Tbf I think HYUFD is genuine in his weirdlly Falangist Unionism, whereas BJ will say any old bollox depending on which audience he's facing.
A large majority of SNP supporters believe that the break up of the union is a price worth paying whether we leave or not, so it doesn't seem very interesting that when faced with a forced choice some leavers make the same one. Gosh.
It's hardly headline stuff that when faced with a forced choice between two things you don't want you choose one of them.
It's perhaps worthy of note when the Conservative and Unionist Party is depending on these people for support.
Placed my first bet of the GE - an outside punt on Con to win Gateshead at 16/1. On paper this is a very safe Labour seat with a 17k majority but there is no Brexit party candidate and it is estimated the seat was 58% leave. Electoral Calculus are currently only estimating Labour to win by 300 votes so got to be some value there. Downside is the Con candidate lives in Surrey.
I hate to break this to you, but the fact that the candidate lives in Surrey is probably a little bit of a clue that the Tories aren't exactly going to be straining every sinew in that constituency.
The other interesting conversation I had at the weekend was with someone who voted Labour in Bristol NW last time. They had really gone off Corbyn partly due to Anti Semitism, but they also found it extremely annoying when Corbyn went around as if he had won last time!
I bet if you went to Bristol West rather than North West, you would still find plenty of cheerleaders. That really is West Country Islington.
I notice Charlotte Leslie isn't standing for the Tories there this time.
She sank without trace. Whatever happened to her?
It wasn’t a surprise to me. She had some idiots vandalise her families cars during the 2015 campaign, and then later that year she had a Muslim extremist make death threats against her
That's just one of those things people say to stop their jaws seizing up rather than because of their truth content. Blair was a liar through and through (eu immigration, ecclestone, iraq), Johnson just ain't in the same ballpark.
C'mon. Boris Johnson is a quite exceptionally untrustworthy individual in almost every way. The evidence for this is copious and compelling.
Tony? No, not the straightest of politicians. Very much not.
And I agree, not the same ballpark. Very different types of dishonest personalities. One grandiose and delusional, the other skittish and essentially vacuous.
I assume ‘Allo ‘Allo. I can’t read the thread without logging on to change my setting, and if there are two sites I’m avoiding at the moment they are Twitter and even more Facebook.
4% of leavers support the lib dems may sound odd but doorknocking last week i came across excatly two of those specimens. When i asked why they both said they didnt know..it was as though they had been hypnotised.
We have seen this for years. There is a small but hard core of people who want to Leave, but appear to like everything else about the Lib Dems.
GarethoftheVale2 said: "Placed my first bet of the GE - an outside punt on Con to win Gateshead at 16/1. On paper this is a very safe Labour seat with a 17k majority but there is no Brexit party candidate and it is estimated the seat was 58% leave. Electoral Calculus are currently only estimating Labour to win by 300 votes so got to be some value there. Downside is the Con candidate lives in Surrey."
What makes you think that there`s no Brexit Party candidate?
I’ve come to the conclusion that Corbyn or one of his inner circle has had very poor service with BT Openreach, and they’ve thought “I know i’ll nationalise that!”
I like polls where CON>LAB+LD. Flashbacks to early 2017 and late 2008.
And, yes, obviously a large majority gives the PM authority to do more or less what he (or she in Maggie's case) likes. Though even 2nd-term Margaret didn't get the Shops Act through. Perhaps Boris will be like Brown, however, in having schemed for power for years, but having no idea what to do with it once he gets it. Still, it will be nice to have a stable government that can address the country's problems if it feels like it again.
The Tories have shown no inkling of having any clue about the country's problems, or any idea of what issues will actually matter in the mid-21st century.
They will have nice, strong, stable corruption though. Hooray.
GarethoftheVale2 said: "Placed my first bet of the GE - an outside punt on Con to win Gateshead at 16/1. On paper this is a very safe Labour seat with a 17k majority but there is no Brexit party candidate and it is estimated the seat was 58% leave. Electoral Calculus are currently only estimating Labour to win by 300 votes so got to be some value there. Downside is the Con candidate lives in Surrey."
What makes you think that there`s no Brexit Party candidate?
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers. Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
Depends on the voting system, Mr Thompson. With a different system, everybody can feel that their voted has had some effect on the result. Not everybody would agree with you in thinking that it is right for the relative winner to take everything.
The Tory membership are not as extreme as people make out.
Without having a pop at you personally nor the other Con supporters who grace this board with their presence and the party with their membership, I genuinely don't think that's true. If it helps, the others are also bad, just in different directions.
What evidence do you base that on?
Mostly television coverage of the various MPs, occasionally posters to this board, sometimes MPs I have met (although the latter are rare).
Happy to hear counter-evidence and I acknowledge that those MPs on this board ( @NickPalmer and @Tissue_Price ) and activists/canvassers (@MarqueeMark, @david_herdson , @isam , @HYUFD, others? ) are decent fellows, but party members, activists and MPs do have a tendency to not just repeat the party line but also believe it, and also later believe the exact opposite if expedient. It is a striking characteristic.
Plus the use of arguments from the political toolset ("that study has been discredited"/ad hominem attacks/"I find it interesting that"/no assumption of innocence/others) that civilians use less.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Ah, the dumb adversarial mindset.
General elections can aim to achieve fair parliamentary representation of the broadest views of the electorate, and then let those views be mediated through the workings of parliamentary democracy.
Or they can simply take a slice of opinion and give it intermittent dictatorial powers and near-permanent power of patronage.
You favour the second approach, but all evidence suggests that countries favouring the first out-perform countries favouring the second on metrics of wellbeing, freedom, human development, etc.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers. Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
Depends on the voting system, Mr Thompson. With a different system, everybody can feel that their voted has had some effect on the result. Not everybody would agree with you in thinking that it is right for the relative winner to take everything.
Indeed just as in different athletic systems even the small fat kid at the back of the race track can still get a medal.
I thought we were trying to find a way to determine who runs the country not stroke the egos of those who come last but hey-ho.
Placed my first bet of the GE - an outside punt on Con to win Gateshead at 16/1. On paper this is a very safe Labour seat with a 17k majority but there is no Brexit party candidate and it is estimated the seat was 58% leave. Electoral Calculus are currently only estimating Labour to win by 300 votes so got to be some value there. Downside is the Con candidate lives in Surrey.
I hate to break this to you, but the fact that the candidate lives in Surrey is probably a little bit of a clue that the Tories aren't exactly going to be straining every sinew in that constituency.
I know those are err... unlikely... gains but couldn't the Tories have at least found paper candidates in the North East rather than from Surrey and central Westminster to contest Gateshead and Blaydon ?
GarethoftheVale2 said: "Placed my first bet of the GE - an outside punt on Con to win Gateshead at 16/1. On paper this is a very safe Labour seat with a 17k majority but there is no Brexit party candidate and it is estimated the seat was 58% leave. Electoral Calculus are currently only estimating Labour to win by 300 votes so got to be some value there. Downside is the Con candidate lives in Surrey."
What makes you think that there`s no Brexit Party candidate?
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Ah, the dumb adversarial mindset.
General elections can aim to achieve fair parliamentary representation of the broadest views of the electorate, and then let those views be mediated through the workings of parliamentary democracy.
Or they can simply take a slice of opinion and give it intermittent dictatorial powers and near-permanent power of patronage.
You favour the second approach, but all evidence suggests that countries favouring the first out-perform countries favouring the second on metrics of wellbeing, freedom, human development, etc.
[Citation Needed]
And please don't cherrypick one of two tiny nations from the first outperforming one or two from the second, lets seem some proper evidence that the median of the first outperforms the median of the second and where you got that from.
Good moaning! I brung you a massage: The Liberal Doomocrats are losing grind against the Loober Party and the Terries.
You seem not to understand the Lib Dem strategy in this election Mr Prasannan. You are still stuck in the mind-set of the UNS. That will not work for you this time, I think, but take comfort from it while you can.
The Tory membership are not as extreme as people make out.
Without having a pop at you personally nor the other Con supporters who grace this board with their presence and the party with their membership, I genuinely don't think that's true. If it helps, the others are also bad, just in different directions.
What evidence do you base that on?
Mostly television coverage of the various MPs, occasionally posters to this board, sometimes MPs I have met (although the latter are rare).
Happy to hear counter-evidence and I acknowledge that those MPs on this board ( @NickPalmer and @Tissue_Price ) and activists/canvassers (@MarqueeMark, @david_herdson , @isam , @HYUFD, others? ) are decent fellows, but party members, activists and MPs do have a tendency to not just repeat the party line but also believe it, and also later believe the exact opposite if expedient. It is a striking characteristic.
Plus the use of arguments from the political toolset ("that study has been discredited"/ad hominem attacks/"I find it interesting that"/no assumption of innocence/others) that civilians use less.
If I may butt in: what you cite there doesn't mean party members are extreme, it means they are subject to confirmation bias and/or wanting to help towards the success of their party. The former tends to be true of the population at large, and the second is entirely understandable, given that they wouldn't be party members if they didn't want their party to succeed.
FWIW, and speaking as someone who left the Conservative Party recently because of the direction it has taken, I don't think Conservative Party members are extreme. Nearly all of them I know are very reasonable and pleasant people, with much more nuanced views than you would think, for example on immigration and on welfare (I've led some policy forums on such issues). However, I do think that many of them have lost sight of their original objectives on Brexit.
The Tory membership are not as extreme as people make out.
Without having a pop at you personally nor the other Con supporters who grace this board with their presence and the party with their membership, I genuinely don't think that's true. If it helps, the others are also bad, just in different directions.
What evidence do you base that on?
Mostly television coverage of the various MPs, occasionally posters to this board, sometimes MPs I have met (although the latter are rare).
Happy to hear counter-evidence and I acknowledge that those MPs on this board ( @NickPalmer and @Tissue_Price ) and activists/canvassers (@MarqueeMark, @david_herdson , @isam , @HYUFD, others? ) are decent fellows, but party members, activists and MPs do have a tendency to not just repeat the party line but also believe it, and also later believe the exact opposite if expedient. It is a striking characteristic.
Plus the use of arguments from the political toolset ("that study has been discredited"/ad hominem attacks/"I find it interesting that"/no assumption of innocence/others) that civilians use less.
If I may butt in: what you cite there doesn't mean party members are extreme, it means they are subject to confirmation bias and/or wanting to help towards the success of their party. The former tends to be true of the population at large, and the second is entirely understandable, given that they wouldn't be party members if they didn't want their party to succeed.
FWIW, and speaking as someone who left the Conservative Party recently because of the direction it has taken, I don't think Conservative Party members are extreme. Nearly all of them I know are very reasonable and pleasant people, with much more nuanced views than you would think, for example on immigration and on welfare (I've led some policy forums on such issues). However, I do think that many of them have lost sight of their original objectives on Brexit.
Indeed. Despite the fact I clearly disagree with you on Brexit and your final sentence I 100% agree with the rest of what you wrote.
Party members are ordinary, decent, somewhat more politically-engaged than normal, but still normal overall people.
I like polls where CON>LAB+LD. Flashbacks to early 2017 and late 2008.
And, yes, obviously a large majority gives the PM authority to do more or less what he (or she in Maggie's case) likes. Though even 2nd-term Margaret didn't get the Shops Act through. Perhaps Boris will be like Brown, however, in having schemed for power for years, but having no idea what to do with it once he gets it. Still, it will be nice to have a stable government that can address the country's problems if it feels like it again.
The Tories have shown no inkling of having any clue about the country's problems, or any idea of what issues will actually matter in the mid-21st century.
They will have nice, strong, stable corruption though. Hooray.
Yet you know what the problems are and the issues of 30 years from now.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers. Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
Depends on the voting system, Mr Thompson. With a different system, everybody can feel that their voted has had some effect on the result. Not everybody would agree with you in thinking that it is right for the relative winner to take everything.
Indeed just as in different athletic systems even the small fat kid at the back of the race track can still get a medal.
I thought we were trying to find a way to determine who runs the country not stroke the egos of those who come last but hey-ho.
Amusing, but systems that skew the result so that many votes are 'wasted' such as strangely shaped districts in the US or FPTP in the UK are anti-democratic.
4% of leavers support the lib dems may sound odd but doorknocking last week i came across excatly two of those specimens. When i asked why they both said they didnt know..it was as though they had been hypnotised.
A lot of Lib Dem support has always been prompted by "a plague on both your houses" attitudes towards the main two parties, and some of that attitude also motivated Brexit. Politics is emotional more than rational for most people, including for most people who have convinced themselves that they are motivated rationally.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers. Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
Depends on the voting system, Mr Thompson. With a different system, everybody can feel that their voted has had some effect on the result. Not everybody would agree with you in thinking that it is right for the relative winner to take everything.
Indeed just as in different athletic systems even the small fat kid at the back of the race track can still get a medal.
I thought we were trying to find a way to determine who runs the country not stroke the egos of those who come last but hey-ho.
Amusing, but systems that skew the result so that many votes are 'wasted' such as strangely shaped districts in the US or FPTP in the UK are anti-democratic.
Gerrymandering is antidemocratic absolutely. Thankfully we don't have it in this country and have a respected independent commission to draw up our constituencies.
There is nothing anti-democratic about FPTP. About ensuring each constituency has a single locally-elected voice that reflects the priorities of the local area.
4% of leavers support the lib dems may sound odd but doorknocking last week i came across excatly two of those specimens. When i asked why they both said they didnt know..it was as though they had been hypnotised.
A lot of Lib Dem support has always been prompted by "a plague on both your houses" attitudes towards the main two parties, and some of that attitude also motivated Brexit. Politics is emotional more than rational for most people, including for most people who have convinced themselves that they are motivated rationally.
Indeed in seat after seat in recent elections especially 2015 there seems to have been direct swing from the Lib Dems to eg UKIP. Going from one protest party to another.
Placed my first bet of the GE - an outside punt on Con to win Gateshead at 16/1. On paper this is a very safe Labour seat with a 17k majority but there is no Brexit party candidate and it is estimated the seat was 58% leave. Electoral Calculus are currently only estimating Labour to win by 300 votes so got to be some value there. Downside is the Con candidate lives in Surrey.
Hope the cash wasn't for the electric bill or your lights are going out. I'd love to see it happen but it really won't.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers. Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
Depends on the voting system, Mr Thompson. With a different system, everybody can feel that their voted has had some effect on the result. Not everybody would agree with you in thinking that it is right for the relative winner to take everything.
Indeed just as in different athletic systems even the small fat kid at the back of the race track can still get a medal.
I thought we were trying to find a way to determine who runs the country not stroke the egos of those who come last but hey-ho.
Amusing, but systems that skew the result so that many votes are 'wasted' such as strangely shaped districts in the US or FPTP in the UK are anti-democratic.
Gerrymandering is antidemocratic absolutely. Thankfully we don't have it in this country and have a respected independent commission to draw up our constituencies.
There is nothing anti-democratic about FPTP. About ensuring each constituency has a single locally-elected voice that reflects the priorities of the local area.
It is just a shame when the elected person suffers from excessive party loyalty and fails to vote is a way that is in the best interests of Country, then Constituency, then Party.
It is no good changing the voting system without firstly addressing the excessive influence of the party over the elected representative.
It is one strength of Conservatives MPs over Labour. The former will rebel, the later say they might rebel, but very few do.
This all assumes that the new Tory MPs are the "right sort" as viewed by OGH (and others).
Yup, which they won't be. They'll be exceedingly ERGey.
He should have written the headline the other way around: A 14% CON lead would give the ERG the margin to stuff Johnson.
I actually wonder how long the Tories will stick with Boris after he's secured them their majority (assuming he does). Not long is my guess. They won't want some doddery old bumbler erring and umming around the place when a driven, committed, tooth-and-claw ultra is what they crave. Boris is merely a means to an end and will soon be a footnote.
You can not be serious.
Johnson having won the mayoralty twice, the Brexit referendum, an overwhelming majority in the leadership election and the General Election majority that eluded May [if it happens] would be completely secure in his job.
Even if he opts for a transition extension followed by a close deal with the EU and reverts to being the liberal he purported to be when London Mayor? Have you looked at the Tory membership lately?
Yes even if he does that. The idea he would be removed if he opts for an extension and/or a deal is as farcical as the suggestion he'd be unpopular and mortally wounded if Parliament stalled Brexit past Halloween.
He would have enough political capital from having secured a majority and getting us finally out to agree a deal - and if an extension becomes necessary and with no General Election he can easily agree an extension even if its not currently the plan.
The Tory membership are not as extreme as people make out. A third of the membership was absurd enough to think Hunt was a good replacement for May . . . actual Francois-style extremist loons would be a tiny minority of both the membership and MPs and with a healthy majority would be on the sidelines.
I think you are underestimating how extreme the current Tory party membership is. Even before the influx of Kippers most of them thought Cameron and Osborn were dangerous liberals.
This all assumes that the new Tory MPs are the "right sort" as viewed by OGH (and others).
Yup, which they won't be. They'll be exceedingly ERGey.
He should have written the headline the other way around: A 14% CON lead would give the ERG the margin to stuff Johnson.
I actually wonder how long the Tories will stick with Boris after he's secured them their majority (assuming he does). Not long is my guess. They won't want some doddery old bumbler erring and umming around the place when a driven, committed, tooth-and-claw ultra is what they crave. Boris is merely a means to an end and will soon be a footnote.
You can not be serious.
Johnson having won the mayoralty twice, the Brexit referendum, an overwhelming majority in the leadership election and the General Election majority that eluded May [if it happens] would be completely secure in his job.
Even if he opts for a transition extension followed by a close deal with the EU and reverts to being the liberal he purported to be when London Mayor? Have you looked at the Tory membership lately?
Yes even if he does that. The idea he would be removed if he opts for an extension and/or a deal is as farcical as the suggestion he'd be unpopular and mortally wounded if Parliament stalled Brexit past Halloween.
He would have enough political capital from having secured a majority and getting us finally out to agree a deal - and if an extension becomes necessary and with no General Election he can easily agree an extension even if its not currently the plan.
The Tory membership are not as extreme as people make out. A third of the membership was absurd enough to think Hunt was a good replacement for May . . . actual Francois-style extremist loons would be a tiny minority of both the membership and MPs and with a healthy majority would be on the sidelines.
I think you are underestimating how extreme the current Tory party membership is. Even before the influx of Kippers most of them thought Cameron and Osborn were dangerous liberals.
I thought they were quite popular amongst the membership?
A lot of Lib Dem support has always been prompted by "a plague on both your houses" attitudes towards the main two parties, and some of that attitude also motivated Brexit. Politics is emotional more than rational for most people, including for most people who have convinced themselves that they are motivated rationally.
Yes, my politics is evidence based and rational, their politics is visceral and tribal.
I'm also a good driver. Only reason I keep having scrapes is all the bad ones.
This all assumes that the new Tory MPs are the "right sort" as viewed by OGH (and others).
Yup, which they won't be. They'll be exceedingly ERGey.
He should have written the headline the other way around: A 14% CON lead would give the ERG the margin to stuff Johnson.
I actually wonder how long the Tories will stick with Boris after he's secured them their majority (assuming he does). Not long is my guess. They won't want some doddery old bumbler erring and umming around the place when a driven, committed, tooth-and-claw ultra is what they crave. Boris is merely a means to an end and will soon be a footnote.
You can not be serious.
Johnson having won the mayoralty twice, the Brexit referendum, an overwhelming majority in the leadership election and the General Election majority that eluded May [if it happens] would be completely secure in his job.
Even if he opts for a transition extension followed by a close deal with the EU and reverts to being the liberal he purported to be when London Mayor? Have you looked at the Tory membership lately?
Yes even if he does that. The idea he would be removed if he opts for an extension and/or a deal is as farcical as the suggestion he'd be unpopular and mortally wounded if Parliament stalled Brexit past Halloween.
He would have enough political capital from having secured a majority and getting us finally out to agree a deal - and if an extension becomes necessary and with no General Election he can easily agree an extension even if its not currently the plan.
The Tory membership are not as extreme as people make out. A third of the membership was absurd enough to think Hunt was a good replacement for May . . . actual Francois-style extremist loons would be a tiny minority of both the membership and MPs and with a healthy majority would be on the sidelines.
I think you are underestimating how extreme the current Tory party membership is. Even before the influx of Kippers most of them thought Cameron and Osborn were dangerous liberals.
Not those I've come into contact with, nor those who post here.
What's your evidence for that or are you just casting aspersions and using stereotypes?
Let us not forget Cameron beat David Davis by the membership by two to one and I was happy to vote in that election for Cameron.
A lot of Lib Dem support has always been prompted by "a plague on both your houses" attitudes towards the main two parties, and some of that attitude also motivated Brexit. Politics is emotional more than rational for most people, including for most people who have convinced themselves that they are motivated rationally.
Yes, my politics is evidence based and rational, their politics is visceral and tribal.
I'm also a good driver. Only reason I keep having scrapes is all the bad ones.
In an alternative reality where Ed Davey leads the LDs and stands as the left of centre pragmatist, not revoking but suggesting deal versus remain referendum: Tories 34, LD 28, Labour 24
A lot of Lib Dem support has always been prompted by "a plague on both your houses" attitudes towards the main two parties, and some of that attitude also motivated Brexit. Politics is emotional more than rational for most people, including for most people who have convinced themselves that they are motivated rationally.
Yes, my politics is evidence based and rational, their politics is visceral and tribal.
I'm also a good driver. Only reason I keep having scrapes is all the bad ones.
I’m not as good a driver as I think I am.
As I can't multitask I don't think while I'm driving.
@Richard_Nabavi Actually thinking about it I'm not sure being from Surrey will neccesarily prevent the Tories winning Gateshead if they were going to anyway, impeccably southern credentials never stopped a certain Labour candidate winning Hartlepool
This all assumes that the new Tory MPs are the "right sort" as viewed by OGH (and others).
Yup, which they won't be. They'll be exceedingly ERGey.
He should have written the headline the other way around: A 14% CON lead would give the ERG the margin to stuff Johnson.
I actually wonder how long the Tories will stick with Boris after he's secured them their majority (assuming he does). Not long is my guess. They won't want some doddery old bumbler erring and umming around the place when a driven, committed, tooth-and-claw ultra is what they crave. Boris is merely a means to an end and will soon be a footnote.
You can not be serious.
Johnson having won the mayoralty twice, the Brexit referendum, an overwhelming majority in the leadership election and the General Election majority that eluded May [if it happens] would be completely secure in his job.
Even if he opts for a transition extension followed by a close deal with the EU and reverts to being the liberal he purported to be when London Mayor? Have you looked at the Tory membership lately?
Yes even if he does that. The idea he would be removed if he opts for an extension and/or a deal is as farcical as the suggestion he'd be unpopular and mortally wounded if Parliament stalled Brexit past Halloween.
He would have enough political capital from having secured a majority and getting us finally out to agree a deal - and if an extension becomes necessary and with no General Election he can easily agree an extension even if its not currently the plan.
The Tory membership are not as extreme as people make out. A third of the membership was absurd enough to think Hunt was a good replacement for May . . . actual Francois-style extremist loons would be a tiny minority of both the membership and MPs and with a healthy majority would be on the sidelines.
I think you are underestimating how extreme the current Tory party membership is. Even before the influx of Kippers most of them thought Cameron and Osborn were dangerous liberals.
I thought they were quite popular amongst the membership?
Personally I think there’s every chance of Lord Osborne taking a cabinet seat within the next couple of years.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Ah, the dumb adversarial mindset.
General elections can aim to achieve fair parliamentary representation of the broadest views of the electorate, and then let those views be mediated through the workings of parliamentary democracy.
Or they can simply take a slice of opinion and give it intermittent dictatorial powers and near-permanent power of patronage.
You favour the second approach, but all evidence suggests that countries favouring the first out-perform countries favouring the second on metrics of wellbeing, freedom, human development, etc.
Brilliant, Post of the week IMO.
People like Philip Thompson will always find ways to defend the indefensible because it gives them what they want and a fair system wouldn't. He'll be telling us FPTP produces strong stable governments in a minute!
This all assumes that the new Tory MPs are the "right sort" as viewed by OGH (and others).
Yup, which they won't be. They'll be exceedingly ERGey.
He should have written the headline the other way around: A 14% CON lead would give the ERG the margin to stuff Johnson.
I actually wonder how long the Tories will stick with Boris after he's secured them their majority (assuming he does). Not long is my guess. They won't want some doddery old bumbler erring and umming around the place when a driven, committed, tooth-and-claw ultra is what they crave. Boris is merely a means to an end and will soon be a footnote.
You can not be serious.
Johnson having won the mayoralty twice, the Brexit referendum, an overwhelming majority in the leadership election and the General Election majority that eluded May [if it happens] would be completely secure in his job.
Even if he opts for a transition extension followed by a close deal with the EU and reverts to being the liberal he purported to be when London Mayor? Have you looked at the Tory membership lately?
Yes even if he does that. The idea he would be removed if he opts for an extension and/or a deal is as farcical as the suggestion he'd be unpopular and mortally wounded if Parliament stalled Brexit past Halloween.
He would have enough political capital from having secured a majority and getting us finally out to agree a deal - and if an extension becomes necessary and with no General Election he can easily agree an extension even if its not currently the plan.
The Tory membership are not as extreme as people make out. A third of the membership was absurd enough to think Hunt was a good replacement for May . . . actual Francois-style extremist loons would be a tiny minority of both the membership and MPs and with a healthy majority would be on the sidelines.
I think you are underestimating how extreme the current Tory party membership is. Even before the influx of Kippers most of them thought Cameron and Osborn were dangerous liberals.
I thought they were quite popular amongst the membership?
Personally I think there’s every chance of Lord Osborne taking a cabinet seat within the next couple of years.
Chancellor from the Lords introducing his second long term economic plan?
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
Ah, being able to get a bet on with Victor Chandler! Makes me nostalgic for the old days. There were some ripe picking there in 2010, and I picked them.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket.
Edinburgh West for the SNP could be a value bet if the LibDems continue to lag in the polls, and Swinson faces a lot of hostile attention.
SCon under-performed their Scotland-wide recovery here in 2017 and that was probably due to considerable tactical voting, which I think will unwind in 2019.
Also, the Michelle Thomson backlash/negative publicity has dissipated somewhat.
Reminds me of that charge often leveled at someone "You're not as clever as you think you are."
Which always sends me into a tizz because of the implications of answering it.
If it's true you are bound to disagree. Although if you do disagree it does not mean that it is true. And if you agree it means it cannot be true. In which case you should not be agreeing.
This all assumes that the new Tory MPs are the "right sort" as viewed by OGH (and others).
Yup, which they won't be. They'll be exceedingly ERGey.
He should have written the headline the other way around: A 14% CON lead would give the ERG the margin to stuff Johnson.
I actually wonder how long the Tories will stick with Boris after he's secured them their majority (assuming he does). Not long is my guess. They won't want some doddery old bumbler erring and umming around the place when a driven, committed, tooth-and-claw ultra is what they crave. Boris is merely a means to an end and will soon be a footnote.
You can not be serious.
Johnson having won the mayoralty twice, the Brexit referendum, an overwhelming majority in the leadership election and the General Election majority that eluded May [if it happens] would be completely secure in his job.
Even if he opts for a transition extension followed by a close deal with the EU and reverts to being the liberal he purported to be when London Mayor? Have you looked at the Tory membership lately?
Yes even if he does that. The idea he would be removed if he opts for an extension and/or a deal is as farcical as the suggestion he'd be unpopular and mortally wounded if Parliament stalled Brexit past Halloween.
He would have enough political capital from having secured a majority and getting us finally out to agree a deal - and if an extension becomes necessary and with no General Election he can easily agree an extension even if its not currently the plan.
The Tory membership are not as extreme as people make out. A third of the membership was absurd enough to think Hunt was a good replacement for May . . . actual Francois-style extremist loons would be a tiny minority of both the membership and MPs and with a healthy majority would be on the sidelines.
I think you are underestimating how extreme the current Tory party membership is. Even before the influx of Kippers most of them thought Cameron and Osborn were dangerous liberals.
I thought they were quite popular amongst the membership?
Not according to ConHome surveys which HYUFD has assured me is the authentic voice of the Tory membership
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers. Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
Depends on the voting system, Mr Thompson. With a different system, everybody can feel that their voted has had some effect on the result. Not everybody would agree with you in thinking that it is right for the relative winner to take everything.
Indeed just as in different athletic systems even the small fat kid at the back of the race track can still get a medal.
I thought we were trying to find a way to determine who runs the country not stroke the egos of those who come last but hey-ho.
Amusing, but systems that skew the result so that many votes are 'wasted' such as strangely shaped districts in the US or FPTP in the UK are anti-democratic.
Gerrymandering is antidemocratic absolutely. Thankfully we don't have it in this country and have a respected independent commission to draw up our constituencies.
There is nothing anti-democratic about FPTP. About ensuring each constituency has a single locally-elected voice that reflects the priorities of the local area.
FPTP becomes less democratic the more the voters support is split between parties. I don't see how anybody can be happy with a 'winner' achieving say 30%.
sarissa said: "Edinburgh West for the SNP could be a value bet if the LibDems continue to lag in the polls, and Swinson faces a lot of hostile attention."
Thanks for that.
For the record, I like Scunthorpe for Labour at 11/8 with Bet365
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Interesting that "Prime Minister" Jo Swinson seems to have lost over a quarter of those who think she would make best PM. A similar proportion to the fall in vote share for her party since she started with this crazy "I can be PM too" meme....
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers. Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
Depends on the voting system, Mr Thompson. With a different system, everybody can feel that their voted has had some effect on the result. Not everybody would agree with you in thinking that it is right for the relative winner to take everything.
Indeed just as in different athletic systems even the small fat kid at the back of the race track can still get a medal.
I thought we were trying to find a way to determine who runs the country not stroke the egos of those who come last but hey-ho.
Amusing, but systems that skew the result so that many votes are 'wasted' such as strangely shaped districts in the US or FPTP in the UK are anti-democratic.
Gerrymandering is antidemocratic absolutely. Thankfully we don't have it in this country and have a respected independent commission to draw up our constituencies.
There is nothing anti-democratic about FPTP. About ensuring each constituency has a single locally-elected voice that reflects the priorities of the local area.
FPTP becomes less democratic the more the voters support is split between parties. I don't see how anybody can be happy with a 'winner' achieving say 30%.
There's not that many constituencies where the winner achieves 30%, extraordinarily few if any. Even North East Fife didn't go that low and it had the lowest majority of all.
Interesting that "Prime Minister" Jo Swinson seems to have lost over a quarter of those who think she would make best PM. A similar proportion to the fall in vote share for her party since she started with this crazy "I can be PM too" meme....
Interesting that "Prime Minister" Jo Swinson seems to have lost over a quarter of those who think she would make best PM. A similar proportion to the fall in vote share for her party since she started with this crazy "I can be PM too" meme....
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course you should have minority rights and the right to oppose, I never said otherwise so not sure what point you're trying to make. 🤦♂️
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
Depends how you define a good night for the Lib Dems.
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
"The February 1974 United Kingdom general election was held on the 28th day of that month. The Labour Party led by former Prime Minister Harold Wilson made moderate gains, but was short of an overall majority.This resulted in a hung parliament ... Labour won 301 seats, 17 short of a majority.
There was another election in October.
I even just about remember the headlines “three’s a crowd” because that was Wilson’s majority. Makes me feel well old!
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course there must be respect for minority rights and a right to oppose. But too often now Remainers and those opposed to the Government interpret this as meaning they must get their own way or else they are somehow being oppressed.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
Depends how you define a good night for the Lib Dems.
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course you should have minority rights and the right to oppose, I never said otherwise so not sure what point you're trying to make. 🤦♂️
What should the primary aim of an electoral system be if not to produce a parliament that accurately reflects what the people have voted for?
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket.
Edinburgh West for the SNP could be a value bet if the LibDems continue to lag in the polls, and Swinson faces a lot of hostile attention.
SCon under-performed their Scotland-wide recovery here in 2017 and that was probably due to considerable tactical voting, which I think will unwind in 2019.
Also, the Michelle Thomson backlash/negative publicity has dissipated somewhat.
As ever, DYOR.
However Swinson has a Willie so all should be well.
It is clear the public have had enough of Brexit and want it resolved. "Get Brexit done" is a simple and powerful message.
Unilateral revocation and/or yet more referenda (alongside utter confusion on which side the Labour Party would fall) are proving unsurprisingly unappealing alternatives.
Trouble is, Getting Brexit Done will not get Brexit done because we'd still be negotiating in a transition period, and nor will it solve any of the political and economic problems of many Leave voters.
100% correct, which is why I agree with (I think) Stodge that the wheels will come off a Johnson win pretty darn quickly. By the summer of 2020, when we are forced to extend the transition period, people will realise they've been led down the garden path.
But really, its their fault for not understanding what 'done' means (ie, not done). Everyone on here knows the WA doesn't get Brexit done. It isn't hard to find out. Just people (voters) choose not to, but instead believe a three word lie (they did that back in 2016 so there is certainly precedent).
Interesting that "Prime Minister" Jo Swinson seems to have lost over a quarter of those who think she would make best PM. A similar proportion to the fall in vote share for her party since she started with this crazy "I can be PM too" meme....
SHE has really bothered you, hasn't SHE?
Nope. Dispassionate political observation.
Keep looking for misogyny to tar me with if you like. You won't find it. There's far more men I dislike in politics.....
Interesting that "Prime Minister" Jo Swinson seems to have lost over a quarter of those who think she would make best PM. A similar proportion to the fall in vote share for her party since she started with this crazy "I can be PM too" meme....
This totally fits in to what I've been hearing on the doorstep..
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course you should have minority rights and the right to oppose, I never said otherwise so not sure what point you're trying to make. 🤦♂️
What should the primary aim of an electoral system be if not to produce a parliament that accurately reflects what the people have voted for?
FPTP does accurately reflect what the people have voted for. Each constituency has one locally chosen person that reflects that areas votes.
I'm not sure why votes here in the NW should be mixed in with votes from London, or even Manchester or elsewhere when we have different priorities and issues.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
Depends how you define a good night for the Lib Dems.
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
Very few from Labour. In London, maybe Bermondsey & Old Southwark, but on the most recent polling seats like that are looking more out of reach than they seemed a couple of weeks ago.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
Depends how you define a good night for the Lib Dems.
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
Hallam. Very easily.
Yes that should be so far in the bag I'd forgotten about it already. It would be an insane night for them not to retake that.
Reminds me of that charge often leveled at someone "You're not as clever as you think you are."
Which always sends me into a tizz because of the implications of answering it.
If it's true you are bound to disagree. Although if you do disagree it does not mean that it is true. And if you agree it means it cannot be true. In which case you should not be agreeing.
Reminds me of that charge often leveled at someone "You're not as clever as you think you are."
Which always sends me into a tizz because of the implications of answering it.
If it's true you are bound to disagree. Although if you do disagree it does not mean that it is true. And if you agree it means it cannot be true. In which case you should not be agreeing.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
Depends how you define a good night for the Lib Dems.
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
Very few from Labour. In London, maybe Bermondsey & Old Southwark, but on the most recent polling seats like that are looking more out of reach than they seemed a couple of weeks ago.
In which case what are you defining as 'not a terrible night' for the Lib Dems?
Seems quite possible now that even with a few gains the Lib Dems will end the election with fewer MPs than they had at dissolution. That surely would be a terrible night for "next PM" Swinson and her team?
Comments
Tony? No, not the straightest of politicians. Very much not.
And I agree, not the same ballpark. Very different types of dishonest personalities. One grandiose and delusional, the other skittish and essentially vacuous.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
"Placed my first bet of the GE - an outside punt on Con to win Gateshead at 16/1. On paper this is a very safe Labour seat with a 17k majority but there is no Brexit party candidate and it is estimated the seat was 58% leave. Electoral Calculus are currently only estimating Labour to win by 300 votes so got to be some value there. Downside is the Con candidate lives in Surrey."
What makes you think that there`s no Brexit Party candidate?
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
They will have nice, strong, stable corruption though. Hooray.
Happy to hear counter-evidence and I acknowledge that those MPs on this board ( @NickPalmer and @Tissue_Price ) and activists/canvassers (@MarqueeMark, @david_herdson , @isam , @HYUFD, others? ) are decent fellows, but party members, activists and MPs do have a tendency to not just repeat the party line but also believe it, and also later believe the exact opposite if expedient. It is a striking characteristic.
Plus the use of arguments from the political toolset ("that study has been discredited"/ad hominem attacks/"I find it interesting that"/no assumption of innocence/others) that civilians use less.
General elections can aim to achieve fair parliamentary representation of the broadest views of the electorate, and then let those views be mediated through the workings of parliamentary democracy.
Or they can simply take a slice of opinion and give it intermittent dictatorial powers and near-permanent power of patronage.
You favour the second approach, but all evidence suggests that countries favouring the first out-perform countries favouring the second on metrics of wellbeing, freedom, human development, etc.
I thought we were trying to find a way to determine who runs the country not stroke the egos of those who come last but hey-ho.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket.
And please don't cherrypick one of two tiny nations from the first outperforming one or two from the second, lets seem some proper evidence that the median of the first outperforms the median of the second and where you got that from.
(it's this one. See this list for the many catchphrases that entered popular culture.)
FWIW, and speaking as someone who left the Conservative Party recently because of the direction it has taken, I don't think Conservative Party members are extreme. Nearly all of them I know are very reasonable and pleasant people, with much more nuanced views than you would think, for example on immigration and on welfare (I've led some policy forums on such issues). However, I do think that many of them have lost sight of their original objectives on Brexit.
Party members are ordinary, decent, somewhat more politically-engaged than normal, but still normal overall people.
There is nothing anti-democratic about FPTP. About ensuring each constituency has a single locally-elected voice that reflects the priorities of the local area.
It is no good changing the voting system without firstly addressing the excessive influence of the party over the elected representative.
It is one strength of Conservatives MPs over Labour. The former will rebel, the later say they might rebel, but very few do.
You can tell I like chaos!
Remarkable.
Preference for Prime Minister:
B. Johnson: 47% (+6)
J. Corbyn: 16% (-2)
J. Swinson: 15% (-6)
via @Survation
Chgs. w/ Sep
https://t.co/LEcwgMAfr3
I'm also a good driver. Only reason I keep having scrapes is all the bad ones.
What's your evidence for that or are you just casting aspersions and using stereotypes?
Let us not forget Cameron beat David Davis by the membership by two to one and I was happy to vote in that election for Cameron.
Says the man planning to put 200 ISPs out of business.
Tories 34, LD 28, Labour 24
People like Philip Thompson will always find ways to defend the indefensible because it gives them what they want and a fair system wouldn't. He'll be telling us FPTP produces strong stable governments in a minute!
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1196433591904952320?s=20
"Anyone fancy Labour to hold on in Peterborough?
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
SCon under-performed their Scotland-wide recovery here in 2017 and that was probably due to considerable tactical voting, which I think will unwind in 2019.
Also, the Michelle Thomson backlash/negative publicity has dissipated somewhat.
As ever, DYOR.
Reminds me of that charge often leveled at someone "You're not as clever as you think you are."
Which always sends me into a tizz because of the implications of answering it.
If it's true you are bound to disagree. Although if you do disagree it does not mean that it is true. And if you agree it means it cannot be true. In which case you should not be agreeing.
Thanks for that.
For the record, I like Scunthorpe for Labour at 11/8 with Bet365
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
I even just about remember the headlines “three’s a crowd” because that was Wilson’s majority. Makes me feel well old!
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/1196435679158423559?s=20
https://twitter.com/stvewan/status/1196393701712547841?s=20
Keep looking for misogyny to tar me with if you like. You won't find it. There's far more men I dislike in politics.....
I'm not sure why votes here in the NW should be mixed in with votes from London, or even Manchester or elsewhere when we have different priorities and issues.
Seems quite possible now that even with a few gains the Lib Dems will end the election with fewer MPs than they had at dissolution. That surely would be a terrible night for "next PM" Swinson and her team?