There are things we could do to make flooding less bad - not build on flood plains, plant trees in the hills, consider flood defences in terms of the whole watershed, rather than with piecemeal schemes that move the flooding to another place, design more resilient houses and infrastructure that can cope with periodic flooding.
We're doing none of those things, and none of the main parties are claiming to be about to start doing so.
The more extreme rainfall from climate change is just another layer on top of all the others.
Actually we are doing those things.
There are plenty of Government schemes in action supporting flood prevention through tree planting. They are also funding schemes to hold up water flow with artificial pools. If you look at the planning departments of water companies like Anglian all of their new development plans include flow stalling schemes in areas of outflow flood risk. The fact it is not headline news does not mean it is not happening.
But the biggest issue remains unsuitable development in flood risk areas which either suffer flooding themselves or push the flooding up and downstream.
Richard, another big contributor to flooding in the US is the acreage of roofing and tarmac reducing the acreage of open soils for absorbing the rain. Is that a factor in the UK too? Overflow ponds and defined channels for flood waters are some of the solutions here.
Very much so. If you go to the Netherlands they forbid non permeable paving for drives and often for roads as well. Water management is far more advanced there for fairly obvious reasons. Over here the reduction in the size of gardens and the replacement in many cases with hard standing is a big cause of local, non fluvial flooding.
It's telling that everyone seems to be discussing trivia and ignoring Labour's latest bout of hosing tens of billions at every problem, real or imagined. (Hardly a day goes by without another few tens of billion being thrown at the wall). I'm not sure, but I think that means Labour is losing even more credibility by this ceaseless barrage of improbable-sounding initiatives with eye-watering sums attached to them.
The manifesto will be out soon. Let's see what it says.
It would be a bit of a surprise if it didn't include the hundreds of billions they've announced already in the last couple of weeks, no?
It is certainly going to be a laugh. You do have to admire John McDonnell for being able to keep a straight face when he says taxes won't rise for 95% of the population.
It's telling that everyone seems to be discussing trivia and ignoring Labour's latest bout of hosing tens of billions at every problem, real or imagined. (Hardly a day goes by without another few tens of billion being thrown at the wall). I'm not sure, but I think that means Labour is losing even more credibility by this ceaseless barrage of improbable-sounding initiatives with eye-watering sums attached to them.
I forget you posted it (maybe you) but I thought the question of "priority" was an interesting one.
Labour are spending so much on everything, they aren't prioritizing anything
They should have learned from the New Labour pledge card (but with potentially more ambitious pledges). Something like... 1. Let you decide (again) on Brexit. 2. Fund social care to take pressure off the NHS. 3. Renationalise the railways. 4. Green New Deal. 5. Something on education, perhaps. Then take something very specific from each of these to make the priorities and the differentiation with the Tories clear. They don't need to promise to nationalise everything in one go. It looks disorganised and unachievable.
OK, hands on hearts time - genuinely, objectively, who gets what at this election?
I'm going to stick to my guns and say working Tory majority, 340-350 seats (subject to change if the polling goes tits up!)
That's a big majority!
I am in about the same position as you. I expect the Tories to win 340 seats with Labour about 230, Lib Dems mid 30s and SNP about 45 (hope that adds up).
Should remove the risk to postal votes although I can't help feeling that the Courts remain far too trigger happy in respect of these ballots. I mean, in this case the vote in favour of the strike was 97%. If there were some minor procedural irregularities is anyone seriously suggesting that it impacted on the result to any meaningful extent?
I am as wet a Tory as you will find but in my view the right to strike is pretty basic and courts should not be taking it away in this way.
*ducks*
Sounds like there was the potential for voter intimidation, at least going by the reports in that article.
97%. High turnout. I mean, come on.
In many undemocratic nations with voter intimidation the government have in the past won high turnout 97% elections too. Does that make their voter intimidation OK?
If there was systemic voter intimidation then the vote is void. Voter intimidation isn't OK so long as you're intimidating enough that the intimidation works.
Should remove the risk to postal votes although I can't help feeling that the Courts remain far too trigger happy in respect of these ballots. I mean, in this case the vote in favour of the strike was 97%. If there were some minor procedural irregularities is anyone seriously suggesting that it impacted on the result to any meaningful extent?
I am as wet a Tory as you will find but in my view the right to strike is pretty basic and courts should not be taking it away in this way.
*ducks*
Sounds like there was the potential for voter intimidation, at least going by the reports in that article.
97%. High turnout. I mean, come on.
In many undemocratic nations with voter intimidation the government have in the past won high turnout 97% elections too. Does that make their voter intimidation OK?
If there was systemic voter intimidation then the vote is void. Voter intimidation isn't OK so long as you're intimidating enough that the intimidation works.
Yeah, there should be zero tolerance of any form of intimidation.
OK, hands on hearts time - genuinely, objectively, who gets what at this election?
I'm going to stick to my guns and say working Tory majority, 340-350 seats (subject to change if the polling goes tits up!)
The trouble with living outside the country for so long is that you lose the intuitive feel for the mood of the country.
But my gut is that this will only be a semi re-run of 2017. I.e. that Labour will close the polling gap, but not by as much. So I'd say 40/34. On Baxter, that gives 347, so probably a bit lower, say 330-340 range.
Should remove the risk to postal votes although I can't help feeling that the Courts remain far too trigger happy in respect of these ballots. I mean, in this case the vote in favour of the strike was 97%. If there were some minor procedural irregularities is anyone seriously suggesting that it impacted on the result to any meaningful extent?
I am as wet a Tory as you will find but in my view the right to strike is pretty basic and courts should not be taking it away in this way.
*ducks*
Sounds like there was the potential for voter intimidation, at least going by the reports in that article.
97%. High turnout. I mean, come on.
In many undemocratic nations with voter intimidation the government have in the past won high turnout 97% elections too. Does that make their voter intimidation OK?
If there was systemic voter intimidation then the vote is void. Voter intimidation isn't OK so long as you're intimidating enough that the intimidation works.
But no one is seriously suggesting that. They are suggesting some irregularities in a handful of post offices.
I cant understand Johnsons actions here with regards to the flooding.
It was obviously going to become an electoral issue, scale yet to be seen. But for the life of me I cant understand why he didn't throw himself at it early door as damage limitation. Now becoming a far bigger issue than should have been.
Yes, these floods could quite easily cost him the majority he needs to implement Brexit. They could be his Dementia Tax.
Let's see what the polls do over the next week or so.
Wishful nonsense im afraid.
I can't see anything stopping a Bozo majority this time. The size of it is all that is in doubt.
I am one of those that actually think it's right that the Tories are going to be the ones to deal with the consequences of Brexit. It's their baby. They will now forever be the party that took out of the European Union. They own it and all its consequences lock stock and barrel. They have burnt their bridges, remainers have practically been purged from the party.
Winning this election is going to prove the easy bit IMO.
It's telling that everyone seems to be discussing trivia and ignoring Labour's latest bout of hosing tens of billions at every problem, real or imagined. (Hardly a day goes by without another few tens of billion being thrown at the wall). I'm not sure, but I think that means Labour is losing even more credibility by this ceaseless barrage of improbable-sounding initiatives with eye-watering sums attached to them.
Yes what happened to 1p on income tax for the NHS?
"Mr Musk also cited risks surrounding the UK's exit from the EU for his decision, according to AutoExpress. "Brexit [uncertainty] made it too risky to put a Gigafactory in the UK," he told the trade magazine."
See what you have lost us, Remainers, with all your dicking around.....
Worth noting that 'uncertainty' was added by the magazine (if normal use of [] applies). Be interesting to see a full transcript to see whether that was justified - whether it was uncertainty or just plain Brexit driving the decision. Or mainly a host of other factors.
I'm sure the Tories have other policies but they've been better than Labour on the message discipline to try to drum them into the minds of the voters: get Brexit done, spend squillions on the NHS, recruit half the adult male population into the police.
Labour need to be able to distil their campaign to a similarly concise message.
Should remove the risk to postal votes although I can't help feeling that the Courts remain far too trigger happy in respect of these ballots. I mean, in this case the vote in favour of the strike was 97%. If there were some minor procedural irregularities is anyone seriously suggesting that it impacted on the result to any meaningful extent?
I am as wet a Tory as you will find but in my view the right to strike is pretty basic and courts should not be taking it away in this way.
*ducks*
Sounds like there was the potential for voter intimidation, at least going by the reports in that article.
97%. High turnout. I mean, come on.
In many undemocratic nations with voter intimidation the government have in the past won high turnout 97% elections too. Does that make their voter intimidation OK?
If there was systemic voter intimidation then the vote is void. Voter intimidation isn't OK so long as you're intimidating enough that the intimidation works.
But no one is seriously suggesting that. They are suggesting some irregularities in a handful of post offices.
Yes, my reading of it is that the safeguards against intimidation were removed, not that there was intimidation. But it doesn't matter. The ballot was conducted wrongly. They will have to start again. Clearly they will vote for strike action again so all this is can-kicking, but process is important.
Anyone seriously worried about a Labour Govt damaging their wealth - surely this is the time to take out serious insurance by buying Lab on spread markets or backing Lab at very long odds.
I did just that about 6 weeks ago and the markets have moved massively against me but I don't care - in fact I'm delighted - I regard it as a straight forward financial investment.
If memory serves the betting markets and the spreads in 1992 were hugely skewed by City types hedging against a Labour win.
It's telling that everyone seems to be discussing trivia and ignoring Labour's latest bout of hosing tens of billions at every problem, real or imagined. (Hardly a day goes by without another few tens of billion being thrown at the wall). I'm not sure, but I think that means Labour is losing even more credibility by this ceaseless barrage of improbable-sounding initiatives with eye-watering sums attached to them.
Yes what happened to 1p on income tax for the NHS?
Should remove the risk to postal votes although I can't help feeling that the Courts remain far too trigger happy in respect of these ballots. I mean, in this case the vote in favour of the strike was 97%. If there were some minor procedural irregularities is anyone seriously suggesting that it impacted on the result to any meaningful extent?
I am as wet a Tory as you will find but in my view the right to strike is pretty basic and courts should not be taking it away in this way.
*ducks*
Sounds like there was the potential for voter intimidation, at least going by the reports in that article.
97%. High turnout. I mean, come on.
In many undemocratic nations with voter intimidation the government have in the past won high turnout 97% elections too. Does that make their voter intimidation OK?
If there was systemic voter intimidation then the vote is void. Voter intimidation isn't OK so long as you're intimidating enough that the intimidation works.
But no one is seriously suggesting that. They are suggesting some irregularities in a handful of post offices.
So how much irregularity is acceptable?
The case as far as I know was that there was clear evidence of voter intimidation. That voids the integrity of the ballot.
If Con are short of majority then on face of it they have no allies so are out.
However I think it's worth recalling 2010 - there was a very widespread media narrative that the "loser" can't be put into power. Remember Reid and Blunkett saying 100% Lab had to leave office immediately.
So suppose this time Lab gets 230 but would have a majority with SNP, LD, PC and Green. The media narrative is going to be "Corbyn has lost", "Corbyn has lost 30 seats vs 2017", "you can't put a loser into No 10".
Now whilst, of course, mathematically Corbyn could go into No 10, I suspect the LDs are going to be very, very reluctant - not just to support Corbyn but also to be seen to be putting the loser into No 10.
Go back to basics - the public don't follow politics closely - they only look at general picture - if Corbyn is miles behind people will be dumbfounded if he takes power.
Swinson will also have to consider likely 2nd GE. The point about 2010 was Con + LD was stable for 5 years. Needing SNP as well makes it much, much less stable - and thus 2nd GE far more likely.
Should remove the risk to postal votes although I can't help feeling that the Courts remain far too trigger happy in respect of these ballots. I mean, in this case the vote in favour of the strike was 97%. If there were some minor procedural irregularities is anyone seriously suggesting that it impacted on the result to any meaningful extent?
I am as wet a Tory as you will find but in my view the right to strike is pretty basic and courts should not be taking it away in this way.
*ducks*
Sounds like there was the potential for voter intimidation, at least going by the reports in that article.
97%. High turnout. I mean, come on.
In many undemocratic nations with voter intimidation the government have in the past won high turnout 97% elections too. Does that make their voter intimidation OK?
If there was systemic voter intimidation then the vote is void. Voter intimidation isn't OK so long as you're intimidating enough that the intimidation works.
But no one is seriously suggesting that. They are suggesting some irregularities in a handful of post offices.
So how much irregularity is acceptable?
The case as far as I know was that there was clear evidence of voter intimidation. That voids the integrity of the ballot.
Well, let's test this. 100K were balloted. Turnout was 76% so 76K ballots cast. 97% were in favour of strike action so that is 73,720 votes. Let's say that there is evidence that 700 might have been intimidated or at least did not have the benefits of a secret ballot. Are you saying that justifies taking the right to strike away from the other 73k? It's wrong but its not material.
OK, hands on hearts time - genuinely, objectively, who gets what at this election?
I'm going to stick to my guns and say working Tory majority, 340-350 seats (subject to change if the polling goes tits up!)
The trouble with living outside the country for so long is that you lose the intuitive feel for the mood of the country.
But my gut is that this will only be a semi re-run of 2017. I.e. that Labour will close the polling gap, but not by as much. So I'd say 40/34. On Baxter, that gives 347, so probably a bit lower, say 330-340 range.
We haven't had the manifestos yet - that may contain a surprise or 2.
And we haven't seen Boris on TV yet and that will probably not go the way anyone expects.
OK, hands on hearts time - genuinely, objectively, who gets what at this election?
I'm going to stick to my guns and say working Tory majority, 340-350 seats (subject to change if the polling goes tits up!)
The trouble with living outside the country for so long is that you lose the intuitive feel for the mood of the country.
But my gut is that this will only be a semi re-run of 2017. I.e. that Labour will close the polling gap, but not by as much. So I'd say 40/34. On Baxter, that gives 347, so probably a bit lower, say 330-340 range.
I'd happily take that. Didn't Corbyn and McDonnell say they'd both stand down if Labour 'lose' again? That's the prize for the Tories and the country.
There are things we could do to make flooding less bad - not build on flood plains, plant trees in the hills, consider flood defences in terms of the whole watershed, rather than with piecemeal schemes that move the flooding to another place, design more resilient houses and infrastructure that can cope with periodic flooding.
We're doing none of those things, and none of the main parties are claiming to be about to start doing so.
The more extreme rainfall from climate change is just another layer on top of all the others.
Actually we are doing those things.
There are plenty of Government schemes in action supporting flood prevention through tree planting. They are also funding schemes to hold up water flow with artificial pools. If you look at the planning departments of water companies like Anglian all of their new development plans include flow stalling schemes in areas of outflow flood risk. The fact it is not headline news does not mean it is not happening.
But the biggest issue remains unsuitable development in flood risk areas which either suffer flooding themselves or push the flooding up and downstream.
Richard, another big contributor to flooding in the US is the acreage of roofing and tarmac reducing the acreage of open soils for absorbing the rain. Is that a factor in the UK too? Overflow ponds and defined channels for flood waters are some of the solutions here.
Very much so. If you go to the Netherlands they forbid non permeable paving for drives and often for roads as well. Water management is far more advanced there for fairly obvious reasons. Over here the reduction in the size of gardens and the replacement in many cases with hard standing is a big cause of local, non fluvial flooding.
Not wanting to rain on anyone's driveway, or dreams about Dutch superiority, but permeable paving has been required for driveways in England since 2008, without particular permission.
And a basic requirement for any building project is that no more runoff be generated that the naked field (or whatever) before the thing was built.
It is called SUDS - Sustainable Urban Drainage.
The Dutch also generate twice as much CO2 as we do per head, which is why the site of pillocks commuting in from Holland to demonstrate in London with Extinction Rebellion was so amusing.
Should remove the risk to postal votes although I can't help feeling that the Courts remain far too trigger happy in respect of these ballots. I mean, in this case the vote in favour of the strike was 97%. If there were some minor procedural irregularities is anyone seriously suggesting that it impacted on the result to any meaningful extent?
I am as wet a Tory as you will find but in my view the right to strike is pretty basic and courts should not be taking it away in this way.
*ducks*
Sounds like there was the potential for voter intimidation, at least going by the reports in that article.
97%. High turnout. I mean, come on.
In many undemocratic nations with voter intimidation the government have in the past won high turnout 97% elections too. Does that make their voter intimidation OK?
If there was systemic voter intimidation then the vote is void. Voter intimidation isn't OK so long as you're intimidating enough that the intimidation works.
But no one is seriously suggesting that. They are suggesting some irregularities in a handful of post offices.
So how much irregularity is acceptable?
The case as far as I know was that there was clear evidence of voter intimidation. That voids the integrity of the ballot.
Well, let's test this. 100K were balloted. Turnout was 76% so 76K ballots cast. 97% were in favour of strike action so that is 73,720 votes. Let's say that there is evidence that 700 might have been intimidated or at least did not have the benefits of a secret ballot. Are you saying that justifies taking the right to strike away from the other 73k? It's wrong but its not material.
Yes. Zero tolerance of intimidation or electoral fraud.
Reholding a ballot without intimidation is the least that should happen. At election, with electoral fraud, there would not just be a new election held but those found guilty of it would be debarred from standing again. For example Luftur Rahman.
Luftur Rahman won his fraudulant election victory by thousands of votes, if he was only found guilty of hundreds of cases of electoral fraud then should he remain in office?
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.
Should remove the risk to postal votes although I can't help feeling that the Courts remain far too trigger happy in respect of these ballots. I mean, in this case the vote in favour of the strike was 97%. If there were some minor procedural irregularities is anyone seriously suggesting that it impacted on the result to any meaningful extent?
I am as wet a Tory as you will find but in my view the right to strike is pretty basic and courts should not be taking it away in this way.
*ducks*
Sounds like there was the potential for voter intimidation, at least going by the reports in that article.
97%. High turnout. I mean, come on.
In many undemocratic nations with voter intimidation the government have in the past won high turnout 97% elections too. Does that make their voter intimidation OK?
If there was systemic voter intimidation then the vote is void. Voter intimidation isn't OK so long as you're intimidating enough that the intimidation works.
But no one is seriously suggesting that. They are suggesting some irregularities in a handful of post offices.
So how much irregularity is acceptable?
The case as far as I know was that there was clear evidence of voter intimidation. That voids the integrity of the ballot.
Well, let's test this. 100K were balloted. Turnout was 76% so 76K ballots cast. 97% were in favour of strike action so that is 73,720 votes. Let's say that there is evidence that 700 might have been intimidated or at least did not have the benefits of a secret ballot. Are you saying that justifies taking the right to strike away from the other 73k? It's wrong but its not material.
Yes. Zero tolerance of intimidation or electoral fraud.
Reholding a ballot without intimidation is the least that should happen. At election, with electoral fraud, there would not just be a new election held but those found guilty of it would be debarred from standing again. For example Luftur Rahman.
If Con are short of majority then on face of it they have no allies so are out.
However I think it's worth recalling 2010 - there was a very widespread media narrative that the "loser" can't be put into power. Remember Reid and Blunkett saying 100% Lab had to leave office immediately.
So suppose this time Lab gets 230 but would have a majority with SNP, LD, PC and Green. The media narrative is going to be "Corbyn has lost", "Corbyn has lost 30 seats vs 2017", "you can't put a loser into No 10".
Now whilst, of course, mathematically Corbyn could go into No 10, I suspect the LDs are going to be very, very reluctant - not just to support Corbyn but also to be seen to be putting the loser into No 10.
Go back to basics - the public don't follow politics closely - they only look at general picture - if Corbyn is miles behind people will be dumbfounded if he takes power.
Swinson will also have to consider likely 2nd GE. The point about 2010 was Con + LD was stable for 5 years. Needing SNP as well makes it much, much less stable - and thus 2nd GE far more likely.
We'd be in a real mess if a party with 230 seats was put into Downing Street. Well actually a catastrophe. Imagine the list of SNP and LD demands on Corbyn. He'd cave in a matter of seconds to get his hands on the economy.
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.
Should remove the risk to postal votes although I can't help feeling that the Courts remain far too trigger happy in respect of these ballots. I mean, in this case the vote in favour of the strike was 97%. If there were some minor procedural irregularities is anyone seriously suggesting that it impacted on the result to any meaningful extent?
I am as wet a Tory as you will find but in my view the right to strike is pretty basic and courts should not be taking it away in this way.
*ducks*
Sounds like there was the potential for voter intimidation, at least going by the reports in that article.
97%. High turnout. I mean, come on.
In many undemocratic nations with voter intimidation the government have in the past won high turnout 97% elections too. Does that make their voter intimidation OK?
If there was systemic voter intimidation then the vote is void. Voter intimidation isn't OK so long as you're intimidating enough that the intimidation works.
But no one is seriously suggesting that. They are suggesting some irregularities in a handful of post offices.
So how much irregularity is acceptable?
The case as far as I know was that there was clear evidence of voter intimidation. That voids the integrity of the ballot.
Well, let's test this. 100K were balloted. Turnout was 76% so 76K ballots cast. 97% were in favour of strike action so that is 73,720 votes. Let's say that there is evidence that 700 might have been intimidated or at least did not have the benefits of a secret ballot. Are you saying that justifies taking the right to strike away from the other 73k? It's wrong but its not material.
Yes. Zero tolerance of intimidation or electoral fraud.
Reholding a ballot without intimidation is the least that should happen. At election, with electoral fraud, there would not just be a new election held but those found guilty of it would be debarred from standing again. For example Luftur Rahman.
Or a referendum?
Yes if there was voter intimidation or fraud in a referendum then I'd be happy to void the results and have another referendum. I'm not aware of any examples of that ever occuring but of course that should be the case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If Con are short of majority then on face of it they have no allies so are out.
However I think it's worth recalling 2010 - there was a very widespread media narrative that the "loser" can't be put into power. Remember Reid and Blunkett saying 100% Lab had to leave office immediately.
So suppose this time Lab gets 230 but would have a majority with SNP, LD, PC and Green. The media narrative is going to be "Corbyn has lost", "Corbyn has lost 30 seats vs 2017", "you can't put a loser into No 10".
Now whilst, of course, mathematically Corbyn could go into No 10, I suspect the LDs are going to be very, very reluctant - not just to support Corbyn but also to be seen to be putting the loser into No 10.
Go back to basics - the public don't follow politics closely - they only look at general picture - if Corbyn is miles behind people will be dumbfounded if he takes power.
Swinson will also have to consider likely 2nd GE. The point about 2010 was Con + LD was stable for 5 years. Needing SNP as well makes it much, much less stable - and thus 2nd GE far more likely.
We'd be in a real mess if a party with 230 seats was put into Downing Street. Well actually a catastrophe. Imagine the list of SNP and LD demands on Corbyn. He'd cave in a matter of seconds to get his hands on the economy.
But surely Johnson is also a loser if he loses seats?
I think either a: the government should be formed by those that have the confidence of the house to govern (duh) or b: they'd have another GE.
Another GE is unlikely to produce a different result, though, and if the Tories can't get a majority now, I can't imagine them doing so then.
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.
If Con are short of majority then on face of it they have no allies so are out.
However I think it's worth recalling 2010 - there was a very widespread media narrative that the "loser" can't be put into power. Remember Reid and Blunkett saying 100% Lab had to leave office immediately.
So suppose this time Lab gets 230 but would have a majority with SNP, LD, PC and Green. The media narrative is going to be "Corbyn has lost", "Corbyn has lost 30 seats vs 2017", "you can't put a loser into No 10".
Now whilst, of course, mathematically Corbyn could go into No 10, I suspect the LDs are going to be very, very reluctant - not just to support Corbyn but also to be seen to be putting the loser into No 10.
Go back to basics - the public don't follow politics closely - they only look at general picture - if Corbyn is miles behind people will be dumbfounded if he takes power.
Swinson will also have to consider likely 2nd GE. The point about 2010 was Con + LD was stable for 5 years. Needing SNP as well makes it much, much less stable - and thus 2nd GE far more likely.
We'd be in a real mess if a party with 230 seats was put into Downing Street. Well actually a catastrophe. Imagine the list of SNP and LD demands on Corbyn. He'd cave in a matter of seconds to get his hands on the economy.
But surely Johnson is also a loser if he loses seats?
I think either a: the government should be formed by those that have the confidence of the house to govern (duh) or b: they'd have another GE.
Another GE is unlikely to produce a different result, though, and if the Tories can't get a majority now, I can't imagine them doing so then.
Labour will run out of money first if we have a few more GE's
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
No independence referendum = no PM Corbyn
Not too bright that lad.
Sturgeon said earlier this week that she could support a PM who supported a referendum "in principle". Weaselly, yes, but I think the SNP know they cannot be seen to allow Tories into government if they could reasonably stop it without a lot of voters going back to Labour. It would be bigger than the LD losses due to the coalition.
This is one of the things I most admire about Jeremy Corbyn. He must know the crowd pleasing - and vote winning - stance in all those marginals in Brexitland is along the lines of, "He died a whimpering and a cowering like a dog. And you know what? Tough!" So easy. So electorally obvious. Yet he refrains from it. He takes the less populated higher ground.
Good speech from Johnson about what is happening regarding green developments.
There's so much relentless negativity about green issues but this government has a good record actually in cutting carbon and developing green technologies and we need to keep up with that.
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
No independence referendum = no PM Corbyn
Not too bright that lad.
Mathematically, this equation should work in reverse.
no PM Corbyn = No independence referendum
Of course. Maths is an unforgiving mistress.
We are banking on The Clown pulling a DUP. No Surrender!
If he had any sense he’d call our bluff.
I pose the question only because I genuinely don't understand why SNP doesn't support Corbyn more. 15 English gains would stop Brexit and pave the way for an easy transition to an independent Scotland. Yet the dislike seems visceral.
It's not as if Labour are a competitor on your own patch. Those days are gone. Even the Edinburgh South dude has given up the Labour ghost.
If Con are short of majority then on face of it they have no allies so are out.
However I think it's worth recalling 2010 - there was a very widespread media narrative that the "loser" can't be put into power. Remember Reid and Blunkett saying 100% Lab had to leave office immediately.
So suppose this time Lab gets 230 but would have a majority with SNP, LD, PC and Green. The media narrative is going to be "Corbyn has lost", "Corbyn has lost 30 seats vs 2017", "you can't put a loser into No 10".
Now whilst, of course, mathematically Corbyn could go into No 10, I suspect the LDs are going to be very, very reluctant - not just to support Corbyn but also to be seen to be putting the loser into No 10.
Go back to basics - the public don't follow politics closely - they only look at general picture - if Corbyn is miles behind people will be dumbfounded if he takes power.
Swinson will also have to consider likely 2nd GE. The point about 2010 was Con + LD was stable for 5 years. Needing SNP as well makes it much, much less stable - and thus 2nd GE far more likely.
I think in this situation the LDs might support a Tory government in return for a Ref on Johnson's deal.
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
No independence referendum = no PM Corbyn
Not too bright that lad.
Mathematically, this equation should work in reverse.
no PM Corbyn = No independence referendum
Of course. Maths is an unforgiving mistress.
We are banking on The Clown pulling a DUP. No Surrender!
If he had any sense he’d call our bluff.
I pose the question only because I genuinely don't understand why SNP doesn't support Corbyn more. 15 English gains would stop Brexit and pave the way for an easy transition to an independent Scotland. Yet the dislike seems visceral.
It's not as if Labour are a competitor on your own patch. Those days are gone. Even the Edinburgh South dude has given up the Labour ghost.
The SNP were calling before the election for a VONC and Corbyn to be made PM.
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.
This is one of the things I most admire about Jeremy Corbyn. He must know the crowd pleasing - and vote winning - stance in all those marginals in Brexitland is along the lines of, "He died a whimpering and a cowering like a dog. And you know what? Tough!" So easy. So electorally obvious. Yet he refrains from it. He takes the less populated higher ground.
He discriminates on his "higher ground". He's only so open minded to those he has some ideological touch-points with. Namely those who are in any way anti-Western (American).
If Con are short of majority then on face of it they have no allies so are out.
However I think it's worth recalling 2010 - there was a very widespread media narrative that the "loser" can't be put into power. Remember Reid and Blunkett saying 100% Lab had to leave office immediately.
So suppose this time Lab gets 230 but would have a majority with SNP, LD, PC and Green. The media narrative is going to be "Corbyn has lost", "Corbyn has lost 30 seats vs 2017", "you can't put a loser into No 10".
Now whilst, of course, mathematically Corbyn could go into No 10, I suspect the LDs are going to be very, very reluctant - not just to support Corbyn but also to be seen to be putting the loser into No 10.
Go back to basics - the public don't follow politics closely - they only look at general picture - if Corbyn is miles behind people will be dumbfounded if he takes power.
Swinson will also have to consider likely 2nd GE. The point about 2010 was Con + LD was stable for 5 years. Needing SNP as well makes it much, much less stable - and thus 2nd GE far more likely.
I think in this situation the LDs might support a Tory government in return for a Ref on Johnson's deal.
"Mr Musk also cited risks surrounding the UK's exit from the EU for his decision, according to AutoExpress. "Brexit [uncertainty] made it too risky to put a Gigafactory in the UK," he told the trade magazine."
See what you have lost us, Remainers, with all your dicking around.....
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
No independence referendum = no PM Corbyn
Not too bright that lad.
Yes I wondered about that. Should he have a chance to be PM he’s made his first action a climb down. Saying he was in favour of self determination and that with the clear support and changed circumstances he was supportive of another referendum seemed like an open goal. Might even have won some support north of the border.
It would be a bit of a surprise if it didn't include the hundreds of billions they've announced already in the last couple of weeks, no?
It is certainly going to be a laugh. You do have to admire John McDonnell for being able to keep a straight face when he says taxes won't rise for 95% of the population.
It has to add up. Spending = Tax + Borrowing.
And any assumptions re GDP growth must stand up to scrutiny.
If Con are short of majority then on face of it they have no allies so are out.
However I think it's worth recalling 2010 - there was a very widespread media narrative that the "loser" can't be put into power. Remember Reid and Blunkett saying 100% Lab had to leave office immediately.
So suppose this time Lab gets 230 but would have a majority with SNP, LD, PC and Green. The media narrative is going to be "Corbyn has lost", "Corbyn has lost 30 seats vs 2017", "you can't put a loser into No 10".
Now whilst, of course, mathematically Corbyn could go into No 10, I suspect the LDs are going to be very, very reluctant - not just to support Corbyn but also to be seen to be putting the loser into No 10.
Go back to basics - the public don't follow politics closely - they only look at general picture - if Corbyn is miles behind people will be dumbfounded if he takes power.
Swinson will also have to consider likely 2nd GE. The point about 2010 was Con + LD was stable for 5 years. Needing SNP as well makes it much, much less stable - and thus 2nd GE far more likely.
I think in this situation the LDs might support a Tory government in return for a Ref on Johnson's deal.
That'd be a fair demand in the circumstances.
Surely Johnson couldn't accept it though? And unless the LDs win a huge number of seats it's unlikely a Tory/LD coalition could pass a referendum bill due to the ERG defections. Doubt Corbyn would come to their help either.
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
No independence referendum = no PM Corbyn
Not too bright that lad.
Mathematically, this equation should work in reverse.
no PM Corbyn = No independence referendum
Of course. Maths is an unforgiving mistress.
We are banking on The Clown pulling a DUP. No Surrender!
If he had any sense he’d call our bluff.
I pose the question only because I genuinely don't understand why SNP doesn't support Corbyn more. 15 English gains would stop Brexit and pave the way for an easy transition to an independent Scotland. Yet the dislike seems visceral.
It's not as if Labour are a competitor on your own patch. Those days are gone. Even the Edinburgh South dude has given up the Labour ghost.
The SNP were calling before the election for a VONC and Corbyn to be made PM.
That was the only certain way to avoid "No deal" at the time. Corbyn would have had less real power than Johnson did - interesting that Swinson avoided putting Corbyn in as any sort of temporary PM - even to prevent for certain leaving without a deal.
It's telling that everyone seems to be discussing trivia and ignoring Labour's latest bout of hosing tens of billions at every problem, real or imagined. (Hardly a day goes by without another few tens of billion being thrown at the wall). I'm not sure, but I think that means Labour is losing even more credibility by this ceaseless barrage of improbable-sounding initiatives with eye-watering sums attached to them.
Given the Tories' own spending promises they may find it hard to say "Don't vote Labour because Labour want to throw lots of taxpayers' money at all kinds of problems as if that's likely to solve any of them".
The "Get help from working class northerners by giving them a light blue arrow on the ballot paper with 'Brexit' written on it" strategy may turn out to be a failure. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of "common sense" oop North. "If you want a Tory government, vote Tory; if you want to remove the Tories from office, vote Labour" is common sense in many constituencies.
If Con are short of majority then on face of it they have no allies so are out.
However I think it's worth recalling 2010 - there was a very widespread media narrative that the "loser" can't be put into power. Remember Reid and Blunkett saying 100% Lab had to leave office immediately.
So suppose this time Lab gets 230 but would have a majority with SNP, LD, PC and Green. The media narrative is going to be "Corbyn has lost", "Corbyn has lost 30 seats vs 2017", "you can't put a loser into No 10".
Now whilst, of course, mathematically Corbyn could go into No 10, I suspect the LDs are going to be very, very reluctant - not just to support Corbyn but also to be seen to be putting the loser into No 10.
Go back to basics - the public don't follow politics closely - they only look at general picture - if Corbyn is miles behind people will be dumbfounded if he takes power.
Swinson will also have to consider likely 2nd GE. The point about 2010 was Con + LD was stable for 5 years. Needing SNP as well makes it much, much less stable - and thus 2nd GE far more likely.
I think in this situation the LDs might support a Tory government in return for a Ref on Johnson's deal.
That'd be a fair demand in the circumstances.
Surely Johnson couldn't accept it though? And unless the LDs win a huge number of seats it's unlikely a Tory/LD coalition could pass a referendum bill due to the ERG defections. Doubt Corbyn would come to their help either.
I think for 5 years of locking the Lib Dems in with the Tories again he might think about it. And then decide against
Good speech from Johnson about what is happening regarding green developments. There's so much relentless negativity about green issues but this government has a good record actually in cutting carbon and developing green technologies and we need to keep up with that.
Do you mean the Coalition Government, Mr Thompson? The one whose good works were destroyed by the incoming Conservative Government in 2015.
It's telling that everyone seems to be discussing trivia and ignoring Labour's latest bout of hosing tens of billions at every problem, real or imagined. (Hardly a day goes by without another few tens of billion being thrown at the wall). I'm not sure, but I think that means Labour is losing even more credibility by this ceaseless barrage of improbable-sounding initiatives with eye-watering sums attached to them.
Given the Tories' own spending promises they may find it hard to say "Don't vote Labour because Labour want to throw lots of taxpayers' money at all kinds of problems as if that's likely to solve any of them".
The "Get help from working class northerners by giving them a light blue arrow on the ballot paper with 'Brexit' written on it" strategy may turn out to be a failure. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of "common sense" oop North. "If you want a Tory government, vote Tory; if you want to remove the Tories from office, vote Labour" is common sense in many constituencies.
I know it's only numbers an' all but Cons' spending plans amount to around 1.1% of GDP. Lab's are double that. Both are sending economists white at the thought.
Don't expect any cut-through with the public whatsoever.
I have followed the posts re the 2 LD PPCs standing down and can only think a number of posters had a good lunch, or that they are being organised to write drivel. In an election where Labour are losing candidates for racism (such as Gideon Bull), and the Conservatives are seeing their recent senior cabinet ministers publicly advocating a LD vote, the loss of a couple of LD candidates in no hope seats seems almost irrelevant and trivial.
But I suppose attacking a perfectly sensible decision by the LDs helps distract from the dreadful mire Labour finds itself in and the splintering of the Conservatives into Brexit Party acolytes and traditional Conservatives who no longer have a place in the party.
In my circle, “Pot Noodle syndrome” is shorthand for something you quite like the sound of, but on first taste are reminded what a shocking idea it really was:
It would be a bit of a surprise if it didn't include the hundreds of billions they've announced already in the last couple of weeks, no?
It is certainly going to be a laugh. You do have to admire John McDonnell for being able to keep a straight face when he says taxes won't rise for 95% of the population.
It has to add up. Spending = Tax + Borrowing.
And any assumptions re GDP growth must stand up to scrutiny.
Same for the Cons.
Any assumptions for GDP that aren't based on 0% growth really aren't worth the paper they are written on.
I have followed the posts re the 2 LD PPCs standing down and can only think a number of posters had a good lunch, or that they are being organised to write drivel. In an election where Labour are losing candidates for racism (such as Gideon Bull), and the Conservatives are seeing their recent senior cabinet ministers publicly advocating a LD vote, the loss of a couple of LD candidates in no hope seats seems almost irrelevant and trivial.
But I suppose attacking a perfectly sensible decision by the LDs helps distract from the dreadful mire Labour finds itself in and the splintering of the Conservatives into Brexit Party acolytes and traditional Conservatives who no longer have a place in the party.
What is the sensible decision? The party trying to replace the outspoken former candidates or the ex candidates going behind Swinson's back to support Labour?
In my opinion the former is the sensible option at this stage.
In my circle, “Pot Noodle syndrome” is shorthand for something you quite like the sound of, but on first taste are reminded what a shocking idea it really was:
He discriminates on his "higher ground". He's only so open minded to those he has some ideological touch-points with. Namely those who are in any way anti-Western (American).
Paywall but I can guess the point from the headline. He only sympathizes when the object of his sympathy is anti-West. Which is broadly correct. But which only supports what I'm saying. Sentiments that are PRO West are not inherently unpopular in most of the country, since that is us, the West, and therefore would be extremely tempting for him to feign. Yet he doesn't. He prefers to piss people off rather than pander. It's unusual for a politician (at least these days) and rather refreshing.
It's telling that everyone seems to be discussing trivia and ignoring Labour's latest bout of hosing tens of billions at every problem, real or imagined. (Hardly a day goes by without another few tens of billion being thrown at the wall). I'm not sure, but I think that means Labour is losing even more credibility by this ceaseless barrage of improbable-sounding initiatives with eye-watering sums attached to them.
Given the Tories' own spending promises they may find it hard to say "Don't vote Labour because Labour want to throw lots of taxpayers' money at all kinds of problems as if that's likely to solve any of them".
The "Get help from working class northerners by giving them a light blue arrow on the ballot paper with 'Brexit' written on it" strategy may turn out to be a failure. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of "common sense" oop North. "If you want a Tory government, vote Tory; if you want to remove the Tories from office, vote Labour" is common sense in many constituencies.
I know it's only numbers an' all but Cons' spending plans amount to around 1.1% of GDP. Lab's are double that. Both are sending economists white at the thought.
Don't expect any cut-through with the public whatsoever.
The Labour message is pure: "Let's have a lot of public spending". The Tories' is complicated: "Let's have a lot of public spending, but whoa, not as much as our opponents want to have. Let's have a lot but not an unreasonably large lot".
It's strange how many PB posters seem convinced that Labour are definitely set to close their present gap behind the Tories and that this has already commenced, yet both both the spread-betting firms offering GE seats are today showing the Tories at a new high.
It's telling that everyone seems to be discussing trivia and ignoring Labour's latest bout of hosing tens of billions at every problem, real or imagined. (Hardly a day goes by without another few tens of billion being thrown at the wall). I'm not sure, but I think that means Labour is losing even more credibility by this ceaseless barrage of improbable-sounding initiatives with eye-watering sums attached to them.
Given the Tories' own spending promises they may find it hard to say "Don't vote Labour because Labour want to throw lots of taxpayers' money at all kinds of problems as if that's likely to solve any of them".
The "Get help from working class northerners by giving them a light blue arrow on the ballot paper with 'Brexit' written on it" strategy may turn out to be a failure. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of "common sense" oop North. "If you want a Tory government, vote Tory; if you want to remove the Tories from office, vote Labour" is common sense in many constituencies.
I know it's only numbers an' all but Cons' spending plans amount to around 1.1% of GDP. Lab's are double that. Both are sending economists white at the thought.
Don't expect any cut-through with the public whatsoever.
I’m not sure. To start with we haven’t had any manifestos yet so what’s being presented as fact can’t be. Secondly it depends on time. Boris 40 hospitals is only 6 in first five years isn’t it, so labour could hardly use cost of 40 hospitals in this election it would be fake news. Then there is how honestly they report cost balance of their own homework, because more neutral fact checkers will do that and report to the voters the truth.
And then, slight curve ball, economists picking up on unwitting consequences of policy, like what happened with kill all sparrows.
I have followed the posts re the 2 LD PPCs standing down and can only think a number of posters had a good lunch, or that they are being organised to write drivel. In an election where Labour are losing candidates for racism (such as Gideon Bull), and the Conservatives are seeing their recent senior cabinet ministers publicly advocating a LD vote, the loss of a couple of LD candidates in no hope seats seems almost irrelevant and trivial.
But I suppose attacking a perfectly sensible decision by the LDs helps distract from the dreadful mire Labour finds itself in and the splintering of the Conservatives into Brexit Party acolytes and traditional Conservatives who no longer have a place in the party.
What is the sensible decision? The party trying to replace the outspoken former candidates or the ex candidates going behind Swinson's back to support Labour?
In my opinion the former is the sensible option at this stage.
I agree. I was referring to the decision to stand candidates against Labour, which led to Walker's initial tantrum. I am quite happy for deals to be done but they have to be 2 way, and Labour are uninterested. A good example of a deal which would make sense would be for Labour to stand down in Guildford in return for the LDs standing down in one or both of the Reading seats - but it will not happen because Labour have no interest in maximising their chances.
It's strange how many PB posters seem convinced that Labour are definitely set to close their present gap behind the Tories and that this has already commenced, yet both both the spread-betting firms offering GE seats are today showing the Tories at a new high.
Yes, I bought Con at 332, and am nicely in the Green. I expect Con 350-360.
Great news Royal Mail has won its high court injunction blocking the December postal strike, means postal votes can be delivered and returned unhindered and CWU bullyboy tactics will not work this time
He discriminates on his "higher ground". He's only so open minded to those he has some ideological touch-points with. Namely those who are in any way anti-Western (American).
Paywall but I can guess the point from the headline. He only sympathizes when the object of his sympathy is anti-West. Which is broadly correct. But which only supports what I'm saying. Sentiments that are PRO West are not inherently unpopular in most of the country, since that is us, the West, and therefore would be extremely tempting for him to feign. Yet he doesn't. He prefers to piss people off rather than pander. It's unusual for a politician (at least these days) and rather refreshing.
Yes it's refreshing for Jeremy not to pander to people and instead state unequivocally what he believes about any issue.
How craven and weaselly it would be for a politician, especially one leading a national party, not to tell people what he thought or believed on any particular issue.
I wonder if Sean has bumped into Byronic? He said he was off to Antarctica.
Pure coincidence
Big place, Antarctica.
So is Africa, but Stanley and Livingstone eventually hooked up.
If they do, instead of "Dr L, I presume?" Seant can ask "Isn't it Byronic?" in an Alanis Morissette tribute act.
Native penguin speaking fluent English, like what happened to the pilgrim fathers, when the Indian came down on the beach and Told them to get the best fish and chips at uncle Little Fryers.
We'd be in a real mess if a party with 230 seats was put into Downing Street. Well actually a catastrophe. Imagine the list of SNP and LD demands on Corbyn. He'd cave in a matter of seconds to get his hands on the economy.
You worry far too much. As a minority government Labour would not be able to implement any of their more radical policies. To do that they would need a proper GE win.
It's telling that everyone seems to be discussing trivia and ignoring Labour's latest bout of hosing tens of billions at every problem, real or imagined. (Hardly a day goes by without another few tens of billion being thrown at the wall). I'm not sure, but I think that means Labour is losing even more credibility by this ceaseless barrage of improbable-sounding initiatives with eye-watering sums attached to them.
Given the Tories' own spending promises they may find it hard to say "Don't vote Labour because Labour want to throw lots of taxpayers' money at all kinds of problems as if that's likely to solve any of them".
The "Get help from working class northerners by giving them a light blue arrow on the ballot paper with 'Brexit' written on it" strategy may turn out to be a failure. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of "common sense" oop North. "If you want a Tory government, vote Tory; if you want to remove the Tories from office, vote Labour" is common sense in many constituencies.
I know it's only numbers an' all but Cons' spending plans amount to around 1.1% of GDP. Lab's are double that. Both are sending economists white at the thought.
Don't expect any cut-through with the public whatsoever.
What is often lost from election arguments is "a matter of degree". I'm sure that I could come up with a better analogy but the Tories are implying a punch in the face to the economy whilst Labour are promising stoving in its head with repeated blows from a blunt instrument.
It's telling that everyone seems to be discussing trivia and ignoring Labour's latest bout of hosing tens of billions at every problem, real or imagined. (Hardly a day goes by without another few tens of billion being thrown at the wall). I'm not sure, but I think that means Labour is losing even more credibility by this ceaseless barrage of improbable-sounding initiatives with eye-watering sums attached to them.
Given the Tories' own spending promises they may find it hard to say "Don't vote Labour because Labour want to throw lots of taxpayers' money at all kinds of problems as if that's likely to solve any of them".
The "Get help from working class northerners by giving them a light blue arrow on the ballot paper with 'Brexit' written on it" strategy may turn out to be a failure. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of "common sense" oop North. "If you want a Tory government, vote Tory; if you want to remove the Tories from office, vote Labour" is common sense in many constituencies.
I know it's only numbers an' all but Cons' spending plans amount to around 1.1% of GDP. Lab's are double that. Both are sending economists white at the thought.
Don't expect any cut-through with the public whatsoever.
What is often lost from election arguments is "a matter of degree". I'm sure that I could come up with a better analogy but the Tories are implying a punch in the face to the economy whilst Labour are promising stoving in its head with repeated blows from a blunt instrument.
In my circle, “Pot Noodle syndrome” is shorthand for something you quite like the sound of, but on first taste are reminded what a shocking idea it really was:
He discriminates on his "higher ground". He's only so open minded to those he has some ideological touch-points with. Namely those who are in any way anti-Western (American).
Paywall but I can guess the point from the headline. He only sympathizes when the object of his sympathy is anti-West. Which is broadly correct. But which only supports what I'm saying. Sentiments that are PRO West are not inherently unpopular in most of the country, since that is us, the West, and therefore would be extremely tempting for him to feign. Yet he doesn't. He prefers to piss people off rather than pander. It's unusual for a politician (at least these days) and rather refreshing.
Yes it's refreshing for Jeremy not to pander to people and instead state unequivocally what he believes about any issue.
How craven and weaselly it would be for a politician, especially one leading a national party, not to tell people what he thought or believed on any particular issue.
Great news Royal Mail has won its high court injunction blocking the December postal strike, means postal votes can be delivered and returned unhindered and CWU bullyboy tactics will not work this time
You will have to do better than that to sound more relieved than Corbyn.
Comments
It is certainly going to be a laugh. You do have to admire John McDonnell for being able to keep a straight face when he says taxes won't rise for 95% of the population.
1. Let you decide (again) on Brexit.
2. Fund social care to take pressure off the NHS.
3. Renationalise the railways.
4. Green New Deal.
5. Something on education, perhaps.
Then take something very specific from each of these to make the priorities and the differentiation with the Tories clear. They don't need to promise to nationalise everything in one go. It looks disorganised and unachievable.
I am in about the same position as you. I expect the Tories to win 340 seats with Labour about 230, Lib Dems mid 30s and SNP about 45 (hope that adds up).
If there was systemic voter intimidation then the vote is void. Voter intimidation isn't OK so long as you're intimidating enough that the intimidation works.
But my gut is that this will only be a semi re-run of 2017. I.e. that Labour will close the polling gap, but not by as much. So I'd say 40/34. On Baxter, that gives 347, so probably a bit lower, say 330-340 range.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1194640183003668481
I am one of those that actually think it's right that the Tories are going to be the ones to deal with the consequences of Brexit. It's their baby. They will now forever be the party that took out of the European Union. They own it and all its consequences lock stock and barrel. They have burnt their bridges, remainers have practically been purged from the party.
Winning this election is going to prove the easy bit IMO.
Labour need to be able to distil their campaign to a similarly concise message.
The case as far as I know was that there was clear evidence of voter intimidation. That voids the integrity of the ballot.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/keir-starmer-labour-brexit-election-3533761
If Con are short of majority then on face of it they have no allies so are out.
However I think it's worth recalling 2010 - there was a very widespread media narrative that the "loser" can't be put into power. Remember Reid and Blunkett saying 100% Lab had to leave office immediately.
So suppose this time Lab gets 230 but would have a majority with SNP, LD, PC and Green. The media narrative is going to be "Corbyn has lost", "Corbyn has lost 30 seats vs 2017", "you can't put a loser into No 10".
Now whilst, of course, mathematically Corbyn could go into No 10, I suspect the LDs are going to be very, very reluctant - not just to support Corbyn but also to be seen to be putting the loser into No 10.
Go back to basics - the public don't follow politics closely - they only look at general picture - if Corbyn is miles behind people will be dumbfounded if he takes power.
Swinson will also have to consider likely 2nd GE. The point about 2010 was Con + LD was stable for 5 years. Needing SNP as well makes it much, much less stable - and thus 2nd GE far more likely.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7680707/Jeremy-Corbyn-heckled-labelled-terrorist-sympathiser-visit-Glasgow.html#comments
"Sympathy for a Devil" Headline
And we haven't seen Boris on TV yet and that will probably not go the way anyone expects.
And a basic requirement for any building project is that no more runoff be generated that the naked field (or whatever) before the thing was built.
It is called SUDS - Sustainable Urban Drainage.
The Dutch also generate twice as much CO2 as we do per head, which is why the site of pillocks commuting in from Holland to demonstrate in London with Extinction Rebellion was so amusing.
Reholding a ballot without intimidation is the least that should happen. At election, with electoral fraud, there would not just be a new election held but those found guilty of it would be debarred from standing again. For example Luftur Rahman.
Luftur Rahman won his fraudulant election victory by thousands of votes, if he was only found guilty of hundreds of cases of electoral fraud then should he remain in office?
Scandal if so, albeit of the minor variety.
Featured a photo-montage of Jezza, John McD and Diane Abbot.
No mention of how many free trips to the races he's enjoyed this year, funnily enough.
Not too bright that lad.
'No, not those ones, they're foreign'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/13/mccluskey-tells-corbyn-defy-calls-extend-freedom-of-movement
no PM Corbyn = No independence referendum
I think either a: the government should be formed by those that have the confidence of the house to govern (duh) or b: they'd have another GE.
Another GE is unlikely to produce a different result, though, and if the Tories can't get a majority now, I can't imagine them doing so then.
We are banking on The Clown pulling a DUP. No Surrender!
If he had any sense he’d call our bluff.
There's so much relentless negativity about green issues but this government has a good record actually in cutting carbon and developing green technologies and we need to keep up with that.
It's not as if Labour are a competitor on your own patch. Those days are gone. Even the Edinburgh South dude has given up the Labour ghost.
And also that you will be surprised that the SNP does not get the endorsement it is seeking from the scottish electorate.
https://www.ft.com/content/83424336-2a29-11e9-88a4-c32129756dd8
And any assumptions re GDP growth must stand up to scrutiny.
Same for the Cons.
The "Get help from working class northerners by giving them a light blue arrow on the ballot paper with 'Brexit' written on it" strategy may turn out to be a failure. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of "common sense" oop North. "If you want a Tory government, vote Tory; if you want to remove the Tories from office, vote Labour" is common sense in many constituencies.
Don't expect any cut-through with the public whatsoever.
But I suppose attacking a perfectly sensible decision by the LDs helps distract from the dreadful mire Labour finds itself in and the splintering of the Conservatives into Brexit Party acolytes and traditional Conservatives who no longer have a place in the party.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1194661110336626689?s=20
In my opinion the former is the sensible option at this stage.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/general-election/jeremy-corbyn-branded-terrorist-sympathiser-by-church-of-scotland-minister/ar-BBWHdeV?ocid=spartanntp
If they do, instead of "Dr L, I presume?" Seant can ask "Isn't it Byronic?" in an Alanis Morissette tribute act.
And then, slight curve ball, economists picking up on unwitting consequences of policy, like what happened with kill all sparrows.
How craven and weaselly it would be for a politician, especially one leading a national party, not to tell people what he thought or believed on any particular issue.
I'm sure that I could come up with a better analogy but the Tories are implying a punch in the face to the economy whilst Labour are promising stoving in its head with repeated blows from a blunt instrument.
I'm sure that I could come up with a better analogy but the Tories are implying a punch in the face to the economy whilst Labour are promising stoving in its head with repeated blows from a blunt instrument.
Or his pollsters were.