I suspect that in the event Boris achieves a good majority the EU will have until the mid summer to formulate a FTA or Boris will walk us out on WTO
At the same time free ports and 12% corporation tax will arrrive and billions in investment opportunities in RD and other advanced techology will be put on the table
Indeed the EU's worst nightmare of a Singapore off Europe must seem a very real possibility if the EU do not react with a quick FTA
Johnson’s majority makes no difference to the future relationship with the EU it is already defined, it will be significantly worse than our current arrangement but be heralded as a dramatic victory by our pathological liar and amoral PM. Then life can progress but by 31/6 next year is really stretch the bounds of possibility. Don’t forget the extension has to be requested by that date or in the words of Noel Edmonds it’s deal or no deal
And that is why I maintain no deal is a very strong possibility
So why are you voting for the possibility that it happens? Corbyn is not going to win
We have no idea how that would work out and I have only put it in there to alert posters that no deal has not gone away post a 31st January majority conservative government
Yes, absolutely.
Many have warned that Johnson (perhaps as part of the pact with Farage) will play along with trade negotiations next year and then leave at the end of 2020 without a Deal to WTO rules thereby allowing him the "luxury" of this hard-headed nonsense.
Back in the summer you were vehemently opposed to No Deal (as were many Conservatives back then) but you all seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Johnson/Cummings nonsense.
If he gets a big majority, do you think Johnson will listen to anyone? His sheep in the Commons will do as they are told and if that means leaving without a trade deal this time next year so be it.
When of course anyone tries to argue this the Conservative response is usually to wibble on about Corbyn, Venezuela and Marxism rather than to address the point.
I am not sure too much should be read into loads of 18-25 year old registering. All unis try and auto register every one of their students (unless they opted on when they signed-up for the academic year), even if they are already registered.
Wut?
Didn't happen with me
It is the standard practice now. Perhaps all unis might not be correct, for most of them definitely do.
Was the standard practice in Aberystwyth 18 years ago as well.
Unis for as long as I can remember used to register people living in halls, but now standard practice seems to be just do everybody.
I don't think they can register people not living in their accommodation. Would that even be legal?
But everyone in PJM, the halls on Penglais, the seafront halls, Bryn Derw and Ty Gwerin were automatically enrolled.
They definitely do (at least at a load of unis I am aware of). Its on the registration form where the kids agree for the uni to register their details with the council for both council tax purposes and for voting registration.
I'm struggling to see how that's possible under individual registration. I can't understand how they could just hand over an address they don't own to the council.
With students’ consent, the service collects essential information from the university (such as date of birth and full name) and the student (National Insurance number) and automatically transfers it to the relevant, participating electoral registrars at local authorities, reducing the effort and expense it would take for universities and colleges to work with multiple electoral registrars across the UK.
But the point is, if it's a policy with disastrous, unintended side effects that ends up making matters far worse, it is still a nutty policy. It doesn't matter if it's 'radical' or not from that point of view.
For example, would cancelling HS2 be radical? Of course not. Quite the opposite. It's the safe option, financially and politically, for the government. But it would also make the current total logjam on the WCML insoluble.
It's not about whether something is ideologically sound. Policies can be that, and still be good. It's about whether they will work or whether they're bribe's to sucker in idiots.
At the moment, Corbyn's entire policy offering however he dresses it up is pretty much the latter.
I think the public perception of Corbyn's policies is probably mostly positive. Even if like you say, the impacts will not be.
I happen to think HS2 is probably a good idea - but I've have started in the North first.
You really are ramping Corbyn but fail to see he is not trusted to implement his policies without destroying the financial stability of the country and annihilating pension values for the vast majority of ordinary workers. He is seeking to change us into a marxist state alongside anti west, anti nato, anti army, pro Russia policies
If you remove the army bit you could be talking about Johnson or Trump. Awful man though Corbyn undoubtedly is, you are simply regurgitating Boris' gaslighting strategy.
There are so many reasonable criticisms of Corbyn but quite frankly I switch off when I hear he's a Marxist Communist spy who is simultaenously so fucking useless he can't take a view on anything.
Milliband was apparently a Communist, I'm sure Brown was called a Communist as well.
It just gets tiring after a while - and quite frankly the Tories have been doing their best to screw up the country over the last 9 years.
Until Johnson publishes the Report on Russian involvement in UK elections he has no business calling anyone else pro-Russian. I find it fascinating that Johnson gets clean away with partying in Italy with former KGB operatives whilst Foreign Secretary.
I struggle to understand how the Con lead over every other party increases, and yet their total seat number drops.
I struggle understand how to there are only 7 non-SNP seats in Scotland but the SNP only have 51.
There are 8 non-SNP seats on the map. 2 tories on the borders plus aberdeen. 4 LD (Orkney/Shetland, the bit at the top, 1 near glasgow and one near edinbrough) plus a labour one
I can't add up. I got all those figure individually but made them make 7 not 8.
That said, the Spectrum of possibilities where Con retain Aberdeen South but lose all but their bankers in the borders must be very, very slim.
But the point is, if it's a policy with disastrous, unintended side effects that ends up making matters far worse, it is still a nutty policy. It doesn't matter if it's 'radical' or not from that point of view.
For example, would cancelling HS2 be radical? Of course not. Quite the opposite. It's the safe option, financially and politically, for the government. But it would also make the current total logjam on the WCML insoluble.
It's not about whether something is ideologically sound. Policies can be that, and still be good. It's about whether they will work or whether they're bribe's to sucker in idiots.
At the moment, Corbyn's entire policy offering however he dresses it up is pretty much the latter.
I think the public perception of Corbyn's policies is probably mostly positive. Even if like you say, the impacts will not be.
I happen to think HS2 is probably a good idea - but I've have started in the North first.
You really are ramping Corbyn but fail to see he is not trusted to implement his policies without destroying the financial stability of the country and annihilating pension values for the vast majority of ordinary workers. He is seeking to change us into a marxist state alongside anti west, anti nato, anti army, pro Russia policies
If you remove the army bit you could be talking about Johnson or Trump. Awful man though Corbyn undoubtedly is, you are simply regurgitating Boris' gaslighting strategy.
There are so many reasonable criticisms of Corbyn but quite frankly I switch off when I hear he's a Marxist Communist spy who is simultaenously so fucking useless he can't take a view on anything.
Milliband was apparently a Communist, I'm sure Brown was called a Communist as well.
It just gets tiring after a while - and quite frankly the Tories have been doing their best to screw up the country over the last 9 years.
Until Johnson publishes the Report on Russian involvement in UK elections he has no business calling anyone else pro-Russian. I find it fascinating that Johnson gets clean away with partying in Italy with former KGB operatives whilst Foreign Secretary.
He was present, but he wasn't involved. He was banging some CIA chick on the other sofa when they were around.
I am not sure too much should be read into loads of 18-25 year old registering. All unis try and auto register every one of their students (unless they opted on when they signed-up for the academic year), even if they are already registered.
Wut?
Didn't happen with me
It is the standard practice now. Perhaps all unis might not be correct, for most of them definitely do.
Was the standard practice in Aberystwyth 18 years ago as well.
Unis for as long as I can remember used to register people living in halls, but now standard practice seems to be just do everybody.
I tried to vote in a local election while at university in about 1999 and was told my name wasn't on the register. I'd assumed it would be for some reason.
But the point is, if it's a policy with disastrous, unintended side effects that ends up making matters far worse, it is still a nutty policy. It doesn't matter if it's 'radical' or not from that point of view.
For example, would cancelling HS2 be radical? Of course not. Quite the opposite. It's the safe option, financially and politically, for the government. But it would also make the current total logjam on the WCML insoluble.
It's not about whether something is ideologically sound. Policies can be that, and still be good. It's about whether they will work or whether they're bribe's to sucker in idiots.
At the moment, Corbyn's entire policy offering however he dresses it up is pretty much the latter.
I think the public perception of Corbyn's policies is probably mostly positive. Even if like you say, the impacts will not be.
I happen to think HS2 is probably a good idea - but I've have started in the North first.
You really are ramping Corbyn but fail to see he is not trusted to implement his policies without destroying the financial stability of the country and annihilating pension values for the vast majority of ordinary workers. He is seeking to change us into a marxist state alongside anti west, anti nato, anti army, pro Russia policies
If you remove the army bit you could be talking about Johnson or Trump. Awful man though Corbyn undoubtedly is, you are simply regurgitating Boris' gaslighting strategy.
There are so many reasonable criticisms of Corbyn but quite frankly I switch off when I hear he's a Marxist Communist spy who is simultaenously so fucking useless he can't take a view on anything.
Milliband was apparently a Communist, I'm sure Brown was called a Communist as well.
It just gets tiring after a while - and quite frankly the Tories have been doing their best to screw up the country over the last 9 years.
Until Johnson publishes the Report on Russian involvement in UK elections he has no business calling anyone else pro-Russian. I find it fascinating that Johnson gets clean away with partying in Italy with former KGB operatives whilst Foreign Secretary.
He was present, but he wasn't involved. He was banging some CIA chick on the other sofa when they were around.
You joke but Johnson will literally get away with anything whilst we have a corrupt press that is bought by Tory Party donors.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Johnson is a deeply, deeply dodgy man.
I don't think Johnson is anything in particular. He did, after all, write two impassioned articles - one in favour of staying and one in favour of leaving.
I don't know why people think this proves so much. It is good practice to set out the pros and cons of each side of a big decision on paper, regardless of how strongly you feel to one side or the other. I would advocate it in business and personal life. It is actually one of the few things that made me think better of Boris's seriousness, even though he came to the wrong conclusion. If only he was that thoughtful in all the rest of his decisions.
It was not so much the writing of the articles as the suggestion he might easily have chosen the other one
Many individual voters were split 52/48 in their minds, just as the aggregate was. That's why a significant number of Remainers (not the die-hard variety) will vote for Johnson to keep Corbyn out. They (we) may have voted Remain on the day but they won't gamble their impaired prosperity in the hope of revocation, if the downside is Venezuela.
Why do you see this as a binary choice . Corbyn is going to lose and lose badly, worse than 83. So people are free to vote how they want. There is no way labour will win.
Corbyn is going to lose badly because many Remainers will cut their losses and vote Tory. What's the point in thinking "Corbyn can't win this one, but if I vote LD we might just get a hung parliament and then we can carry on with this crippling indecision."
Corbyn is going to lose. Every body else can vote for who they want and so what I’d rather have both of the sidelined and years of stable crippling indecision than either with a majority, you are just using the fear of labour to advance the prospects of a liar and hypocrite.
My ancestors fought and died for thousands of years to bequeath me the vote. I'm not going to besmirch their memory by refusing to exercise it just because political parties are, almost without exception, led by liars and hypocrites.
To be more serious, I'm probably going to vote Tory because decisive government with a working majority is, all things being equal, marginally better than anything else on offer.
It honestly isn’t it won’t solve anything other than brexit which will bring more problems than it solves. They have thrown good economic management out of the window and have the worst of the nasty party on cabinet. Corbyn is marginally worse but it is not a binary choice, vote for a brake on idiotic majority government.
We have no idea how that would work out and I have only put it in there to alert posters that no deal has not gone away post a 31st January majority conservative government
Yes, absolutely.
Many have warned that Johnson (perhaps as part of the pact with Farage) will play along with trade negotiations next year and then leave at the end of 2020 without a Deal to WTO rules thereby allowing him the "luxury" of this hard-headed nonsense.
Back in the summer you were vehemently opposed to No Deal (as were many Conservatives back then) but you all seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Johnson/Cummings nonsense.
If he gets a big majority, do you think Johnson will listen to anyone? His sheep in the Commons will do as they are told and if that means leaving without a trade deal this time next year so be it.
When of course anyone tries to argue this the Conservative response is usually to wibble on about Corbyn, Venezuela and Marxism rather than to address the point.
The problem lies in your last paragraph. Corbyn's policies are Venezeulan in concept and hence why I will vote for Boris as defeating Corbyn is far more important to me than Brexit
But the point is, if it's a policy with disastrous, unintended side effects that ends up making matters far worse, it is still a nutty policy. It doesn't matter if it's 'radical' or not from that point of view.
For example, would cancelling HS2 be radical? Of course not. Quite the opposite. It's the safe option, financially and politically, for the government. But it would also make the current total logjam on the WCML insoluble.
It's not about whether something is ideologically sound. Policies can be that, and still be good. It's about whether they will work or whether they're bribe's to sucker in idiots.
At the moment, Corbyn's entire policy offering however he dresses it up is pretty much the latter.
I think the public perception of Corbyn's policies is probably mostly positive. Even if like you say, the impacts will not be.
I happen to think HS2 is probably a good idea - but I've have started in the North first.
You realongside anti west, anti nato, anti army, pro Russia policies
If you remove the army bit you could be talking about Johnson or Trump. Awful man though Corbyn undoubtedly is, you are simply regurgitating Boris' gaslighting strategy.
There are so many reasonable criticisms of Corbyn but quite frankly I switch off when I hear he's a Marxist Communist spy who is simultaenously so fucking useless he can't take a view on anything.
Milliband was apparently a Communist, I'm sure Brown was called a Communist as well.
It just gets tiring after a while - and quite frankly the Tories have been doing their best to screw up the country over the last 9 years.
Until Johnson publishes the Report on Russian involvement in UK elections he has no business calling anyone else pro-Russian. I find it fascinating that Johnson gets clean away with partying in Italy with former KGB operatives whilst Foreign Secretary.
He was present, but he wasn't involved. He was banging some CIA chick on the other sofa when they were around.
You joke but Johnson will literally get away with anything whilst we have a corrupt press that is bought by Tory Party donors.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Johnson is a deeply, deeply dodgy man.
That corrupt press will include the Mirror, Morning Star, Grainuad, Observer, i, , Evening Standard and Independent then?
Until Johnson publishes the Report on Russian involvement in UK elections he has no business calling anyone else pro-Russian. I find it fascinating that Johnson gets clean away with partying in Italy with former KGB operatives whilst Foreign Secretary.
He was present, but he wasn't involved. He was banging some CIA chick on the other sofa when they were around.
You joke but Johnson will literally get away with anything whilst we have a corrupt press that is bought by Tory Party donors.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Johnson is a deeply, deeply dodgy man.
I was not joking. I was making an entirely serious point. The issue is not that Johnson is not a 'deeply, deeply dodgy man,' because he clearly is. The issue is that Corbyn is far worse. Which is both some achievement and deeply alarming.
In hindsight, it seems like every election (at least in recent times) has one overriding, usually not stated, theme that determines the results.
In 2005, it was that the people wanted to send Tony Blair a message they were becoming dissatisfied but to keep him in power = reduced majority;
In 2010, people didn't like Brown and were tired of Labour but didn't trust the Conservatives nor David Cameron enough to give them a majority = hung Parliament
In 2015, it was that David Cameron had done just enough to earn people's trust but - more importantly - they didn't see Ed Milliband as PM material = Tory majority
In 2017, it was that people didn't want Theresa May to have a majority given the more they saw (or didn't) of her, the more they distrusted her = hung Parliament.
What is the theme for this election? Brexit is the obvious one but, actually, I think the key theme running through this is "Do you want Corbyn as PM?" If that is right, then do not expect many LD gains in Tory surburbia (as Tory remainers fear for their wealth under a Corbyn government) and, more to the point, expect a Tory landslide as fear of Corbyn proves the motivating factor of this election.
I don't think Johnson is anything in particular. He did, after all, write two impassioned articles - one in favour of staying and one in favour of leaving.
I don't know
It was not so much
Many individual voters were split 52/48 in their minds, just as the aggregate was. That's why a significant number of Remainers (not the die-hard variety) will vote for Johnson to keep Corbyn out. They (we) may have voted Remain on the day but they won't gamble their impaired prosperity in the hope of revocation, if the downside is Venezuela.
Why do you see this as a binary choice . Corbyn is going to lose and lose badly, worse than 83. So people are free to vote how they want. There is no way labour will win.
Corbyn is going to lose badly because many Remainers will cut their losses and vote Tory. What's the point in thinking "Corbyn can't win this one, but if I vote LD we might just get a hung parliament and then we can carry on with this crippling indecision."
Corbyn is going to lose. Every body else can vote for who they want and so what I’d rather have both of the sidelined and years of stable crippling indecision than either with a majority, you are just using the fear of labour to advance the prospects of a liar and hypocrite.
My ancestors fought and died for thousands of years to bequeath me the vote. I'm not going to besmirch their memory by refusing to exercise it just because political parties are, almost without exception, led by liars and hypocrites.
To be more serious, I'm probably going to vote Tory because decisive government with a working majority is, all things being equal, marginally better than anything else on offer.
It honestly isn’t it won’t solve anything other than brexit which will bring more problems than it solves. They have thrown good economic management out of the window and have the worst of the nasty party on cabinet. Corbyn is marginally worse but it is not a binary choice, vote for a brake on idiotic majority government.
We dodged a bullet in 2010 because it was possible to cobble a coalition together which was, in my opinion, a very good government. But the LDs have made it clear (and why wouldn't they?) that this will not happen again.
The problem lies in your last paragraph. Corbyn's policies are Venezeulan in concept and hence why I will vote for Boris as defeating Corbyn is far more important to me than Brexit
While I acknowledge the disaster Corbyn would be to the economy and the country, that does not, in my view, condone handing a large majority and effectively untrammelled power to Boris Johnson for five years.
If the only two reasons for voting Conservative are a) getting Brexit done and b) stopping Corbyn, these can be accomplished in a year.
What then? I have very little confidence in Johnson and those surrounding him and I very much doubt they will make this country a better place for the vast majority in which to live.
My hope is IF Boris gets his majority, by 2024 there will be a credible viable alternative Government on offer so we can send him and his ideas packing.
I look forward to you joining me in supporting that credible alternative.
Well they were enthused last time. But only when the manifesto came out.
So we will see what happens this time.
I predict Labour will pledge to wipe out all student debt.
How will they pay for it?
Will it only be student loan debt, or all student debt?
Will it include maintenance loans, or only tuition fees?
How far back will it go? Does mine from 20-odd years ago get wiped as well?
Will those who have paid it off, or part paid it off, get their payments refunded?
I think you're right, it's what they'll say.
But unless they can answer those questions, you should not assume it is what they'll do. All they will be looking for is a cheap(!) headline, not getting to grips with the appalling mess that is HE funding.
What we really need is a proper inquiry into academic and student funding, not led by a disgraced former oil exec and self-confessed perjurer, that comes up with a proper and sustainable system. The odds of this happening especially given the current distraction therapy of Brexit and the chaos of the current government are remote. As they are on transport, power generation, broadband...
I am a big fan of just having an extra 0.5% on income tax for graduates, or whatever level meets the requirement for university funding.
We should abolish fees for people doing degrees which benefit the country and humanity.
So those who read the medicines, STEM, history, and law don't have to pay a fee.
You can qualify as a lawyer without law as your first degree though........
The problem lies in your last paragraph. Corbyn's policies are Venezeulan in concept and hence why I will vote for Boris as defeating Corbyn is far more important to me than Brexit
While I acknowledge the disaster Corbyn would be to the economy and the country, that does not, in my view, condone handing a large majority and effectively untrammelled power to Boris Johnson for five years.
If the only two reasons for voting Conservative are a) getting Brexit done and b) stopping Corbyn, these can be accomplished in a year.
What then? I have very little confidence in Johnson and those surrounding him and I very much doubt they will make this country a better place for the vast majority in which to live.
My hope is IF Boris gets his majority, by 2024 there will be a credible viable alternative Government on offer so we can send him and his ideas packing.
I look forward to you joining me in supporting that credible alternative.
At times I thought I was on my own in my view that both alternatives of corbyn and Johnson were unacceptable.
I don't think Johnson is anything in particular. He did, after all, write two impassioned articles - one in favour of staying and one in favour of leaving.
I don't know
It was not so much
Many individual voters were split 52/48 in their minds, just as the aggregate was. That's why a significant number of Remainers (not the die-hard variety) will vote for Johnson to keep Corbyn out. They (we) may have voted Remain on the day but they won't gamble their impaired prosperity in the hope of revocation, if the downside is Venezuela.
Why do you see this as a binary choice . Corbyn is going to lose and lose badly, worse than 83. So people are free to vote how they want. There is no way labour will win.
Corbyn is going to lose badly because many Remainers will cut their losses and vote Tory. What's the point in thinking "Corbyn can't win this one, but if I vote LD we might just get a hung parliament and then we can carry on with this crippling indecision."
Corbyn is going to lose. Every body else can vote for who they want and so what I’d rather have both of the sidelined and years of stable crippling indecision than either with a majority, you are just using the fear of labour to advance the prospects of a liar and hypocrite.
My ancestors fought and died for thousands of years to bequeath me the vote. I'm not going to besmirch their memory by refusing to exercise it just because political parties are, almost without exception, led by liars and hypocrites.
To be more serious, I'm probably going to vote Tory because decisive government with a working majority is, all things being equal, marginally better than anything else on offer.
It honestly isn’t it won’t solve anything other than brexit which will bring more problems than it solves. They have thrown good economic management out of the window and have the worst of the nasty party on cabinet. Corbyn is marginally worse but it is not a binary choice, vote for a brake on idiotic majority government.
We dodged a bullet in 2010 because it was possible to cobble a coalition together which was, in my opinion, a very good government. But the LDs have made it clear (and why wouldn't they?) that this will not happen again.
Let the largest party govern with a minority they can’t do any harm, you actually don’t need a majority government just a functioning civil service.
The problem lies in your last paragraph. Corbyn's policies are Venezeulan in concept and hence why I will vote for Boris as defeating Corbyn is far more important to me than Brexit
While I acknowledge the disaster Corbyn would be to the economy and the country, that does not, in my view, condone handing a large majority and effectively untrammelled power to Boris Johnson for five years.
If the only two reasons for voting Conservative are a) getting Brexit done and b) stopping Corbyn, these can be accomplished in a year.
What then? I have very little confidence in Johnson and those surrounding him and I very much doubt they will make this country a better place for the vast majority in which to live.
My hope is IF Boris gets his majority, by 2024 there will be a credible viable alternative Government on offer so we can send him and his ideas packing.
I look forward to you joining me in supporting that credible alternative.
At times I thought I was on my own in my view that both alternatives of corbyn and Johnson were unacceptable.
Well they were enthused last time. But only when the manifesto came out.
So we will see what happens this time.
I predict Labour will pledge to wipe out all student debt.
How will they pay for it?
Will it only be student loan debt, or all student debt?
Will it include maintenance loans, or only tuition fees?
How far back will it go? Does mine from 20-odd years ago get wiped as well?
Will those who have paid it off, or part paid it off, get their payments refunded?
I think you're right, it's what they'll say.
But unless they can answer those questions, you should not assume it is what they'll do. All they will be looking for is a cheap(!) headline, not getting to grips with the appalling mess that is HE funding.
What we really need is a proper inquiry into academic and student funding, not led by a disgraced former oil exec and self-confessed perjurer, that comes up with a proper and sustainable system. The odds of this happening especially given the current distraction therapy of Brexit and the chaos of the current government are remote. As they are on transport, power generation, broadband...
I am a big fan of just having an extra 0.5% on income tax for graduates, or whatever level meets the requirement for university funding.
We should abolish fees for people doing degrees which benefit the country and humanity.
So those who read the medicines, STEM, history, and law don't have to pay a fee.
You can qualify as a lawyer without law as your first degree though........
Indeed.
But a law based degree sets you up for life with the skills you learn.
But the point is, if it's a policy with disastrous, unintended side effects that ends up making matters far worse, it is still a nutty policy. It doesn't matter if it's 'radical' or not from that point of view.
For example, would cancelling HS2 be radical? Of course not. Quite the opposite. It's the safe option, financially and politically, for the government. But it would also make the current total logjam on the WCML insoluble.
It's not about whether something is ideologically sound. Policies can be that, and still be good. It's about whether they will work or whether they're bribe's to sucker in idiots.
At the moment, Corbyn's entire policy offering however he dresses it up is pretty much the latter.
I think the public perception of Corbyn's policies is probably mostly positive. Even if like you say, the impacts will not be.
I happen to think HS2 is probably a good idea - but I've have started in the North first.
You really are ramping Corbyn but fail to see he is not trusted to implement his policies without destroying the financial stability of the country and annihilating pension values for the vast majority of ordinary workers. He is seeking to change us into a marxist state alongside anti west, anti nato, anti army, pro Russia policies
If you remove the army bit you could be talking about Johnson or Trump. Awful man though Corbyn undoubtedly is, you are simply regurgitating Boris' gaslighting strategy.
There are so many reasonable criticisms of Corbyn but quite frankly I switch off when I hear he's a Marxist Communist spy who is simultaenously so fucking useless he can't take a view on anything.
Milliband was apparently a Communist, I'm sure Brown was called a Communist as well.
It just gets tiring after a while - and quite frankly the Tories have been doing their best to screw up the country over the last 9 years.
Until Johnson publishes the Report on Russian involvement in UK elections he has no business calling anyone else pro-Russian. I find it fascinating that Johnson gets clean away with partying in Italy with former KGB operatives whilst Foreign Secretary.
He was present, but he wasn't involved. He was banging some CIA chick on the other sofa when they were around.
Don't forget he never had intimate relations with Ms. Arcuri, which is why it was fine that she got a four figure handout from the Mayor's Fund. I think, if Boris simply forgets something has happened we can take his word for it and move on.
But the point is, if it's a policy with disastrous, unintended side effects that ends up making matters far worse, it is still a nutty policy. It doesn't matter if it's 'radical' or not from that point of view.
For example, would cancelling HS2 be radical? Of course not. Quite the opposite. It's the safe option, financially and politically, for the government. But it would also make the current total logjam on the WCML insoluble.
It's not about whether something is ideologically sound. Policies can be that, and still be good. It's about whether they will work or whether they're bribe's to sucker in idiots.
At the moment, Corbyn's entire policy offering however he dresses it up is pretty much the latter.
I think the public perception of Corbyn's policies is probably mostly positive. Even if like you say, the impacts will not be.
I happen to think HS2 is probably a good idea - but I've have started in the North first.
You really are ramping Corbyn but fail to see he is not trusted to implement his policies without destroying the financial stability of the country and annihilating pension values for the vast majority of ordinary workers. He is seeking to change us into a marxist state alongside anti west, anti nato, anti army, pro Russia policies
If you remove the army bit you could be talking about Johnson or Trump. Awful man though Corbyn undoubtedly is, you are simply regurgitating Boris' gaslighting strategy.
There are so many reasonable criticisms of Corbyn but quite frankly I switch off when I hear he's a Marxist Communist spy who is simultaenously so fucking useless he can't take a view on anything.
Milliband was apparently a Communist, I'm sure Brown was called a Communist as well.
It just gets tiring after a while - and quite frankly the Tories have been doing their best to screw up the country over the last 9 years.
Until Johnson publishes the Report on Russian involvement in UK elections he has no business calling anyone else pro-Russian. I find it fascinating that Johnson gets clean away with partying in Italy with former KGB operatives whilst Foreign Secretary.
He was present, but he wasn't involved. He was banging some CIA chick on the other sofa when they were around.
Don't forget he never had intimate relations with Ms. Arcuri, which is why it was fine that she got a four figure handout from the Mayor's Fund. I think, if Boris simply forgets something has happened we can take his word for it and move on.
Just watched several episodes of The Crown series 3.
Episode 3, about Aberfan, is a remarkable piece of film-making. Extraordinarily powerful.
(The portrayal of Harold Wilson is very fine.)
Aberfan is as raw to us today as it was on the 21st October 1966. Just 8 days later on the 29th October our eldest son was born here in North Wales and the emotions were highly charged. The mass burials of 81 of the children had taken place on the 27th October and the Queen and Prince Philip visited Aberfan on the day he was born
But the point is, if it's a policy with disastrous, unintended side effects that ends up making matters far worse, it is still a nutty policy. It doesn't matter if it's 'radical' or not from that point of view.
For example, would cancelling HS2 be radical? Of course not. Quite the opposite. It's the safe option, financially and politically, for the government. But it would also make the current total logjam on the WCML insoluble.
It's not about whether something is ideologically sound. Policies can be that, and still be good. It's about whether they will work or whether they're bribe's to sucker in idiots.
At the moment, Corbyn's entire policy offering however he dresses it up is pretty much the latter.
You realongside anti west, anti nato, anti army, pro Russia policies
If you remove the army bit you could be talking about Johnson or Trump. Awful man though Corbyn undoubtedly is, you are simply regurgitating Boris' gaslighting strategy.
There are so many reasonable criticisms of Corbyn but quite frankly I switch off when I hear he's a Marxist Communist spy who is simultaenously so fucking useless he can't take a view on anything.
Milliband was apparently a Communist, I'm sure Brown was called a Communist as well.
It just gets tiring after a while - and quite frankly the Tories have been doing their best to screw up the country over the last 9 years.
Until Johnson publishes the Report on Russian involvement in UK elections he has no business calling anyone else pro-Russian. I find it fascinating that Johnson gets clean away with partying in Italy with former KGB operatives whilst Foreign Secretary.
He was present, but he wasn't involved. He was banging some CIA chick on the other sofa when they were around.
You joke but Johnson will literally get away with anything whilst we have a corrupt press that is bought by Tory Party donors.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Johnson is a deeply, deeply dodgy man.
That corrupt press will include the Mirror, Morning Star, Grainuad, Observer, i, , Evening Standard and Independent then?
Come on mirror yes marginally popular Morning Star don’t be silly the rest unfortunately not read by anybody who wants their convictions challenged, when did the morning star have ant influence?
But the point is, if it's a policy with disastrous, unintended side effects that ends up making matters far worse, it is still a nutty policy. It doesn't matter if it's 'radical' or not from that point of view.
For example, would cancelling HS2 be radical? Of course not. Quite the opposite. It's the safe option, financially and politically, for the government. But it would also make the current total logjam on the WCML insoluble.
It's not about whether something is ideologically sound. Policies can be that, and still be good. It's about whether they will work or whether they're bribe's to sucker in idiots.
At the moment, Corbyn's entire policy offering however he dresses it up is pretty much the latter.
You realongside anti west, anti nato, anti army, pro Russia policies
If you remove the army bit you could be talking about Johnson or Trump. Awful man though Corbyn undoubtedly is, you are simply regurgitating Boris' gaslighting strategy.
There are so many reasonable criticisms of Corbyn but quite frankly I switch off when I hear he's a Marxist Communist spy who is simultaenously so fucking useless he can't take a view on anything.
Milliband was apparently a Communist, I'm sure Brown was called a Communist as well.
It just gets tiring after a while - and quite frankly the Tories have been doing their best to screw up the country over the last 9 years.
Until Johnson publishes the Report on Russian involvement in UK elections he has no business calling anyone else pro-Russian. I find it fascinating that Johnson gets clean away with partying in Italy with former KGB operatives whilst Foreign Secretary.
He was present, but he wasn't involved. He was banging some CIA chick on the other sofa when they were around.
You joke but Johnson will literally get away with anything whilst we have a corrupt press that is bought by Tory Party donors.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Johnson is a deeply, deeply dodgy man.
That corrupt press will include the Mirror, Morning Star, Grainuad, Observer, i, , Evening Standard and Independent then?
Come on mirror yes marginally popular Morning Star don’t be silly the rest unfortunately not read by anybody who wants their convictions challenged, when did the morning star have ant influence?
The problem lies in your last paragraph. Corbyn's policies are Venezeulan in concept and hence why I will vote for Boris as defeating Corbyn is far more important to me than Brexit
While I acknowledge the disaster Corbyn would be to the economy and the country, that does not, in my view, condone handing a large majority and effectively untrammelled power to Boris Johnson for five years.
If the only two reasons for voting Conservative are a) getting Brexit done and b) stopping Corbyn, these can be accomplished in a year.
What then? I have very little confidence in Johnson and those surrounding him and I very much doubt they will make this country a better place for the vast majority in which to live.
My hope is IF Boris gets his majority, by 2024 there will be a credible viable alternative Government on offer so we can send him and his ideas packing.
I look forward to you joining me in supporting that credible alternative.
The problem is you cannot control a majority, you can only vote positively to stop Corbyn
I think Boris may actually follow quite a liberal programme but how I will vote in 5 years time I could not say, and at my age I may not be involved !!!!
The problem lies in your last paragraph. Corbyn's policies are Venezeulan in concept and hence why I will vote for Boris as defeating Corbyn is far more important to me than Brexit
While I acknowledge the disaster Corbyn would be to the economy and the country, that does not, in my view, condone handing a large majority and effectively untrammelled power to Boris Johnson for five years.
If the only two reasons for voting Conservative are a) getting Brexit done and b) stopping Corbyn, these can be accomplished in a year.
What then? I have very little confidence in Johnson and those surrounding him and I very much doubt they will make this country a better place for the vast majority in which to live.
My hope is IF Boris gets his majority, by 2024 there will be a credible viable alternative Government on offer so we can send him and his ideas packing.
I look forward to you joining me in supporting that credible alternative.
At times I thought I was on my own in my view that both alternatives of corbyn and Johnson were unacceptable.
The problem lies in your last paragraph. Corbyn's policies are Venezeulan in concept and hence why I will vote for Boris as defeating Corbyn is far more important to me than Brexit
While I acknowledge the disaster Corbyn would be to the economy and the country, that does not, in my view, condone handing a large majority and effectively untrammelled power to Boris Johnson for five years.
If the only two reasons for voting Conservative are a) getting Brexit done and b) stopping Corbyn, these can be accomplished in a year.
What then? I have very little confidence in Johnson and those surrounding him and I very much doubt they will make this country a better place for the vast majority in which to live.
My hope is IF Boris gets his majority, by 2024 there will be a credible viable alternative Government on offer so we can send him and his ideas packing.
I look forward to you joining me in supporting that credible alternative.
At times I thought I was on my own in my view that both alternatives of corbyn and Johnson were unacceptable.
That 17% yougov lead has few crumbs of comfort for Remain
Do you know what the Tory lead was in those marginals at the last general election?
You might expect it to be close to zero, but it depends on things like differential turnout, any skew in the distribution of marginal seats and third-party effects.
I asked that very question of Mr Wells, and will report back his answer. If he doesn’t have it to hand, I’ll have to crank up the spreadsheet and estimate it myself.
10,000-seat majority and under for any party is quite a wide spread of seats - about a 20-point lead assuming average turnout?
Going back to this, I worked out that there are 283 seats in GB with a 2017 majority of under 10,000 (“marginals” for these purposes). The average Con lead over Lab in the 283 was 2.0 points. YouGov found a 20-point lead, suggesting a 9% swing in marginals (compared with about 7% overall). Among those certain to vote in these marginals, they found a 26% lead (a swing of 12%).
For the record, the 283 seats are made up as follows:
- 127 won by Con in 2017 - 105 Lab - 12 LD - 4 PC - 35 SNP
It sounds like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and is criticising the polls because they don't like what they're showing at present.
Just watched several episodes of The Crown series 3.
Episode 3, about Aberfan, is a remarkable piece of film-making. Extraordinarily powerful.
(The portrayal of Harold Wilson is very fine.)
Only saw episode 1. Olivia Coleman is a great actress but didn't convince me as EIIR. Wilson good, yes, but Blunt not much of a likeness. However the period is really well captured.
The problem lies in your last paragraph. Corbyn's policies are Venezeulan in concept and hence why I will vote for Boris as defeating Corbyn is far more important to me than Brexit
While I acknowledge the disaster Corbyn would be to the economy and the country, that does not, in my view, condone handing a large majority and effectively untrammelled power to Boris Johnson for five years.
If the only two reasons for voting Conservative are a) getting Brexit done and b) stopping Corbyn, these can be accomplished in a year.
What then? I have very little confidence in Johnson and those surrounding him and I very much doubt they will make this country a better place for the vast majority in which to live.
My hope is IF Boris gets his majority, by 2024 there will be a credible viable alternative Government on offer so we can send him and his ideas packing.
I look forward to you joining me in supporting that credible alternative.
At times I thought I was on my own in my view that both alternatives of corbyn and Johnson were unacceptable.
And I thought you read every word of my posts
To the point that I know you are seriously upset that you can’t vote for who you want because of the unite alliance, yes but I’m a sad pensioner with little else to do!
Well they were enthused last time. But only when the manifesto came out.
So we will see what happens this time.
I predict Labour will pledge to wipe out all student debt.
How will they pay for it?
Will it only be student loan debt, or all student debt?
Will it include maintenance loans, or only tuition fees?
How far back will it go? Does mine from 20-odd years ago get wiped as well?
Will those who have paid it off, or part paid it off, get their payments refunded?
I think you're right, it's what they'll say.
But unless they can answer those questions, you should not assume it is what they'll do. All they will be looking for is a cheap(!) headline, not getting to grips with the appalling mess that is HE funding.
What we really need is a proper inquiry into academic and student funding, not led by a disgraced former oil exec and self-confessed perjurer, that comes up with a proper and sustainable system. The odds of this happening especially given the current distraction therapy of Brexit and the chaos of the current government are remote. As they are on transport, power generation, broadband...
I am a big fan of just having an extra 0.5% on income tax for graduates, or whatever level meets the requirement for university funding.
We should abolish fees for people doing degrees which benefit the country and humanity.
So those who read the medicines, STEM, history, and law don't have to pay a fee.
Medicine and law should be taught alongside motorcycle maintenance at specialised trade schools. They aren't academic subjects. Academia should be for those who love learning. There's a big difference between work training and academic study.
Just watched several episodes of The Crown series 3.
Episode 3, about Aberfan, is a remarkable piece of film-making. Extraordinarily powerful.
(The portrayal of Harold Wilson is very fine.)
Only saw episode 1. Olivia Coleman is a great actress but didn't convince me as EIIR. Wilson good, yes, but Blunt not much of a likeness. However the period is really well captured.
Jason Watkins is really exceptional as Wilson, brilliant casting. The Aberfan episode is incredible, a tough watch but superb.
I'm at the point where Dickie Mountbatten (Charles Dance) is involved in the plot against Wilson, and it is just astonishingly well acted.
Why do you see this as a binary choice . Corbyn is going to lose and lose badly, worse than 83. So people are free to vote how they want. There is no way labour will win.
Corbyn is going to lose badly because many Remainers will cut their losses and vote Tory. What's the point in thinking "Corbyn can't win this one, but if I vote LD we might just get a hung parliament and then we can carry on with this crippling indecision."
Corbyn is going to lose. Every body else can vote for who they want and so what I’d rather have both of the sidelined and years of stable crippling indecision than either with a majority, you are just using the fear of labour to advance the prospects of a liar and hypocrite.
My ancestors fought and died for thousands of years to bequeath me the vote. I'm not going to besmirch their memory by refusing to exercise it just because political parties are, almost without exception, led by liars and hypocrites.
To be more serious, I'm probably going to vote Tory because decisive government with a working majority is, all things being equal, marginally better than anything else on offer.
It honestly isn’t it won’t solve anything other than brexit which will bring more problems than it solves. They have thrown good economic management out of the window and have the worst of the nasty party on cabinet. Corbyn is marginally worse but it is not a binary choice, vote for a brake on idiotic majority government.
We dodged a bullet in 2010 because it was possible to cobble a coalition together which was, in my opinion, a very good government. But the LDs have made it clear (and why wouldn't they?) that this will not happen again.
Let the largest party govern with a minority they can’t do any harm, you actually don’t need a majority government just a functioning civil service.
All too often a government has to take unpopular decisions. The CS won't do it for them. Minority government is just a recipe for temporisation. We're already suffering from this on multiple fronts.
Well they were enthused last time. But only when the manifesto came out.
So we will see what happens this time.
I predict Labour will pledge to wipe out all student debt.
How will they pay for it?
Will it only be student loan debt, or all student debt?
Will it include maintenance loans, or only tuition fees?
How far back will it go? Does mine from 20-odd years ago get wiped as well?
Will those who have paid it off, or part paid it off, get their payments refunded?
I think you're right, it's what they'll say.
But unless they can answer those questions, you should not assume it is what they'll do. All they will be looking for is a cheap(!) headline, not getting to grips with the appalling mess that is HE funding.
What we really need is a proper inquiry into academic and student funding, not led by a disgraced former oil exec and self-confessed perjurer, that comes up with a proper and sustainable system. The odds of this happening especially given the current distraction therapy of Brexit and the chaos of the current government are remote. As they are on transport, power generation, broadband...
I am a big fan of just having an extra 0.5% on income tax for graduates, or whatever level meets the requirement for university funding.
We should abolish fees for people doing degrees which benefit the country and humanity.
So those who read the medicines, STEM, history, and law don't have to pay a fee.
Medicine and law should be taught alongside motorcycle maintenance at specialised trade schools. They aren't academic subjects. Academia should be for those who love learning. There's a big difference between work training and academic study.
Well that is a very interesting theory! I suspect you may be in a minority on this but I suggest you consider that until you understand the basics you can’t push back the boundary’s of science and without that we would be in a Johnson Greek classical dark age arguing if the earth was flat and if the sun moved round the earth.
Why do you see this as a binary choice . Corbyn is going to lose and lose badly, worse than 83. So people are free to vote how they want. There is no way labour will win.
Corbyn is going to lose badly because many Remainers will cut their losses and vote Tory. What's the point in thinking "Corbyn can't win this one, but if I vote LD we might just get a hung parliament and then we can carry on with this crippling indecision."
Corbyn is going to lose. Every body else can vote for who they want and so what I’d rather have both of the sidelined and years of stable crippling indecision than either with a majority, you are just using the fear of labour to advance the prospects of a liar and hypocrite.
My ancestors fought and died for thousands of years to bequeath me the vote. I'm not going to besmirch their memory by refusing to exercise it just because political parties are, almost without exception, led by liars and hypocrites.
To be more serious, I'm probably going to vote Tory because decisive government with a working majority is, all things being equal, marginally better than anything else on offer.
It honestly isn’t it won’t solve anything other than brexit which will bring more problems than it solves. They have thrown good economic management out of the window and have the worst of the nasty party on cabinet. Corbyn is marginally worse but it is not a binary choice, vote for a brake on idiotic majority government.
We dodged a bullet in 2010 because it was possible to cobble a coalition together which was, in my opinion, a very good government. But the LDs have made it clear (and why wouldn't they?) that this will not happen again.
Let the largest party govern with a minority they can’t do any harm, you actually don’t need a majority government just a functioning civil service.
All too often a government has to take unpopular decisions. The CS won't do it for them. Minority government is just a recipe for temporisation. We're already suffering from this on multiple fronts.
It’s been quite stable in Spain apart from Catalonia with no majority for four years.
Well they were enthused last time. But only when the manifesto came out.
So we will see what happens this time.
I predict Labour will pledge to wipe out all student debt.
How will they pay for it?
Will it only be student loan debt, or all student debt?
Will it include maintenance loans, or only tuition fees?
How far back will it go? Does mine from 20-odd years ago get wiped as well?
Will those who have paid it off, or part paid it off, get their payments refunded?
I think you're right, it's what they'll say.
But unless they can answer those questions, you should not assume it is what they'll do. All they will be looking for is a cheap(!) headline, not getting to grips with the appalling mess that is HE funding.
What we really need is a proper inquiry into academic and student funding, not led by a disgraced former oil exec and self-confessed perjurer, that comes up with a proper and sustainable system. The odds of this happening especially given the current distraction therapy of Brexit and the chaos of the current government are remote. As they are on transport, power generation, broadband...
I am a big fan of just having an extra 0.5% on income tax for graduates, or whatever level meets the requirement for university funding.
We should abolish fees for people doing degrees which benefit the country and humanity.
So those who read the medicines, STEM, history, and law don't have to pay a fee.
Medicine and law should be taught alongside motorcycle maintenance at specialised trade schools. They aren't academic subjects. Academia should be for those who love learning. There's a big difference between work training and academic study.
I am not sure an NVQ level 4 in brain surgery really works. Observational assessment whilst the candidate demonstrates competence, or lack of it, in a real workplace learning situation may have a drawback or two.
Well they were enthused last time. But only when the manifesto came out.
So we will see what happens this time.
I predict Labour will pledge to wipe out all student debt.
How will they pay for it?
Willg.
Whaos of the current government are remote. As they are on transport, power generation, broadband...
I am a big fan of just having an extra 0.5% on income tax for graduates, or whatever level meets the requirement for university funding.
We should abolish fees for people doing degrees which benefit the country and humanity.
So those who read the medicines, STEM, history, and law don't have to pay a fee.
Medicine and law should be taught alongside motorcycle maintenance at spetraining and academic study.
Well that is a very interesting theory! I suspect you may be in a minority on this but I suggest you consider that until you understand the basics you can’t push back the boundary’s of science and without that we would be in a Johnson Greek classical dark age arguing if the earth was flat and if the sun moved round the earth.
Of course the Greeks calculated the Earth was in fact round.
Just watched several episodes of The Crown series 3.
Episode 3, about Aberfan, is a remarkable piece of film-making. Extraordinarily powerful.
(The portrayal of Harold Wilson is very fine.)
Aberfan is as raw to us today as it was on the 21st October 1966. Just 8 days later on the 29th October our eldest son was born here in North Wales and the emotions were highly charged. The mass burials of 81 of the children had taken place on the 27th October and the Queen and Prince Philip visited Aberfan on the day he was born
Might be an especially tough watch for you then.
That line of children's coffins extending forever is as visceral as it gets.
Well that is a very interesting theory! I suspect you may be in a minority on this but I suggest you consider that until you understand the basics you can’t push back the boundary’s of science and without that we would be in a Johnson Greek classical dark age arguing if the earth was flat and if the sun moved round the earth.
Of course the Greeks calculated the Earth was in fact round.
Nobody believed the earth was flat. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Everyone knew it was spherical, if only from observation of the horizon. Aquinas based whole theories on this.
The flat earth myth was invented by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus as an anti-Catholic polemic, and unfortunately the popular success of this work of mostly fiction means it has stuck.
It sounds like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and is criticising the polls because they don't like what they're showing at present.
I think however we should remember in 2017 the unweighted samples were far closer to the result than the ones that went through weighting. That may of course have been a coincidence, or it may be pollsters are overthinking their past failures.
I am a big fan of just having an extra 0.5% on income tax for graduates, or whatever level meets the requirement for university funding.
We should abolish fees for people doing degrees which benefit the country and humanity.
So those who read the medicines, STEM, history, and law don't have to pay a fee.
Medicine and law should be taught alongside motorcycle maintenance at spetraining and academic study.
Well that is a very interesting theory! I suspect you may be in a minority on this but I suggest you consider that until you understand the basics you can’t push back the boundary’s of science and without that we would be in a Johnson Greek classical dark age arguing if the earth was flat and if the sun moved round the earth.
Of course the Greeks calculated the Earth was in fact round.
Took a while to catch on though I just thought that medicine and motor cycle maintenance was an odd comparison. In reality of course routine diagnosis of both will be solved by good AI the problem comes when we can’t make the next leap forward
As far as I can tell they don't have turnout figures listed.
Thought they weighted based on reported likelihood to vote - which is in there? V002?
You are talking about the Deltapoll PDF?
I am yes.
What page are they listed on? I think I went through every page and didn't see a question on likelihood to vote. V002 is the tab in the excel document containing turnout figures for Opinium, however.
Well that is a very interesting theory! I suspect you may be in a minority on this but I suggest you consider that until you understand the basics you can’t push back the boundary’s of science and without that we would be in a Johnson Greek classical dark age arguing if the earth was flat and if the sun moved round the earth.
Of course the Greeks calculated the Earth was in fact round.
Nobody believed the earth was flat. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Everyone knew it was spherical, if only from observation of the horizon. Aquinas based whole theories on this.
The flat earth myth was invented by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus as an anti-Catholic polemic, and unfortunately the popular success of this work of mostly fiction means it has stuck.
As far as I can tell they don't have turnout figures listed.
Thought they weighted based on reported likelihood to vote - which is in there? V002?
You are talking about the Deltapoll PDF?
I am yes.
What page are they listed on? I think I went through every page and didn't see a question on likelihood to vote. V002 is the tab in the excel document containing turnout figures for Opinium, however.
I'm so sorry, I'm looking at completely the wrong pollster. I did have Opinium open and I've just checked again - you're quite right.
As far as I can tell they don't have turnout figures listed.
Thought they weighted based on reported likelihood to vote - which is in there? V002?
You are talking about the Deltapoll PDF?
I am yes.
What page are they listed on? I think I went through every page and didn't see a question on likelihood to vote. V002 is the tab in the excel document containing turnout figures for Opinium, however.
I'm so sorry, I'm looking at completely the wrong pollster. I did have Opinium open and I've just checked again - you're quite right.
As far as I can tell they don't have turnout figures listed.
Thought they weighted based on reported likelihood to vote - which is in there? V002?
You are talking about the Deltapoll PDF?
I am yes.
What page are they listed on? I think I went through every page and didn't see a question on likelihood to vote. V002 is the tab in the excel document containing turnout figures for Opinium, however.
I'm so sorry, I'm looking at completely the wrong pollster. I did have Opinium open and I've just checked again - you're quite right.
It sounds like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and is criticising the polls because they don't like what they're showing at present.
I think however we should remember in 2017 the unweighted samples were far closer to the result than the ones that went through weighting. That may of course have been a coincidence, or it may be pollsters are overthinking their past failures.
The polls have almost always been very accurate, including with the Conservative share in 2017. The only mistake they've made recently was slightly underestimating Labour in 2017 by around 4%, which was not good but not terrible either. There may have been a last-minute surge to Labour in 2017 which by definition would have been very difficult to capture, similar to the Conservatives in 1992.
I suspect that in the event Boris achieves a good majority the EU will have until the mid summer to formulate a FTA or Boris will walk us out on WTO
At the same time free ports and 12% corporation tax will arrrive and billions in investment opportunities in RD and other advanced techology will be put on the table
Indeed the EU's worst nightmare of a Singapore off Europe must seem a very real possibility if the EU do not react with a quick FTA
Johnson’s majority makes no difference to the future relationship with the EU it is already defined, it will be significantly worse than our current arrangement but be heralded as a dramatic victory by our pathological liar and amoral PM. Then life can progress but by 31/6 next year is really stretch the bounds of possibility. Don’t forget the extension has to be requested by that date or in the words of Noel Edmonds it’s deal or no deal
So, I paraphrase:
@Big_G_NorthWales , 2019/09: "Boris is risking No Deal! I cannot approve that! I shall leave the party!" @Big_G_NorthWales , 2019/10: "Boris has signed a Deal! I applaud that! I shall rejoin the party!" @Big_G_NorthWales , 2019/11: "Boris is risking No Deal! I approve that! I shall not leave the party!"
Well that is a very interesting theory! I suspect you may be in a minority on this but I suggest you consider that until you understand the basics you can’t push back the boundary’s of science and without that we would be in a Johnson Greek classical dark age arguing if the earth was flat and if the sun moved round the earth.
Of course the Greeks calculated the Earth was in fact round.
Nobody believed the earth was flat. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Everyone knew it was spherical, if only from observation of the horizon. Aquinas based whole theories on this.
The flat earth myth was invented by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus as an anti-Catholic polemic, and unfortunately the popular success of this work of mostly fiction means it has stuck.
Right, so probably more people now (claim) to believe the world is flat then at any time in at least thousands of years.
As far as I can tell they don't have turnout figures listed.
Thought they weighted based on reported likelihood to vote - which is in there? V002?
You are talking about the Deltapoll PDF?
I am yes.
What page are they listed on? I think I went through every page and didn't see a question on likelihood to vote. V002 is the tab in the excel document containing turnout figures for Opinium, however.
I'm so sorry, I'm looking at completely the wrong pollster. I did have Opinium open and I've just checked again - you're quite right.
Well that is a very interesting theory! I suspect you may be in a minority on this but I suggest you consider that until you understand the basics you can’t push back the boundary’s of science and without that we would be in a Johnson Greek classical dark age arguing if the earth was flat and if the sun moved round the earth.
Of course the Greeks calculated the Earth was in fact round.
Nobody believed the earth was flat. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Everyone knew it was spherical, if only from observation of the horizon. Aquinas based whole theories on this.
The flat earth myth was invented by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus as an anti-Catholic polemic, and unfortunately the popular success of this work of mostly fiction means it has stuck.
That's actually really interesting - thanks.
The amusing irony of Columbus' voyage is that contrary to popular myth, he was wrong and everyone else was right. Nobody thought he would fall off the edge of the world, but they all said it was impossible for two caravels and a nao to carry sufficient supplies for a westbound voyage to Japan. Everyone would die of thirst before they got there. By contrast Columbus thought the world far smaller than it was, although it had been correctly measured by Erastothenes centuries before.
And had he not crashed into America, the doomsayers would have been right. Indeed, even the first European transpacific voyage under Magellan ran so short of provisions they were forced to eat the leatherwork on the masts. But because America was there, he believed he was right, even though he was still completely wrong.
It sounds like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and is criticising the polls because they don't like what they're showing at present.
He's Bernie/Corbyn supporter but his model was very spon on in 2017? So I dont know.
Well that is a very interesting theory! I suspect you may be in a minority on this but I suggest you consider that until you understand the basics you can’t push back the boundary’s of science and without that we would be in a Johnson Greek classical dark age arguing if the earth was flat and if the sun moved round the earth.
Of course the Greeks calculated the Earth was in fact round.
Nobody believed the earth was flat. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Everyone knew it was spherical, if only from observation of the horizon. Aquinas based whole theories on this.
The flat earth myth was invented by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus as an anti-Catholic polemic, and unfortunately the popular success of this work of mostly fiction means it has stuck.
Right, so probably more people now (claim) to believe the world is flat then at any time in at least thousands of years.
Thanks social media. Thanks a bunch.
Probably. The only flat earther I actually know of for definite before the twentieth century was Paul Kruger, President of the Boer Republics.
Well that is a very interesting theory! I suspect you may be in a minority on this but I suggest you consider that until you understand the basics you can’t push back the boundary’s of science and without that we would be in a Johnson Greek classical dark age arguing if the earth was flat and if the sun moved round the earth.
Of course the Greeks calculated the Earth was in fact round.
Nobody believed the earth was flat. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Everyone knew it was spherical, if only from observation of the horizon. Aquinas based whole theories on this.
The flat earth myth was invented by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus as an anti-Catholic polemic, and unfortunately the popular success of this work of mostly fiction means it has stuck.
That's actually really interesting - thanks.
But because America was there, he believed he was right, even though he was still completely wrong.
Which is quite funny when you think about it.
Sure, but not when all their presidential candidates adopt that approach as policy.
Took a while to catch on though I just thought that medicine and motor cycle maintenance was an odd comparison. In reality of course routine diagnosis of both will be solved by good AI the problem comes when we can’t make the next leap forward
Motorcycle maintenance is taught with Zen. Has been for years...
That 17% yougov lead has few crumbs of comfort for Remain
Do you know what the Tory lead was in those marginals at the last general election?
You might expect it to be close to zero, but it depends on things like differential turnout, any skew in the distribution of marginal seats and third-party effects.
I asked that very question of Mr Wells, and will report back his answer. If he doesn’t have it to hand, I’ll have to crank up the spreadsheet and estimate it myself.
10,000-seat majority and under for any party is quite a wide spread of seats - about a 20-point lead assuming average turnout?
Going back to this, I worked out that there are 283 seats in GB with a 2017 majority of under 10,000 (“marginals” for these purposes). The average Con lead over Lab in the 283 was 2.0 points. YouGov found a 20-point lead, suggesting a 9% swing in marginals (compared with about 7% overall). Among those certain to vote in these marginals, they found a 26% lead (a swing of 12%).
For the record, the 283 seats are made up as follows:
- 127 won by Con in 2017 - 105 Lab - 12 LD - 4 PC - 35 SNP
Fab work, thanks. No comfort for Labour, but suggests considering majorities upto 5,000 would be more useful.
Just watched several episodes of The Crown series 3.
Episode 3, about Aberfan, is a remarkable piece of film-making. Extraordinarily powerful.
(The portrayal of Harold Wilson is very fine.)
Aberfan is as raw to us today as it was on the 21st October 1966. Just 8 days later on the 29th October our eldest son was born here in North Wales and the emotions were highly charged. The mass burials of 81 of the children had taken place on the 27th October and the Queen and Prince Philip visited Aberfan on the day he was born
Might be an especially tough watch for you then.
That line of children's coffins extending forever is as visceral as it gets.
My wife and I would find it hard. A neighbour painted a very large mural of each child's individual face rising to heaven and into Jesus's hand. It was just so emotional as he had obtained photos of all of them to produce the painting
It sounds like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and is criticising the polls because they don't like what they're showing at present.
I think however we should remember in 2017 the unweighted samples were far closer to the result than the ones that went through weighting. That may of course have been a coincidence, or it may be pollsters are overthinking their past failures.
The polls have almost always been very accurate, including with the Conservative share in 2017. The only mistake they've made recently was slightly underestimating Labour in 2017 by around 4%, which was not good but not terrible either. There may have been a last-minute surge to Labour in 2017 which by definition would have been very difficult to capture, similar to the Conservatives in 1992.
The point is the unweighted samples did pick up that surge, but the weighted ones discounted it.
I suspect that in the event Boris achieves a good majority the EU will have until the mid summer to formulate a FTA or Boris will walk us out on WTO
At the same time free ports and 12% corporation tax will arrrive and billions in investment opportunities in RD and other advanced techology will be put on the table
Indeed the EU's worst nightmare of a Singapore off Europe must seem a very real possibility if the EU do not react with a quick FTA
Johnson’s majority makes no difference to the future relationship with the EU it is already defined, it will be significantly worse than our current arrangement but be heralded as a dramatic victory by our pathological liar and amoral PM. Then life can progress but by 31/6 next year is really stretch the bounds of possibility. Don’t forget the extension has to be requested by that date or in the words of Noel Edmonds it’s deal or no deal
So, I paraphrase:
@Big_G_NorthWales , 2019/09: "Boris is risking No Deal! I cannot approve that! I shall leave the party!" @Big_G_NorthWales , 2019/10: "Boris has signed a Deal! I applaud that! I shall rejoin the party!" @Big_G_NorthWales , 2019/11: "Boris is risking No Deal! I approve that! I shall not leave the party!"
Big_G wins this year’s drama queen award, and if he ends up voting for Bozo we at least know that we can safely ignore his future hysteria.
Well that is a very interesting theory! I suspect you may be in a minority on this but I suggest you consider that until you understand the basics you can’t push back the boundary’s of science and without that we would be in a Johnson Greek classical dark age arguing if the earth was flat and if the sun moved round the earth.
Of course the Greeks calculated the Earth was in fact round.
Nobody believed the earth was flat. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Everyone knew it was spherical, if only from observation of the horizon. Aquinas based whole theories on this.
The flat earth myth was invented by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus as an anti-Catholic polemic, and unfortunately the popular success of this work of mostly fiction means it has stuck.
My fault for picking a historical myth with an excess of historians on here, I’ll stick to the science of chocolate and postal measurement surveys in future. I do a good line on TBI early onset dementia but it’s not very interesting.
As far as I can tell they don't have turnout figures listed.
Thought they weighted based on reported likelihood to vote - which is in there? V002?
You are talking about the Deltapoll PDF?
I am yes.
What page are they listed on? I think I went through every page and didn't see a question on likelihood to vote. V002 is the tab in the excel document containing turnout figures for Opinium, however.
I'm so sorry, I'm looking at completely the wrong pollster. I did have Opinium open and I've just checked again - you're quite right.
By the way, I agree with you that the obvious Corbyn play is to pledge to wipe out all student loans and debt.
Comments
Many have warned that Johnson (perhaps as part of the pact with Farage) will play along with trade negotiations next year and then leave at the end of 2020 without a Deal to WTO rules thereby allowing him the "luxury" of this hard-headed nonsense.
Back in the summer you were vehemently opposed to No Deal (as were many Conservatives back then) but you all seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Johnson/Cummings nonsense.
If he gets a big majority, do you think Johnson will listen to anyone? His sheep in the Commons will do as they are told and if that means leaving without a trade deal this time next year so be it.
When of course anyone tries to argue this the Conservative response is usually to wibble on about Corbyn, Venezuela and Marxism rather than to address the point.
That said, the Spectrum of possibilities where Con retain Aberdeen South but lose all but their bankers in the borders must be very, very slim.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Johnson is a deeply, deeply dodgy man.
, Evening Standard and Independent then?
Episode 3, about Aberfan, is a remarkable piece of film-making. Extraordinarily powerful.
(The portrayal of Harold Wilson is very fine.)
In hindsight, it seems like every election (at least in recent times) has one overriding, usually not stated, theme that determines the results.
In 2005, it was that the people wanted to send Tony Blair a message they were becoming dissatisfied but to keep him in power = reduced majority;
In 2010, people didn't like Brown and were tired of Labour but didn't trust the Conservatives nor David Cameron enough to give them a majority = hung Parliament
In 2015, it was that David Cameron had done just enough to earn people's trust but - more importantly - they didn't see Ed Milliband as PM material = Tory majority
In 2017, it was that people didn't want Theresa May to have a majority given the more they saw (or didn't) of her, the more they distrusted her = hung Parliament.
What is the theme for this election? Brexit is the obvious one but, actually, I think the key theme running through this is "Do you want Corbyn as PM?" If that is right, then do not expect many LD gains in Tory surburbia (as Tory remainers fear for their wealth under a Corbyn government) and, more to the point, expect a Tory landslide as fear of Corbyn proves the motivating factor of this election.
https://mobile.twitter.com/djjohnso/status/1196167617351946240
If the only two reasons for voting Conservative are a) getting Brexit done and b) stopping Corbyn, these can be accomplished in a year.
What then? I have very little confidence in Johnson and those surrounding him and I very much doubt they will make this country a better place for the vast majority in which to live.
My hope is IF Boris gets his majority, by 2024 there will be a credible viable alternative Government on offer so we can send him and his ideas packing.
I look forward to you joining me in supporting that credible alternative.
But a law based degree sets you up for life with the skills you learn.
I wonder if their results are similarly weighted to Kantar's.
I think Boris may actually follow quite a liberal programme but how I will vote in 5 years time I could not say, and at my age I may not be involved !!!!
Somebody is going to end up with major egg on their face
For the record, the 283 seats are made up as follows:
- 127 won by Con in 2017
- 105 Lab
- 12 LD
- 4 PC
- 35 SNP
That would suggest an general election gap in the 12/13% ballpark, which is what poll aggregates seem to be trending towards.
I'm at the point where Dickie Mountbatten (Charles Dance) is involved in the plot against Wilson, and it is just astonishingly well acted.
Here you go again.
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Deltapoll-MoS191116.pdf
Con 40%
Lab 29%
LD 15%
BRX 8%
Grn 3%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/oct/31/uk-general-election-2019-poll-tracker
I'll let Corbyn know, thanks for your feedback
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/ancient-greeks-proved-earth-round-eratosthenes-alexandria-syene-summer-solstice-a8131376.html
That line of children's coffins extending forever is as visceral as it gets.
The flat earth myth was invented by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus as an anti-Catholic polemic, and unfortunately the popular success of this work of mostly fiction means it has stuck.
18 to 24s (8 year cohort) - 175 people
55 to 64s (10 year cohort) - 234 people
So assumed turnout in 18 to 24s is a bit lower than 55 to 64s but not substantially lower.
Numbers look very reasonable to me.
@Big_G_NorthWales , 2019/09: "Boris is risking No Deal! I cannot approve that! I shall leave the party!"
@Big_G_NorthWales , 2019/10: "Boris has signed a Deal! I applaud that! I shall rejoin the party!"
@Big_G_NorthWales , 2019/11: "Boris is risking No Deal! I approve that! I shall not leave the party!"
Thanks social media. Thanks a bunch.
And had he not crashed into America, the doomsayers would have been right. Indeed, even the first European transpacific voyage under Magellan ran so short of provisions they were forced to eat the leatherwork on the masts. But because America was there, he believed he was right, even though he was still completely wrong.
Which is quite funny when you think about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance
We've just finished Aberfan and my wife has decided to sleep with the baby rather than me.
Bit more from that bloke here.
Take with as much salt as you wish, I'm only posting it for the purposes of information.
So I expect it too.