead of Trump in March to 2 behind (LV, even RV) in the latest poll.
I really can't see how that can really be described as "being crushed". It shows Trump doing depressingly well at the moment in those states, he only needs to hold on to one of them plus keep the rest that he won in 2016 to win in the electoral college again.
but, like I say, listen to the podcast if you want to hear an alternative argument from people who know a lot more than I do.
The problem Trump has is that he also has problems in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina from a very different type of voter that he didn't have before.
Question. Tory Leavers are orgasmic when Nigel stands down his MPs to give their chaps a free run. But when a few Lib Dems decide to do something similar it's turpitude. Why is that?
Maybe because Swinson said that under no circumstances would the lib dems prop up a Corbyn government? Standing down LDs to favour Labour Remainers is doing the exact opposite, wouldn't you say?
Sounds as if the Canterbury bloke was a loose cannon though whom Swinson has now replaced and subjected to disciplinary procedure. Nigel's capitulation on Boris's fake Brexit seems far more egregious to me - he's forcing good Leaver folk to have no option other than to vote for a con job.
Also living up to my name, but it does seem like 2017 is repeating itself in all too horrific a way, leading to a repeat of the phenomenon that led to a hung Parliament then: an election campaign makes Labour Leavers forget about Brexit and return to their home party, whereas in the same campaign Tory Remainers don't forget about Brexit and don't return home...
ARRGHRGRHRGRHGHRH!
2017 is not repeating itself...
I certainly don't want it to, but (1) The Tory lead started at a much lower level than last time; (2) Labour is already creeping up, with a month left to go; (3) The Lib Dems are being squeezed by Lab; (4) The Lab manifesto will contain enough gigantic giveaways to sway a lot of people; (5) The debates are a wild card, but perhaps the calm reasonableness with which Corbyn spins his utopian dream will be effective; (6) The winning message of "Get Brexit Done" seems to be weakening.
I'm flipping terrified.
Agreed. The debates could be deadly. If Corbyn comes across as a dull-but-dependable time-and-motion inspector - and not the hideous Marxist monster of Daily Express legend - then people might think about giving him ago as opposed to Boris's randomness. I suspect Boris will find an excuse to cancel - the risk is just too great.
Agree all round.
Frankly I'm astonished Johnson is going into the debates. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.
May was excoriated for dodging them. BJ had little choice.
It's high risk. No Corbyn fan but I think he's good at that kind of thing. Not sure about BJ.
Indeed but I don't know why he's chosen to go head to head with Corbyn. I don't see how two viable alternative PM's approach helps Boris unless he thinks he can defeat Corbyn in it.
Johnson should I'd think have gone for a sort of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' approach - get on the stage as the PM versus a whole bunch of minor party leaders none of which are going to become PM with Corbyn amongst their number.
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
Tories heading for their biggest landslide win
Betting warning.
The above post comes from a man who said Orban would veto the Johnson extension. And then Macron would. And a thousand other blindfold predictions on here. He did once stick the tail on the donkey's backside though.
HYUFD also predicted on many occasions that Johnson would resign rather than seek an extension.
That is CENTRAL tax take. France is highly centralised. The US is highly decentralised.
Not only that, but knowing the total tax take tells you nothing about how it is shared between the various income segments.
Although that said, state taxes are a small proportion of federal. New York is one of the highest taxing states and our highest marginal income tax rate is just 7% compared to a highest federal marginal rate of 37%.
Those high federal rates don't hit the bottom half of the population though, while lots of states have flat taxes that do.
I have also read that the US has a pretty progressive taxation system. It just has very regressive spending patterns. The vast majority is on social security and Medicare, which spend more on rich people than poor people because the rich live longer.
You have to seriously be prepared to threaten to walk away with no deal in order to get a good deal, that doesn't mean you intend no deal.
Just the same as you spend on your military in order to have peace. The Romans had an expression: Si vis pacem, para bellum that logic was known thousands of years ago is still relevant today.
PS if you wanted no deal you wouldn't threaten it, you'd just prepare for it and walk away without engaging in negotiations.
I don't think your second paragraph is consistent with the third. We are prepared for war - or at least we hope we do. We buy equipment, hold reviews, upgrade kit, hold exercises. We are not prepared for no deal - the operations are mounted half heartedly and then cancelled. The Latin tag is not "Si vis pacem, pretendum para bellum with mop".
But that's the point Brexiteers are making. We need someone like Boris to be PM who will seriously prepare for No Deal not 'Foolish Remainers' like Hammond and May who terminally weakened the UK's negotiating position when they were in power.
Boris achieved in his deal concessions the EU always said were impossible while we were led by May and Hammond. Funny that!
Regarding the debates, I can only think the Tories are willing to gamble that if Boris does well - proper well, as in, like in the final referendum debate in 2016 - it could catapult them from hung parliament to solid majority level. Trundling along as they are now, hung parliament is a real possibility. Let's not forget, Boris needs a majority to be PM, there are no more allies.
JFK, Carter, Clinton and Obama all got in after 8 years of a GOP President and only Carter faced the incumbent president. In 2020 the Democrats will have to beat an incumbent president after only one one term and 4 years in power.
Clinton also faced an incumbent President.
OK him too but after 12 years of GOP presidents again not 4
Your statement was still inaccurate - I was simply pointing that out.
I agree that defeating an incumbent (even a fairly unpopular one) is harder than winning an election with no incumbent. However, it's not a particularly original idea, and there are several examples of candidates doing just that.
Only Reagan since WW2 has beaten an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House
Not sure historical norms matters much with Trump, he is a unique proposition - you could equally argue the other way that Democrats will be taking on the President who right now has the worst Net Approval rating in history* for an incumbent at this point in the cycle, so if they cant beat him they cant beat anyone. But we are through the looking glass.
Trump has a higher approval rating than Obama at this stage as well as Carter on some polls
On the averages he is behind Obama now and the trend is not his friend. He is about to go behind Carter. By the election he may be ahead of GWB, Carter and LBJ - but as I say it just doesn't feel like history helps us - its not a normal situation over there
I see there's a new Georgia poll out showing Trump behind all the potential Dem candidates. It's interesting because the assumption was the easiest path to Dems winning the Electoral College would be flipping Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvia (plus keeping everything they won in 2016). But in some recent polls Trump is doing OK in those states, he could easily hold on to one (or more) leaving the Dems needing somewhere else. Maybe Georgia will be easier than Florida in 2020.
Wisconsin will go blue in 2020. Michigan and Pennsylvania are harder calls.
The Trump tariff war has hammered Iowa farmers, and I think that could flip. Arizona is becoming bluer by the day, and I think that's also likely to go to the Dems.
Which makes this a pretty exciting election.
Funny. I feel confident about Pennsylvania and Michigan but I think Wisconsin is a real worry.
Question. Tory Leavers are orgasmic when Nigel stands down his MPs to give their chaps a free run. But when a few Lib Dems decide to do something similar it's turpitude. Why is that?
Maybe because Swinson said that under no circumstances would the lib dems prop up a Corbyn government? Standing down LDs to favour Labour Remainers is doing the exact opposite, wouldn't you say?
YOu can see from Swinson's reaction to Canterbury that the libs are very keen to prevent their southern targets getting the feeling they will prop up Corbyn. Which of course they will.
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
Does backloading actually work? The evidence seems to say not. And why not have enough material to load the whole campaign equally - it's only 5 weeks, FGS!
No, I don't think it works, and I personally think the Tories' distinctly underwhelming campaign so far is not part of some grand design, CCHQ is just crap, as shown in 2017. I'd be very worried that with four weeks *still* to go, the lead is shrinking bit by bit. Have the Tories got anything that can change the narrative? After 9 years in power it's very difficult to get a hearing with the electorate.
The Tory lead is NOT shrinking according to the latest poll. Jesus!
JFK, Carter, Clinton and Obama all got in after 8 years of a GOP President and only Carter faced the incumbent president. In 2020 the Democrats will have to beat an incumbent president after only one one term and 4 years in power.
Clinton also faced an incumbent President.
OK him too but after 12 years of GOP presidents again not 4
Your statement was still inaccurate - I was simply pointing that out.
I agree that defeating an incumbent (even a fairly unpopular one) is harder than winning an election with no incumbent. However, it's not a particularly original idea, and there are several examples of candidates doing just that.
Only Reagan since WW2 has beaten an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets.
Isn't there a XKCD for this, oh future billionaire?
Definitely think Labour are having the better campaign (again), they are leading the news agenda every day (not always for negative reasons) and the Tory poll lead is trending smaller, however gradual. Two weeks since the election passed through the HoC and still waiting for the Tories to move onto the front foot. Maybe they're backloading everything.
Tories heading for their biggest landslide win
Betting warning.
The above post comes from a man who said Orban would veto the Johnson extension. And then Macron would. And a thousand other blindfold predictions on here. He did once stick the tail on the donkey's backside though.
HYUFD also predicted on many occasions that Johnson would resign rather than seek an extension.
Also living up to my name, but it does seem like 2017 is repeating itself in all too horrific a way, leading to a repeat of the phenomenon that led to a hung Parliament then: an election campaign makes Labour Leavers forget about Brexit and return to their home party, whereas in the same campaign Tory Remainers don't forget about Brexit and don't return home...
ARRGHRGRHRGRHGHRH!
And you are surprised by that?
Boris has gone out of his way to make Tory Remainers unwelcome (by sacking 27 of them to begin with) while Corbyn really isn't that bothered if we leave or remain.
I'm surprised to the extent that the electorate can't see that a hung Parliament will mean years of national paralysis, and that Corbynite Labour needs a good electoral kicking if we're to avoid a socialist future in this country.
This election should be a no-brainer. But sadly all it will prove is that the electorate indeed has no brain...
I'm surprised to the extent that the electorate can't see that a Tory majority will mean years of an unscrupulous politician defying the law, and that Johnsonite Conservatism needs a good electoral kicking if we're to avoid an authoritarian future in this country.
This election should be a no-brainer. But sadly all it will prove is that the electorate indeed has no brain...
[
It's not a no-brainer as the other side is equally unappealing.
Did you look at the comment I was responding to???
Also living up to my name, but it does seem like 2017 is repeating itself in all too horrific a way, leading to a repeat of the phenomenon that led to a hung Parliament then: an election campaign makes Labour Leavers forget about Brexit and return to their home party, whereas in the same campaign Tory Remainers don't forget about Brexit and don't return home...
ARRGHRGRHRGRHGHRH!
2017 is not repeating itself...
I certainly don't want it to, but (1) The Tory lead started at a much lower level than last time; (2) Labour is already creeping up, with a month left to go; (3) The Lib Dems are being squeezed by Lab; (4) The Lab manifesto will contain enough gigantic giveaways to sway a lot of people; (5) The debates are a wild card, but perhaps the calm reasonableness with which Corbyn spins his utopian dream will be effective; (6) The winning message of "Get Brexit Done" seems to be weakening.
I'm flipping terrified.
Agreed. The debates could be deadly. If Corbyn comes across as a dull-but-dependable time-and-motion inspector - and not the hideous Marxist monster of Daily Express legend - then people might think about giving him ago as opposed to Boris's randomness. I suspect Boris will find an excuse to cancel - the risk is just too great.
Agree all round.
Frankly I'm astonished Johnson is going into the debates. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.
May was excoriated for dodging them. BJ had little choice.
It's high risk. No Corbyn fan but I think he's good at that kind of thing. Not sure about BJ.
Indeed but I don't know why he's chosen to go head to head with Corbyn. I don't see how two viable alternative PM's approach helps Boris unless he thinks he can defeat Corbyn in it.
Johnson should I'd think have gone for a sort of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' approach - get on the stage as the PM versus a whole bunch of minor party leaders none of which are going to become PM with Corbyn amongst their number.
Isn't one of the debates going to be of the Snow White variety?
Head to head with Corbyn seems fraught with danger. He'd be better off with Swinson there too, just to loosen it up a bit. Johnson may emerge victorious. After all he has a double first in Bullshit and Bluster. Downside risk is huge though.
JFK, Carter, Clinton and Obama all got in after 8 years of a GOP President and only Carter faced the incumbent president. In 2020 the Democrats will have to beat an incumbent president after only one one term and 4 years in power.
Clinton also faced an incumbent President.
OK him too but after 12 years of GOP presidents again not 4
Your statement was still inaccurate - I was simply pointing that out.
I agree that defeating an incumbent (even a fairly unpopular one) is harder than winning an election with no incumbent. However, it's not a particularly original idea, and there are several examples of candidates doing just that.
Only Reagan since WW2 has beaten an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets.
Isn't there a XKCD for this, oh future billionaire?
@rcs1000 , in the event of you ever becoming a billionaire and a potential employer, may I point out that I have always admired your ginger hair and capacity to wave your hands around...
You have to seriously be prepared to threaten to walk away with no deal in order to get a good deal, that doesn't mean you intend no deal.
Just the same as you spend on your military in order to have peace. The Romans had an expression: Si vis pacem, para bellum that logic was known thousands of years ago is still relevant today.
PS if you wanted no deal you wouldn't threaten it, you'd just prepare for it and walk away without engaging in negotiations.
I don't think your second paragraph is consistent with the third. We are prepared for war - or at least we hope we do. We buy equipment, hold reviews, upgrade kit, hold exercises. We are not prepared for no deal - the operations are mounted half heartedly and then cancelled. The Latin tag is not "Si vis pacem, pretendum para bellum with mop".
But that's the point Brexiteers are making. We need someone like Boris to be PM who will seriously prepare for No Deal not 'Foolish Remainers' like Hammond and May who terminally weakened the UK's negotiating position when they were in power.
Boris achieved in his deal concessions the EU always said were impossible while we were led by May and Hammond. Funny that!
He gave the concessions. he threw his Northern Ireland DUP "friends" under a bus. The "deal" is otherwise exactly the same as TMay's. Only fanboys like you can't see it because you so want to love him
Comments
The seem to be a single issue 'bollocks to Brexit' protest vote movement themselves too.
Timing is also a factor because facts change, so my portfolio might reflect good calls at the time but look a bit dumb now, or vice versa.
Good luck anyway.
I'm flipping terrified.
The fact this deal is close to what the EU originally proposed just shows how appallingly Theresa May negotiated. She was faced with an unacceptable NI backstop with no unilateral exit and decided the solution was to make that an all-UK backstop with no unilateral exit. Boris instead went back to an NI-only solution and negotiated for NI voters a unilateral exit. Far smarter and far better solution.
But they (Labour) are pitted against the most vitriolic, gunned-up, right wing media onslaught I can remember in my lifetime.
A big question is: does the printed press still hold power? Or will twitter and facebook, which seem much more virulently anti Johnson & chums, have big influence?
1. Lab minority government, would require Swinson to either vote for Corbyn or possibly abstain depending on the numbers. Would guarantee ref2, would Swinson also demand electoral reform to PR as price of support (she should).
2. Swinson sticks to her word and votes against Corbyn government, could lead to either
2a, alternative GNU caretaker type proposed and Labour MPs decide en masse to support it, would probably need Corbyns tacit approval to have numbers. If Corbyn goes backwards in the election then he will have very little clout so this could well happen
2b, no alternative emerges so second election needed in mid January (probably leading to tory majority)
3. Swinson supports a Tory minority government ine xchange for ref2 on Boris deal - is there any world in which this could happen?
1 seems by far the most likely to me, but many seem to think Swinson really won't allow a Corbyn government even if that's the only route to ref2
The French tax system has many faults. But it also has some extraordinary features that make assessing how well people have done hard. French tax free allowances stack. So, if there is a family with a husband, a wife and two children, then there are four tax free allowances. Said Frenchman will be paying no income tax, and his healthcare will be included.
In the US, by contrast, healthcare is not included. And while the tax might be lower for a single man, it is not for a family of two, three or four.
The Lib Dem activist base is now predominantly old skool liberals and newer members who are vehement Remainers but not especially left wing. Not to say there aren't some people on the left who left under Clegg but have come back. However, they are not THAT left wing (because, as I say, those that were gravitated to Corbyn's Labour).
Both Charles Kennedy and Nick Clegg were more effective in capitalising the GEs for the Lib Dems.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1194300228519759874?s=20
I think what he has heard ties in with the uptick in Labour support. Will it be enough? I'm not at all sure.
They are pretty bloody staunch. Far more so than some (not all) of their MP equivalents.
It wouldn't be vitriolic enough at 10x the current level!
"Hello, Brussels Sprouts, Boris here. PM."
"Boris! How goes it?"
"Fine, fine. Look, you know that deal you offered us two years ago?"
"Ah yes, the one where NI stays but GB leaves?"
"That's the one. It was your first choice, in fact, wasn't it?"
"Oui oui."
"Terrific. So can we still have it?"
"Course you can, mon ami!"
He could have done that.
Which is why Unionist Scots must vote Tory or LD
The above post comes from a man who said Orban would veto the Johnson extension. And then Macron would. And a thousand other blindfold predictions on here. He did once stick the tail on the donkey's backside though.
Corbyn or not Corbyn is a much more important division than Leave or Remain.
I also predicted Boris PM
Try The Cotswolds!
*he may be better than Carter but that's about to change according to 538
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Frankly I'm astonished Johnson is going into the debates. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.
But absolutely it was a great idea to junk Theresa May's ludicrous concessions and go back to a saner starting point.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1194300228519759874?s=20
That is CENTRAL tax take. France is highly centralised. The US is highly decentralised.
Not only that, but knowing the total tax take tells you nothing about how it is shared between the various income segments.
It's high risk. No Corbyn fan but I think he's good at that kind of thing. Not sure about BJ.
In Pennsylvania those 29 match-ups are from just 8 polls from March to November this year. There's only 2 matchups where the Dem is "crushing" Trump - if you define crushing as a double-digit poll lead: a poll showing Biden 11 ahead in May, another showing Biden 10 ahead in March. Biden is the only Dem candidate consistently leading Trump, and the latest Pennsylvania poll has Biden just 1 ahead amongst likely voters and 3 ahead with registered voters (and he still does better than Warren and Sanders). This latest poll is also the only one from a pollster with the highest pollster rating from fivethirtyeight, fwiw (they also claim that this pollster has a +0.3 Republican bias)
If you look at what the betting says is the likeliest Dem candidate, Warren ranges from 5% ahead of Trump in March to 2 behind (LV, even RV) in the latest poll.
I really can't see how that can really be described as "being crushed". It shows Trump doing depressingly well at the moment in those states, he only needs to hold on to one of them plus keep the rest that he won in 2016 to win in the electoral college again.
but, like I say, listen to the podcast if you want to hear an alternative argument from people who know a lot more than I do.
It may go fine but if BJ is presented with questions which require facts he hasn't got it could be a complete disaster...
Johnson should I'd think have gone for a sort of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' approach - get on the stage as the PM versus a whole bunch of minor party leaders none of which are going to become PM with Corbyn amongst their number.
I have also read that the US has a pretty progressive taxation system. It just has very regressive spending patterns. The vast majority is on social security and Medicare, which spend more on rich people than poor people because the rich live longer.
Boris achieved in his deal concessions the EU always said were impossible while we were led by May and Hammond. Funny that!
Um, how fast is that, sir?
It's very fast, Evans!
But... we're already going at full speed!
Never mind, Evans! We are going to ram them!
We have remaining weapons, sir. Plus they can move out of the way...
Foolish navigator! Ramming speed now!
Righty-ho, sir! (Tiptoes to escape pod)
Evans, come back! Come here and die pointlessly!
No thank you, sir (evacuates ship)
Aaargh! (Big crash of mangled metal)
It's a betting Site. Fake news not welcome.
Head to head with Corbyn seems fraught with danger. He'd be better off with Swinson there too, just to loosen it up a bit. Johnson may emerge victorious. After all he has a double first in Bullshit and Bluster. Downside risk is huge though.
Yuk.