The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
It is also good for democracy. Large majorities are just really bad as every crack pot idea by some minister gets voted through. Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
There’s more chance of a meteor hitting London than Labour getting a majority . The absolute best Labour could do is to be the biggest party and they’d need a perfect storm to deliver that .
But the meteor would be less devastating!
Very funny . It’s weird seeing some Tories in here stressing out . This is not a 2017 repeat , different dynamics at play and Labour can’t sit on the fence and expect rewards this time .
I don't know. I voted Tory last time but Labour are already offering good policies before the manifesto is rolled out. The Tories were desperate to have this election! They look well if they usher in a decade of socialism. I am seriously thinking of voting Labour this time as we need a more equal society. Free broadband is great as I cannot afford it at the moment.
Jesus Christ - this is the calibre of voter Labour attracts.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
"Liberty Global, the owner of Virgin Media, is in the process of establishing a new joint venture in order to compete in a more expansive way in the broadband market. A number of smaller players, including Hyperoptic and Gigaclear, have also been set up, leading analysts to question how many of the new companies are likely to be financially successful."
So just as all these companies are set to roll out super fast internet to a much wider audience, the Commie Cable Co policy will kill this and we all have to wait 10+ years before we see this (and if the Australian example is anything to go by, it will be much longer than 10 years and shitter).
I don't think the 30 or so days before we know the result is going to make much difference.
I for one welcome the Labour policy, I might vote Labour because of it! Cannot wait to see what else they are going to give us.
Listening to their spokesperson on WATO this lunchtime, they don’t appear to have given a great deal of thought (I’m being generous) to how it might work.
Announcing a policy which will crater private sector telecoms investment more or less immediately (and have a significant negative effect outside of the sector) while promising benefits a decade hence, sounds absolutely bonkers. That they have not even briefly consulted even the largest player in the sector makes it even more stupid.
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
It is also good for democracy. Large majorities are just really bad as every crack pot idea by some minister gets voted through. Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
forecasting.
Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
that .
But the meteor would be less devastating!
Very funny . It’s weird seeing some Tories in here stressing out . This is not a 2017 repeat , different dynamics at play and Labour can’t sit on the fence and expect rewards this time .
I don't know. I voted Tory last time but Labour are already offering good policies before the manifesto is rolled out. The Tories were desperate to have this election! They look well if they usher in a decade of socialism. I am seriously thinking of voting Labour this time as we need a more equal society. Free broadband is great as I cannot afford it at the moment.
Jesus Christ - this is the calibre of voter Labour attracts.
I voted Tory last time in 2017. The Tories have shit on their own doorstep as far as I am concerned. I hope you get taxed into oblivion - I will enjoy my share of your hard work! Brexit = Bag of Bollocks.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
Presumably since (on current polling) the Tories are more concerned with winning seats than defending them. That, of course, might change, at which point it could be helpful in preventing a meltdown.
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
There’s more chance of a meteor hitting London than Labour getting a majority . The absolute best Labour could do is to be the biggest party and they’d need a perfect storm to deliver that .
But the meteor would be less devastating!
Very funny . It’s weird seeing some Tories in here stressing out . This is not a 2017 repeat , different dynamics at play and Labour can’t sit on the fence and expect rewards this time .
I don't know. I voted Tory last time but Labour are already offering good policies before the manifesto is rolled out. The Tories were desperate to have this election! They look well if they usher in a decade of socialism. I am seriously thinking of voting Labour this time as we need a more equal society. Free broadband is great as I cannot afford it at the moment.
Jesus Christ - this is the calibre of voter Labour attracts.
We knew this already. People selling British Jews down the river for cheaper broadband. If Corbyn gets in it will be very difficult for me to look Labour voters in the eye. Luciana Berger, a Jewish woman, was chased out as an MP because she felt so uncomfortable in the party, but these people just don't give a shit.
I don't think the twitter account included Northern Ireland seats for some reason. According to them, the DUP aren't standing, nor SDLP, Alliance, Sinn Fein or the UUP.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
Because the Brexit Party take more votes off Conservatives than Labour. So BXP's policy of not standing boosts the Tory vote, which helps them defend existing seats and to take Labour ones. Since there are many more seats at risk of switching Labour to Tory than the other way around, BXP have made the wrong choice.
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
It is also good for democracy. Large majorities are just really bad as every crack pot idea by some minister gets voted through. Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
There’s more chance of a meteor hitting London than Labour getting a majority . The absolute best Labour could do is to be the biggest party and they’d need a perfect storm to deliver that .
But the meteor would be less devastating!
Very funny . It’s weird seeing some Tories in here stressing out . This is not a 2017 repeat , different dynamics at play and Labour can’t sit on the fence and expect rewards this time .
I don't know. I voted Tory last time but Labour are already offering good policies before the manifesto is rolled out. The Tories were desperate to have this election! They look well if they usher in a decade of socialism. I am seriously thinking of voting Labour this time as we need a more equal society. Free broadband is great as I cannot afford it at the moment.
Jesus Christ - this is the calibre of voter Labour attracts.
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
There’s more chance of a meteor hitting London than Labour getting a majority . The absolute best Labour could do is to be the biggest party and they’d need a perfect storm to deliver that .
But the meteor would be less devastating!
I don't know. I voted Tory last time but Labour are already offering good policies before the manifesto is rolled out. The Tories were desperate to have this election! They look well if they usher in a decade of socialism. I am seriously thinking of voting Labour this time as we need a more equal society. Free broadband is great as I cannot afford it at the moment.
Jesus Christ - this is the calibre of voter Labour attracts.
We knew this already. People selling British Jews down the river for cheaper broadband. If Corbyn gets in it will be very difficult for me to look Labour voters in the eye. Luciana Berger, a Jewish woman, was chased out as an MP because she felt so uncomfortable in the party, but these people just don't give a shit.
"People selling British Jews down the river for cheaper broadband."
That's so devastating, and so true. We can't let it happen
It seemed like common sense to me: the Tories would prefer help making inroads into Labour's seats rather than simply having what they already have protected. I can't believe that was lost on Nigel. He must want another hung parliament. There can be no other explanation.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
Because in Labour marginals the thinking is Farage is more appealing to Tory voters than Labour voters. Simples.
That's true - but you're forgetting the Boris factor. Lots of those Labour leavers will hold their nose and vote Tory because of Boris. They also know that the BXP isn't going to form the next government, so it's essentially a wasted vote. See Labour's problem here by not having a position on Brexit. It's going to kill them.
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
It is also good for democracy. Large majorities are just really bad as every crack pot idea by some minister gets voted through. Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
Betfair suggests a 2.5% chance.
You know something we don't?
Not me, Electoral Calculus which is what I was replying to. Electoral Calculus gives a 10% chance of a Labour majority - curious how they figure that given the polls?
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
I don't agree with this at all. I'm not saying that BXP wont lose Tories some winnable seats but there is no way the Tories won't benefit from then standing down in the 317.
The poll does not weight by education so should be ignored.
But Sanders beat Trump amongst those without a college degree, so does it matter? (not saying this flippantly, I don't pretend to know a huge amount about individual poll weighing and just defer to aggregates). Although reading their disclaimer the MOE is 4.7%
"Sanders cut into Trump's base by winning with men (Sanders leads 51% to 41%), non-college educated voters (Sanders leads 49% to 42%), and Independent voters (Sanders leads 56% to 28%). The senator from Vermont also did well with moderates (Sanders leads 56% to 28%), while also dominating among African American voters, receiving 83% support compared to only 5% for Trump."
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
It is also good for democracy. Large majorities are just really bad as every crack pot idea by some minister gets voted through. Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
forecasting.
Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
that .
But the meteor would be less devastating!
Very funny . It’s weird seeing some Tories in here stressing out . This is not a 2017 repeat , different dynamics at play and Labour can’t sit on the fence and expect rewards this time .
I don't know. I voted Tory last time but Labour are already offering good policies before the manifesto is rolled out. The Tories were desperate to have this election! They look well if they usher in a decade of socialism. I am seriously thinking of voting Labour this time as we need a more equal society. Free broadband is great as I cannot afford it at the moment.
Jesus Christ - this is the calibre of voter Labour attracts.
I voted Tory last time in 2017. The Tories have shit on their own doorstep as far as I am concerned. I hope you get taxed into oblivion - I will enjoy my share of your hard work! Brexit = Bag of Bollocks.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
"What is Lib Dem philosophy now apart from bollocks to Brexit?
The LDs are really just an upper middle class protest vehicle."
I cling on to the belief that the LDs adhere albeit loosely to liberalism and all the principles and aims that this implies.
Yes, exactly. The Lib Dems represent liberal values and social democracy, far superior to the bigotry and state socialism of Labour.
Perhaps someone can explain to me why they now have a policy of allowing people to self-select their gender for official purposes. How will they address the gender pay gap if the authorities don't really know what someone's gender is? I can imagine a few CEOs reassigning themselves to manipulate the data in the 'right' direction.
TudorRose said: "Perhaps someone can explain to me why they now have a policy of allowing people to self-select their gender for official purposes."
You`ve alighted on one of the reasons that my bond with the LibDems is now a tenuous one. I`m afraid that LibDems have, like much the establishment and businesses, succumbed to the vicious transgender lobby. Someone needs to have the courage to stand up to this shit. See Spiked Online.
Nice to see more science denial here. There has been detailed understanding about transgenderism for a long time, with gender reaffirming surgeries taking place post WW1 / pre WW2 in Germany (one of the most famous pictures of book burning by Nazis were works from a doctor who had done much research into the health of trans people). We also know of many cultures that recognised more than two genders in the past and still do today, from Native American Two Spirit people to Torahnic references to around six gender identities / expressions.
This is not about transgender surgery; this is about gender identity. LibDem policy includes the following statement;
'An increasing number of people in the UK identify as neither male nor female, or live part time in various gender roles. As well as giving people the ability to identify as they choose and not have the state impose an identity upon them, a perceived mismatch between gender roles and official ID can cause problems dealing with official organisations such as the DWP, Police or Border Agency.'
F1: mildly irked by how the timing of practice worked out. Could've been a good one for an early bet but was AFK for the hour or so beforehand. Ah well.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
I don't agree with this at all. I'm not saying that BXP wont lose Tories some winnable seats but there is no way the Tories won't benefit from then standing down in the 317.
They'll benefit. They'd have benefitted more from standing down in all the Labour held seats. This is what the analysis perhaps shows.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
I don't agree with this at all. I'm not saying that BXP wont lose Tories some winnable seats but there is no way the Tories won't benefit from then standing down in the 317.
They will certainly benefit in terms of the number of votes. But all that will do in most cases is slightly increase the size of the Conservative majority. It'll save one or two seats from flipping to the Lib Dems or SNP, and it'll save more seats from flipping Labour to Conservative. So net seat effect will be Lib Dems down, Conservative down, SNP down, Labour up. Compared to the counterfactual, that is, not 2017.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
Basically the projection is that the Tories with a 10% poll lead weren't going to lose that many seats to Remainers that they won with a 2% poll lead 2 years ago anyway so Farage standing down in Tory seats makes very little difference to the overall seat totals.
Farage standing down in the hundreds of seats the Tories don't hold, if the Tories are increasing their poll lead from 2017, has much more potential to make an impact.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Socialism - destroying peoples lives since inception
The NHS says hi.
I don't think it's accurate to refer to the NHS as socialist. I tried to ask PB about this a couple of times recently, but nobody engage with the question.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Socialism - destroying peoples lives since inception
Serious question, what difference do you think it'll make to my life, the sale of FibreNation to CityFibre Holdings going through or not?
You know thats not what is being talked about
So no, its not a serious question but a pathetic attempt to distract from the lunacy that is La La Labour.
But I'm being told that this is evidence of "destroying people's lives". I think my question was really quite reasonable given the magnitude of the accusation.
The poll does not weight by education so should be ignored.
But Sanders beat Trump amongst those without a college degree, so does it matter? (not saying this flippantly, I don't pretend to know a huge amount about individual poll weighing and just defer to aggregates)
"Sanders cut into Trump's base by winning with men (Sanders leads 51% to 41%), non-college educated voters (Sanders leads 49% to 42%), and Independent voters (Sanders leads 56% to 28%). The senator from Vermont also did well with moderates (Sanders leads 56% to 28%), while also dominating among African American voters, receiving 83% support compared to only 5% for Trump."
Only because non-college blacks vote Bernie and non-college whites vote Trump. By weighting for race you effectively weight for low educated blacks as most don't have a degree. Especially as there is little voting difference between college and non-college blacks. But you still undercount non-college whites, which is a big difference in voting behaviour.
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
It is also good for democracy. Large majorities are just really bad as every crack pot idea by some minister gets voted through. Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
I agree, a majority of more than about 50 or 60 isn't good for democracy or the House of Commons.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
I don't agree with this at all. I'm not saying that BXP wont lose Tories some winnable seats but there is no way the Tories won't benefit from then standing down in the 317.
They'll benefit. They'd have benefitted more from standing down in all the Labour held seats. This is what the analysis perhaps shows.
Yes I don't deny that but it's hardly the opposite of what he should have done. We were looking at BXP standing everywhere 1 week ago, now Tories have 300 of those 317 seats looking fairly safe. Of course they need to win 20+ more which will be tougher in most cases with BXP standing but it's a far better situation for the blues than BXP standing everywhere.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Socialism - destroying peoples lives since inception
Serious question, what difference do you think it'll make to my life, the sale of FibreNation to CityFibre Holdings going through or not?
You know thats not what is being talked about
So no, its not a serious question but a pathetic attempt to distract from the lunacy that is La La Labour.
But I'm being told that this is evidence of "destroying people's lives". I think my question was really quite reasonable given the magnitude of the accusation.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
Because the Brexit Party take more votes off Conservatives than Labour. So BXP's policy of not standing boosts the Tory vote, which helps them defend existing seats and to take Labour ones. Since there are many more seats at risk of switching Labour to Tory than the other way around, BXP have made the wrong choice.
Only if you assume Farage genuinely wants to help the Tories.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Socialism - destroying peoples lives since inception
Serious question, what difference do you think it'll make to my life, the sale of FibreNation to CityFibre Holdings going through or not?
You know thats not what is being talked about
So no, its not a serious question but a pathetic attempt to distract from the lunacy that is La La Labour.
But I'm being told that this is evidence of "destroying people's lives". I think my question was really quite reasonable given the magnitude of the accusation.
You do talk some bollocks
So, I take it your answer is "it'll probably make no difference at all to your life".
It seemed like common sense to me: the Tories would prefer help making inroads into Labour's seats rather than simply having what they already have protected. I can't believe that was lost on Nigel. He must want another hung parliament. There can be no other explanation.
From a BXP perspective: funds are not as plentiful as they once were and it's probably not an efficient use of scant resources to fight a 650 seat election. They're strategic priority must be first to get representation at Westminster, through which they can push for the sort of deal they want, and second to get a Conservative-led government, which maximises the chance of some sort of Brexit happening. But they're very much not trying to maximise Conservative representation. Most of their best chances of wins, or more realistically of saved deposits must be in old labour seats - Hartlepool, Hull, South Wales. From this perspective, though it could be finessed further, their approach makes semse. Ideally from a BXP perspective there will be a minority Conservative administration propped up by a handful of BXPers. This may look unlikely, bur this strategy is not a stupid way of trying to maximise the chances of this outcome.
Very funny . It’s weird seeing some Tories in here stressing out . This is not a 2017 repeat , different dynamics at play and Labour can’t sit on the fence and expect rewards this time .
It's largely psychological, and based on years of disappointment. If you're a life-long Tory under 50, you've gone your entire adult life without experiencing the highs of a big landslide and the feeling that everything is coming together and everyone is on your side.
Once you've mentally/emotionally banked one of those, you probably get to see the world differently, but until then it's very difficult - certainly once you get past the irrational optimism of youth and start inhabiting the real world.
But we haven't really had such a result for 30+ years. The best we've managed was scraping heroic results (e.g. small majorities) against lesser expectations, such as in 1992 and 2015.
Thus my overwhelming view of politics is pessimistic, negative and bleak, much like my attitude towards football as a CCFC supporter. In both instances, until something massive happens this is likely to remain my underlying psychology.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
Because in Labour marginals the thinking is Farage is more appealing to Tory voters than Labour voters. Simples.
That's true - but you're forgetting the Boris factor. Lots of those Labour leavers will hold their nose and vote Tory because of Boris. They also know that the BXP isn't going to form the next government, so it's essentially a wasted vote. See Labour's problem here by not having a position on Brexit. It's going to kill them.
Yep, spot on. These folk aren't voting Tory. They are voting Boris.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
Because in Labour marginals the thinking is Farage is more appealing to Tory voters than Labour voters. Simples.
That's true - but you're forgetting the Boris factor. Lots of those Labour leavers will hold their nose and vote Tory because of Boris. They also know that the BXP isn't going to form the next government, so it's essentially a wasted vote. See Labour's problem here by not having a position on Brexit. It's going to kill them.
Yep, spot on. These folk aren't voting Tory. They are voting Boris.
I mean, Johnson is more popular than Corbyn, but he still isn't popular. He has a minus 30 something under over.
The quote doesn't exactly match the headline. I wonder if Clarke has chosen his words carefully so that he is essentially saying "Anna is my friend and I'd be happy for her to be back in Parliament" without explicitly saying "Vote Anna not the Tory", given that the latter would have him expelled from the Tory Party.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Socialism - destroying peoples lives since inception
The NHS says hi.
Thats nice - but it's not socialism either.
It is 100% socialism. Free at the point of use, based on need, provided by or on behalf of the government, paid for by our taxes. I believe they call it "socialised medicine" in America.
There are millions like it; just drones never straying far from the hive.
I have considered this argument - floated often here and elsewhere - that Labour supporters are mindless numpties who vote purely out of habit and tribalism whereas supporters of other parties are independent freethinkers with a restless, roving intellect who carefully and objectively weigh up what's best for the country and vote accordingly.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
Because in Labour marginals the thinking is Farage is more appealing to Tory voters than Labour voters. Simples.
That's true - but you're forgetting the Boris factor. Lots of those Labour leavers will hold their nose and vote Tory because of Boris. They also know that the BXP isn't going to form the next government, so it's essentially a wasted vote. See Labour's problem here by not having a position on Brexit. It's going to kill them.
Yep, spot on. These folk aren't voting Tory. They are voting Boris.
I mean, Johnson is more popular than Corbyn, but he still isn't popular. He has a minus 30 something under over.
Very funny . It’s weird seeing some Tories in here stressing out . This is not a 2017 repeat , different dynamics at play and Labour can’t sit on the fence and expect rewards this time .
It's largely psychological, and based on years of disappointment. If you're a life-long Tory under 50, you've gone your entire adult life without experiencing the highs of a big landslide and the feeling that everything is coming together and everyone is on your side.
Once you've mentally/emotionally banked one of those, you probably get to see the world differently, but until then it's very difficult - certainly once you get past the irrational optimism of youth and start inhabiting the real world.
But we haven't really had such a result for 30+ years. The best we've managed was scraping heroic results (e.g. small majorities) against lesser expectations, such as in 1992 and 2015.
Thus my overwhelming view of politics is pessimistic, negative and bleak, much like my attitude towards football as a CCFC supporter. In both instances, until something massive happens this is likely to remain my underlying psychology.
Its like being an England Cricket fan from the 90s onwards until we started to actually win the Ashes etc.
I'm a 37 year old lifelong Tory [but not always voted that way] and also Liverpool supporter. Last time we won the League I was 7 and last time we won a healthy majority I was 5 and far too young to be engaged in politics.
In football and in politics I'm not counting any chickens yet unless or until it is won.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
Because in Labour marginals the thinking is Farage is more appealing to Tory voters than Labour voters. Simples.
That's true - but you're forgetting the Boris factor. Lots of those Labour leavers will hold their nose and vote Tory because of Boris. They also know that the BXP isn't going to form the next government, so it's essentially a wasted vote. See Labour's problem here by not having a position on Brexit. It's going to kill them.
Yep, spot on. These folk aren't voting Tory. They are voting Boris.
I mean, Johnson is more popular than Corbyn, but he still isn't popular. He has a minus 30 something under over.
That's very outdated information you are using. The gulf between Boris and Corbyn is pretty substantial.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Socialism - destroying peoples lives since inception
The NHS says hi.
Thats nice - but it's not socialism either.
It is 100% socialism. Free at the point of use, based on need, provided by or on behalf of the government, paid for by our taxes. I believe they call it "socialised medicine" in America.
Are roads socialist? Free at the point of use, built based on need, provided by or on behalf of the government, paid for by our taxes.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Socialism - destroying peoples lives since inception
The NHS says hi.
Thats nice - but it's not socialism either.
It is 100% socialism. Free at the point of use, based on need, provided by or on behalf of the government, paid for by our taxes. I believe they call it "socialised medicine" in America.
Are roads socialist? Free at the point of use, built based on need, provided by or on behalf of the government, paid for by our taxes.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Socialism - destroying peoples lives since inception
The NHS says hi.
Thats nice - but it's not socialism either.
It is 100% socialism. Free at the point of use, based on need, provided by or on behalf of the government, paid for by our taxes. I believe they call it "socialised medicine" in America.
Are roads socialist? Free at the point of use, built based on need, provided by or on behalf of the government, paid for by our taxes.
Don’t you pay to use them via petrol tax?
It's not hypothecated, so no. You pay for roads even if you don't use them.
There are millions like it; just drones never straying far from the hive.
I have considered this argument - floated often here and elsewhere - that Labour supporters are mindless numpties who vote purely out of habit and tribalism whereas supporters of other parties are independent freethinkers with a restless, roving intellect who carefully and objectively weigh up what's best for the country and vote accordingly.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Socialism - destroying peoples lives since inception
The NHS says hi.
Thats nice - but it's not socialism either.
It is 100% socialism. Free at the point of use, based on need, provided by or on behalf of the government, paid for by our taxes. I believe they call it "socialised medicine" in America.
Are roads socialist? Free at the point of use, built based on need, provided by or on behalf of the government, paid for by our taxes.
Now you come to mention it I think you are right! A successful economy and society will always have a bit of socialism and a bit of capitalism. The argument is where the line should be drawn. I see it as a pragmatic choice and I find all the hysteria on here about Venezuela etc to be ridiculous. Tories would do much better to attack Labour on competence than all these sixth form debates about Hugo Chavez.
The quote doesn't exactly match the headline. I wonder if Clarke has chosen his words carefully so that he is essentially saying "Anna is my friend and I'd be happy for her to be back in Parliament" without explicitly saying "Vote Anna not the Tory", given that the latter would have him expelled from the Tory Party.
Thats the way I read it too - comment on a possible outcome rather than a call to action.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
Because in Labour marginals the thinking is Farage is more appealing to Tory voters than Labour voters. Simples.
That's true - but you're forgetting the Boris factor. Lots of those Labour leavers will hold their nose and vote Tory because of Boris. They also know that the BXP isn't going to form the next government, so it's essentially a wasted vote. See Labour's problem here by not having a position on Brexit. It's going to kill them.
Yep, spot on. These folk aren't voting Tory. They are voting Boris.
More fool them almost as foolish as voting for corbyn.
The part of the announcement that makes no sense at all is the idea that Internet access would then become free. In order to do this, the Government would have to nationalise and consolidate those 200+ providers into one state owned monolith. mentions 22/ I guess it could instead just put them out of business by launching free state funded alternative, but that would lead to a decade in the courts and collapse of technology investment into the UK.
None of the countries who have awesome internet do this. What they did better / faster was invested in the infrastructure to get the backbone up and running, but they then use the market to push innovative and competition of the actual services and their provision. Not South Korea, not Estonia, not Japan, f##k in China doesn't do free internet for all and has different providers.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
Chilling...do what the government say or we will seize your business.
Now, about inwards business investment......
Just raising the prospect of nationalisation will have a chilling effect.
In fact a quick Google and I found this.
Labour broadband pledge stalls TalkTalk sale A deal to sell FibreNation to CityFibre has been postponed until after the general election, Sky News understands.
Socialism - destroying peoples lives since inception
The NHS says hi.
Thats nice - but it's not socialism either.
It is 100% socialism. Free at the point of use, based on need, provided by or on behalf of the government, paid for by our taxes. I believe they call it "socialised medicine" in America.
Well - I would disagree
But its hardly best in class either is it
Oh and they protect themselves rather than admit to failings - that is very much like socialism I suppose
I see Survation have a poll for Reading West, giving Con 50%, Lab 26%, a swing of 9% from 2017.
My family is broadly from three of the wards listed.
"The Borough of Reading wards of Battle, Kentwood, Minster, Norcot, Southcote, Tilehurst, and Whitley, and the District of West Berkshire wards of Birch Copse, Calcot, Pangbourne, Purley on Thames, Theale, and Westwood"
Imagine a place populated entirely by Jay's Dad off of The Inbetweeners.
There are millions like it; just drones never straying far from the hive.
I have considered this argument - floated often here and elsewhere - that Labour supporters are mindless numpties who vote purely out of habit and tribalism whereas supporters of other parties are independent freethinkers with a restless, roving intellect who carefully and objectively weigh up what's best for the country and vote accordingly.
And I'm not convinced.
Labour voters take pride in "my dad's, dad's, dad's dad voted Labour...so I do".
Reading East must surely be a Tory target at this election ?
62% Remain according to Hanretty, so seems unlikely. Reading West split 52:48 for Leave (edit: mistakenly said Remain before). The Survation poll looks odd though given the same pollster puts the Conservatives just 5.5% ahead nationally and regional polling suggests Labour's vote is holding up better in the SE.
Looking at Electoral Calculus, Baxter seems to have increased the Brexit-ness or Remain-ness of a seat as a factor. For example, he has the Tories to take Birmingham Northfield with a 4k majority but not Keighley with a 249 majority (I assume as the former was more Brexity)
He now has Lab to slightly increase their majority in Kensington, which I'm not sure I believe, but for the Cons to retake Canterbury.
He has also increased the number of Con losses to the SNP from 2 to 5, which feels more realistic, while keeping Con to LD losses at 2 (Richmond Pk and Cheltenham)
Now you come to mention it I think you are right! A successful economy and society will always have a bit of socialism and a bit of capitalism. The argument is where the line should be drawn. I see it as a pragmatic choice and I find all the hysteria on here about Venezuela etc to be ridiculous. Tories would do much better to attack Labour on competence than all these sixth form debates about Hugo Chavez.
Precisely. My rubric is, if competition is possible AND beneficial to the "customer", if should be privately run. If not, it should be state run. Things like infrastructure have to be state run, because you can't really have multiple train lines running alongside one another, so competition is a non-starter. Things like supermarkets can compete very easily, so it should be in the hands of the private sector: competition will sort out quality and price.
Healthcare is a difficult one because although competition is eminently possible, it's not necessarily beneficial. Part of healthcare is knowing what not to do. Private healthcare creates incentives to upsell and cross-sell, and when medicines can be harmful, addictive that's a recipe for bad outcomes. Furthermore, it's easy to tell whether the pasta your Tesco sells is good or not, it's not easy to tell whether medical interventions are good. Chemotherapy make people feel terrible, but it can help to rid a patient of cancer. Medicine is way beyond the ken of the average punter and concepts like value and quality along with it.
Lastly, I don't even know that having something run by the government is "socialism". It's not worker-owned. Indeed, you can have private industry heavily involved. There is room for serious debate about these issues, instead we are served infantile soundbites. For now I operate on the basis that state run is correlated with, but not the same as socialism.
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
It is also good for democracy. Large majorities are just really bad as every crack pot idea by some minister gets voted through. Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
There’s more chance of a meteor hitting London than Labour getting a majority . The absolute best Labour could do is to be the biggest party and they’d need a perfect storm to deliver that .
But the meteor would be less devastating!
Very funny . It’s weird seeing some Tories in here stressing out . This is not a 2017 repeat , different dynamics at play and Labour can’t sit on the fence and expect rewards this time .
I don't know. I voted Tory last time but Labour are already offering good policies before the manifesto is rolled out. The Tories were desperate to have this election! They look well if they usher in a decade of socialism. I am seriously thinking of voting Labour this time as we need a more equal society. Free broadband is great as I cannot afford it at the moment.
Jesus Christ - this is the calibre of voter Labour attracts.
You tell 'em. We don't want the likes of them voting for the same people as we do.
Looking at Electoral Calculus, Baxter seems to have increased the Brexit-ness or Remain-ness of a seat as a factor. For example, he has the Tories to take Birmingham Northfield with a 4k majority but not Keighley with a 249 majority (I assume as the former was more Brexity)
He now has Lab to slightly increase their majority in Kensington, which I'm not sure I believe, but for the Cons to retake Canterbury.
He has also increased the number of Con losses to the SNP from 2 to 5, which feels more realistic, while keeping Con to LD losses at 2 (Richmond Pk and Cheltenham)
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
It is also good for democracy. Large majorities are just really bad as every crack pot idea by some minister gets voted through. Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
Betfair suggests a 2.5% chance.
You know something we don't?
Not me, Electoral Calculus which is what I was replying to. Electoral Calculus gives a 10% chance of a Labour majority - curious how they figure that given the polls?
The part of the announcement that makes no sense at all is the idea that Internet access would then become free. In order to do this, the Government would have to nationalise and consolidate those 200+ providers into one state owned monolith. mentions 22/ I guess it could instead just put them out of business by launching free state funded alternative, but that would lead to a decade in the courts and collapse of technology investment into the UK.
None of the countries who have awesome internet do this. What they did better / faster was invested in the infrastructure to get the backbone up and running, but they then use the market to push innovative and competition of the actual services and their provision. Not South Korea, not Estonia, not Japan, f##k in China doesn't do free internet for all and has different providers.
That thread is a good summary.
Forcing BT to fully divest from Openreach, and having Openreach owned by the state and the major ISPs, would be a good idea, and has been mooted before if the current arm's length approach to running Openreach does not work.
Nationalising the consumer part of BT, and other networks and ISPs, and then giving broadband to everybody for "free" would I expect be a total bloody disaster. Even the threat of such a thing happening is likely to do a lot of damage at a time when alternatives to Openreach are reaching critical mass.
I see Survation have a poll for Reading West, giving Con 50%, Lab 26%, a swing of 9% from 2017.
My family is broadly from three of the wards listed.
"The Borough of Reading wards of Battle, Kentwood, Minster, Norcot, Southcote, Tilehurst, and Whitley, and the District of West Berkshire wards of Birch Copse, Calcot, Pangbourne, Purley on Thames, Theale, and Westwood"
Imagine a place populated entirely by Jay's Dad off of The Inbetweeners.
Reading West includes the town centre I think, which is probably why Labour held it in 2005 while losing Reading East which only includes the posh suburbs. But now the Tories are more popular in Reading West while Reading East may be difficult for them to win.
There are millions like it; just drones never straying far from the hive.
I have considered this argument - floated often here and elsewhere - that Labour supporters are mindless numpties who vote purely out of habit and tribalism whereas supporters of other parties are independent freethinkers with a restless, roving intellect who carefully and objectively weigh up what's best for the country and vote accordingly.
And I'm not convinced.
As with many black and white statements on here, your statement becomes perfectly reasonable once you include a suitable qualification. In this case it's something like, " A disproportionately large number of..."
Now you come to mention it I think you are right! A successful economy and society will always have a bit of socialism and a bit of capitalism. The argument is where the line should be drawn. I see it as a pragmatic choice and I find all the hysteria on here about Venezuela etc to be ridiculous. Tories would do much better to attack Labour on competence than all these sixth form debates about Hugo Chavez.
Precisely. My rubric is, if competition is possible AND beneficial to the "customer", if should be privately run. If not, it should be state run. Things like infrastructure have to be state run, because you can't really have multiple train lines running alongside one another, so competition is a non-starter. Things like supermarkets can compete very easily, so it should be in the hands of the private sector: competition will sort out quality and price.
Healthcare is a difficult one because although competition is eminently possible, it's not necessarily beneficial. Part of healthcare is knowing what not to do. Private healthcare creates incentives to upsell and cross-sell, and when medicines can be harmful, addictive that's a recipe for bad outcomes. Furthermore, it's easy to tell whether the pasta your Tesco sells is good or not, it's not easy to tell whether medical interventions are good. Chemotherapy make people feel terrible, but it can help to rid a patient of cancer. Medicine is way beyond the ken of the average punter and concepts like value and quality along with it.
Lastly, I don't even know that having something run by the government is "socialism". It's not worker-owned. Indeed, you can have private industry heavily involved. There is room for serious debate about these issues, instead we are served infantile soundbites. For now I operate on the basis that state run is correlated with, but not the same as socialism.
So you are against the Commie Cable Co policy with their one sized fit all free ISP service? As internet service provision benefits from competition. All the countries with the best consumer internet have fierce competition in this market.
Interesting. Why is the Reverse Farage better than what was announced?
Because the Brexit Party take more votes off Conservatives than Labour. So BXP's policy of not standing boosts the Tory vote, which helps them defend existing seats and to take Labour ones. Since there are many more seats at risk of switching Labour to Tory than the other way around, BXP have made the wrong choice.
Only if you assume Farage genuinely wants to help the Tories.
This is exactly right. Farage was aiming to get internal party pressure off his back while not assisting the Tories. He wants Brexit to be stopped because it helps him as a politician.
Very funny . It’s weird seeing some Tories in here stressing out . This is not a 2017 repeat , different dynamics at play and Labour can’t sit on the fence and expect rewards this time .
It's largely psychological, and based on years of disappointment. If you're a life-long Tory under 50, you've gone your entire adult life without experiencing the highs of a big landslide and the feeling that everything is coming together and everyone is on your side.
Once you've mentally/emotionally banked one of those, you probably get to see the world differently, but until then it's very difficult - certainly once you get past the irrational optimism of youth and start inhabiting the real world.
But we haven't really had such a result for 30+ years. The best we've managed was scraping heroic results (e.g. small majorities) against lesser expectations, such as in 1992 and 2015.
Thus my overwhelming view of politics is pessimistic, negative and bleak, much like my attitude towards football as a CCFC supporter. In both instances, until something massive happens this is likely to remain my underlying psychology.
I think there is also a level of uncertainty around the next four weeks. The labour obsessives on here are convinced JC is going to repeat last time. It could happen and Boris could easily screw something up, but you have to expect that as Boris is active and will do a debate, and the manifesto is likely to be gain not pain, then the chance for either side to screw up is equal.
There is a level of scrutiny on Labour this time which didn’t seem present last time, so when they announce a policy is going to cost x then the next question is how does that work with 4 day week etc. We have already had serious inconsistencies therefore on funding for proposals and on immigration. There are bound to be more.
If the polls do stay around Tories 40 Labour 29 Libdems 16 Brexit 5 S Nats 5 then there will have to be a decent Tory majority.
The Electoral Calculus latest projection will have some Tories in here ringing the Samaritan’s !
A 48 seat majority is pretty decent (certainly enough to get Brexit Done) and would give a stable five year government.
Also much more realistic than the triple-digit majority they have been forecasting.
It is also good for democracy. Large majorities are just really bad as every crack pot idea by some minister gets voted through. Having a majority of 40-50 means you actually have to convince MPs some what.
Indeed I'd be happy with that, the one worrying me is the idea of a 10% chance of a Labour majority - wondering how they're coming to that calculation given the polls?
Betfair suggests a 2.5% chance.
You know something we don't?
Not me, Electoral Calculus which is what I was replying to. Electoral Calculus gives a 10% chance of a Labour majority - curious how they figure that given the polls?
Comments
Announcing a policy which will crater private sector telecoms investment more or less immediately (and have a significant negative effect outside of the sector) while promising benefits a decade hence, sounds absolutely bonkers.
That they have not even briefly consulted even the largest player in the sector makes it even more stupid.
That, of course, might change, at which point it could be helpful in preventing a meltdown.
If you think he's doing everything he can to keep himself on the gravy train he's probably rather smart.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
"Sanders cut into Trump's base by winning with men (Sanders leads 51% to 41%), non-college educated voters (Sanders leads 49% to 42%), and Independent voters (Sanders leads 56% to 28%). The senator from Vermont also did well with moderates (Sanders leads 56% to 28%), while also dominating among African American voters, receiving 83% support compared to only 5% for Trump."
So no, its not a serious question but a pathetic attempt to distract from the lunacy that is La La Labour.
Farage standing down in the hundreds of seats the Tories don't hold, if the Tories are increasing their poll lead from 2017, has much more potential to make an impact.
I tried to ask PB about this a couple of times recently, but nobody engage with the question.
They do it at the slightest glimpse of red white and blue.
Ideally from a BXP perspective there will be a minority Conservative administration propped up by a handful of BXPers. This may look unlikely, bur this strategy is not a stupid way of trying to maximise the chances of this outcome.
It's largely psychological, and based on years of disappointment. If you're a life-long Tory under 50, you've gone your entire adult life without experiencing the highs of a big landslide and the feeling that everything is coming together and everyone is on your side.
Once you've mentally/emotionally banked one of those, you probably get to see the world differently, but until then it's very difficult - certainly once you get past the irrational optimism of youth and start inhabiting the real world.
But we haven't really had such a result for 30+ years. The best we've managed was scraping heroic results (e.g. small majorities) against lesser expectations, such as in 1992 and 2015.
Thus my overwhelming view of politics is pessimistic, negative and bleak, much like my attitude towards football as a CCFC supporter. In both instances, until something massive happens this is likely to remain my underlying psychology.
And I'm not convinced.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_approval_opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
I'm a 37 year old lifelong Tory [but not always voted that way] and also Liverpool supporter. Last time we won the League I was 7 and last time we won a healthy majority I was 5 and far too young to be engaged in politics.
In football and in politics I'm not counting any chickens yet unless or until it is won.
The prosperity of capitalism is what funds the NHS.
Con 373 (349)
Lab 178 (214)
SNP 46 (45)
LD 30 (19)
PC 4 (4)
Grn 1 (1)
https://flavible.co.uk/userprediction
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/union-bosses-withdraw-single-dishonesty-17263699
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1195302991487799296.html
The part of the announcement that makes no sense at all is the idea that Internet access would then become free. In order to do this, the Government would have to nationalise and consolidate those 200+ providers into one state owned monolith.
mentions 22/ I guess it could instead just put them out of business by launching free state funded alternative, but that would lead to a decade in the courts and collapse of technology investment into the UK.
None of the countries who have awesome internet do this. What they did better / faster was invested in the infrastructure to get the backbone up and running, but they then use the market to push innovative and competition of the actual services and their provision. Not South Korea, not Estonia, not Japan, f##k in China doesn't do free internet for all and has different providers.
But its hardly best in class either is it
Oh and they protect themselves rather than admit to failings - that is very much like socialism I suppose
"The Borough of Reading wards of Battle, Kentwood, Minster, Norcot, Southcote, Tilehurst, and Whitley, and the District of West Berkshire wards of Birch Copse, Calcot, Pangbourne, Purley on Thames, Theale, and Westwood"
Imagine a place populated entirely by Jay's Dad off of The Inbetweeners.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
Reading East was like Reading West reversed - Lab about 49 %, Con 43.
I can see that ending up like it was in 2010 tbh
He now has Lab to slightly increase their majority in Kensington, which I'm not sure I believe, but for the Cons to retake Canterbury.
He has also increased the number of Con losses to the SNP from 2 to 5, which feels more realistic, while keeping Con to LD losses at 2 (Richmond Pk and Cheltenham)
Things like infrastructure have to be state run, because you can't really have multiple train lines running alongside one another, so competition is a non-starter. Things like supermarkets can compete very easily, so it should be in the hands of the private sector: competition will sort out quality and price.
Healthcare is a difficult one because although competition is eminently possible, it's not necessarily beneficial. Part of healthcare is knowing what not to do. Private healthcare creates incentives to upsell and cross-sell, and when medicines can be harmful, addictive that's a recipe for bad outcomes. Furthermore, it's easy to tell whether the pasta your Tesco sells is good or not, it's not easy to tell whether medical interventions are good. Chemotherapy make people feel terrible, but it can help to rid a patient of cancer. Medicine is way beyond the ken of the average punter and concepts like value and quality along with it.
Lastly, I don't even know that having something run by the government is "socialism". It's not worker-owned. Indeed, you can have private industry heavily involved. There is room for serious debate about these issues, instead we are served infantile soundbites. For now I operate on the basis that state run is correlated with, but not the same as socialism.
Forcing BT to fully divest from Openreach, and having Openreach owned by the state and the major ISPs, would be a good idea, and has been mooted before if the current arm's length approach to running Openreach does not work.
Nationalising the consumer part of BT, and other networks and ISPs, and then giving broadband to everybody for "free" would I expect be a total bloody disaster. Even the threat of such a thing happening is likely to do a lot of damage at a time when alternatives to Openreach are reaching critical mass.
Westminster #GE2019
Con 43% (+3%)
Lab 30% (NC)
Lib Dem 15% (NC)
Brexit Party 5% (-3%)
Green 2% (-1%)
EU Referendum
Remain 52% (-1%)
Leave 48% (+1%)
Fieldwork Nov 13-14
Methodology note in graphic. https://t.co/lhNm51BrKY
There is a level of scrutiny on Labour this time which didn’t seem present last time, so when they announce a policy is going to cost x then the next question is how does that work with 4 day week etc. We have already had serious inconsistencies therefore on funding for proposals and on immigration. There are bound to be more.
If the polls do stay around Tories 40 Labour 29 Libdems 16 Brexit 5 S Nats 5 then there will have to be a decent Tory majority.