I should say I yet again received Lib Dem propaganda. It is literally daily. I wonder if they really are just targeting a very small number of seats really hard?
Maybe it’s just your house?
How are they managing to do. all this and stay within their expenses total. They are aware arent they that centrally posted material during the period goes against individual candidates returns now? That is a rule change.
The LDs will get 15%. Jo Swinson will boast of almost doubling her party's vote share. But it will mostly just result in a load of second places. 19-23 seats.
The Labour Party will lose 60 seats to the Conservatives. They will also lose half their Scottish seats to the SNP. It won't be a total meltdown, but it won't be pretty.
And the Conservatives will end up winning 60 from the Labour Party, losing only two or three net to the LibDems, and actually gaining a seat in Scotland.
Boris Johnson will be sitting on a majority of 110.
You also deserve a special commendation for daring to suggest on PB that the Yellow Team are set to do so disastrously
Is it a disastrous performance?
The LDs will have recovered to a seat total only beaten in the post war period during the 13 years between 1997 and 2010. To get there from almost being wiped out in 2015 (and then to go backwards vote share-wise in 2017) is a decent performance.
Now, it's not challenging for government, or even for second place. But it wasn't long ago on this site that posters suggested that getting above 12% in a general election would be a decade-long challenge.
What the BBC said in advance about their debate audience:
"How is the audience picked?
The audience will be selected by the Question Time production team to reflect how people in the country have voted. People apply online or by phone and will be asked about their past voting patterns and future voting intentions, whether they're members of political parties, and how they voted in the EU referendum.
The BBC aims to represent audiences across the UK during its election coverage, so while the audience will probably be broadly local to the venue, to ensure there are sufficient supporters of all the parties some will have travelled further."
I would love the BBC to answer this: how many of that audience voted Leave? They must know. They asked them.
Good question but not a cat in hell's chance of obtaining any reply!
But OGH has his connections into the BBC....Surely he could get that information revealed?
Maybe, maybe not, but if he can't, there are surely others who can, like for instance fair-minded BBC Governors ... oh come on, there must be one or two!
What the BBC said in advance about their debate audience:
"How is the audience picked?
The audience will be selected by the Question Time production team to reflect how people in the country have voted. People apply online or by phone and will be asked about their past voting patterns and future voting intentions, whether they're members of political parties, and how they voted in the EU referendum.
The BBC aims to represent audiences across the UK during its election coverage, so while the audience will probably be broadly local to the venue, to ensure there are sufficient supporters of all the parties some will have travelled further."
I would love the BBC to answer this: how many of that audience voted Leave? They must know. They asked them.
I have an entirely non-conspiracy theory.
Younger people are more likely to be left wing, more likely to be pro-EU, more like to be Labour supporters, and are more likely to be boo and hiss and be loud.
A representative sample of the population, might tut tut Jeremy Corbyn, but it would boo Boris Johnson. That's not bias. It's simply a consequence of the median Conservative supporter being a decade and a half older than the median Labour supporter.
People should try to keep a sense of proportion, that's all I am saying. A Corbyn government is gong to be akin to the Russian Revolution or the rise of the Nazis.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner for Freudian slip of the 21st century.
Haha yes well, you knew what I meant!
Well, I will admit it was perhaps not quite as good as the moment Corbyn said as a good democrat he would never prorogue Parliament.
What he meant of course was he would never misuse prerogative powers as Johnson had.
What he said was he would abolish elections.
Incidentally I do not expect a Corbyn government to be like War Communism under Lenin. However, there is a distinct possibility their policies would lead to a Venezuela outcome. Indeed, as we have fewer natural resources than Venezuela we are considerably more vulnerable to the graft, greed and mismanagement of Socialism than they are.
I have recently got to know a young, smart, politically aware Venezuelan lady. Maria. She’s the kind of woman who might be a passionate Corbynite or XR-er if she were British
She fears, despises and loathes Corbyn. Because her family (not posh) suffered so much under Chavez. Including rape and death. Her Venezuelan husband encountered Corbyn on a train a few weeks go, and he went up to Jeremy to have words. Jeremy shrank away.
We need to listen to the Venezuelan people, not to Jeremy and his pals.
I have nothing good to say on Chavez. But Johnson and the Tories have been providing arms to Saudi. To decimate people. Even worse.
And, like Corbyn and co, Johnson and co have kept company with nefarious people at home and abroad.
Two wrongs don't make a right. One bad act doesn't justify another.
But if you're judging decision-makers and/or encouraging people to vote on that basis, compare evenly.
Either you haven't read the posts or you are misunderstanding them. It's not about his association with Chavez, or the neo-Nazi movement for that matter. It's about the very real risk that his policies would cause a Venezuela type implosion.
So the rest of your whataboutery is irrelevant. Yes, we all know Johnson associates with scumbags almost as loathsome as Corbyn's friends. But he's not the one proposing to print half a trillion quid to give his mates multiple orgasms by nationalising everything.
As for your claim lower down that you have never considered voting Labour, that's about as convincing as Corbyn's claim that he was present but not involved.
To be fair one can see the attraction of 'we voted so we ought to...' and 'Get Brexit done'. Boris' insistence on 'getting the country going' is attractive too. TBH, as a staunch Remainer..... I'm sure we're far, far better off in the EC ....... I suspect we're going to have to jump into the cold water and realise it IS cold and debilitating, rather than energising.
Return rather than Revoke!
Unless, of course, the eleven months from January to December 2020 prove so debilitating that everything collapses.
'Getting Brexit Done' is a completely misleading slogan (unsurprisingly since it's from Boris and Dominic Cummings). If there is a majority Tory government the Withdrawal Agreement will pass but he's only given himself a year to agree an FTA which is much too short. It's as though he would rather exit with No Deal. So in a years time we'll be back in a Brexit crisis.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner for Freudian slip of the 21st century.
Haha yes well, you knew what I meant!
Well, I will admit it was perhaps not quite as good as the moment Corbyn said as a good democrat he would never prorogue Parliament.
What he meant of course was he would never misuse prerogative powers as Johnson had.
What he said was he would abolish elections.
Incidentally I do not expect a Corbyn government to be like War Communism under Lenin. However, there is a distinct possibility their policies would lead to a Venezuela outcome. Indeed, as we have fewer natural resources than Venezuela we are considerably more vulnerable to the graft, greed and mismanagement of Socialism than they are.
I have recently got to know a young, smart, politically aware Venezuelan lady. Maria. She’s the kind of woman who might be a passionate Corbynite or XR-er if she were British
She fears, despises and loathes Corbyn. Because her family (not posh) suffered so much under Chavez. Including rape and death. Her Venezuelan husband encountered Corbyn on a train a few weeks go, and he went up to Jeremy to have words. Jeremy shrank away.
We need to listen to the Venezuelan people, not to Jeremy and his pals.
I have nothing good to say on Chavez. But Johnson and the Tories have been providing arms to Saudi. To decimate people. Even worse.
And, like Corbyn and co, Johnson and co have kept company with nefarious people at home and abroad.
Two wrongs don't make a right. One bad act doesn't justify another.
But if you're judging decision-makers and/or encouraging people to vote on that basis, compare evenly.
Either you haven't read the posts or you are misunderstanding them. It's not about his association with Chavez, or the neo-Nazi movement for that matter. It's about the very real risk that his policies would cause a Venezuela type implosion.
So the rest of your whataboutery is irrelevant. Yes, we all know Johnson associates with scumbags almost as loathsome as Corbyn's friends. But he's not the one proposing to print half a trillion quid to give his mates multiple orgasms by nationalising everything.
As for your claim lower down that you have never considered voting Labour, that's about as convincing as Corbyn's claim that he was present but not involved.
But here's the thing.
Say the House of Saud is worse than Chavez and his cronies... well, it's not like the Conservatives have been going around lauding them. Corbyn and his crew lionised the rule of Chavez.
Some also worried about what state-run broadband would actually be like: “Slow. Unreliable;” “They’d be able to listen down every Alexa in every house;” “It screams ‘state-owned internet’ to me. It’s not going to be North Korea, but it does scream ‘control’; “It would be like Big Brother, with all your personal details and social media profiles and everything else. Would you want that in a government-owned business?
The eavesdropping seems a bit OTT, but when it comes to tech people do really worry about this stuff.
I think this policy would have been a lot more popular if they hadn't gone with the state owned monopoly ISP. I doubt people would have been up in arms at the backbone infrastructure stuff they don't really understand.
I am one of hundreds of local volunteers who have put time and our own money in rural broadband - 1 gig broadband to the home - B4RN - Broadband for the Rural North. This not for profit organisation charges £30 per calander month now it is installed. People have invested about £6M into the project and even more volunteer hours in digging / designing routes and installing. It was the AGM last Monday, perhaps 200 there. The top table was trying to be diplomatic but they were finding it hard. They thought Con proposals very good, continuation of existing environment under which independents like us have prospered. Not sure about LD but thought would continue existing environment. Labour ? Questions as to what would happen should B4RN be nationalised. First answer was disingenuous - thought company would survive or be integrated into BT. Second answer, would shareholders be recompensed ?
Seems we would be given bonds probably redeemable in bolivars. As for our hard work, tens of thousands of hours ...
The Labour position is unlikely to do them much harm in the northern part of B4RN but Cat Smith is hardly likely to prosper.
Looking at where the Tories are holding GOTV efforts it seems like they are being very conservative about what they think should be targets. Sensible, not to get carried away.
People should try to keep a sense of proportion, that's all I am saying. A Corbyn government is gong to be akin to the Russian Revolution or the rise of the Nazis.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner for Freudian slip of the 21st century.
Haha yes well, you knew what I meant!
Well, I will admit it was perhaps not quite as good as the moment Corbyn said as a good democrat he would never prorogue Parliament.
What he meant of course was he would never misuse prerogative powers as Johnson had.
What he said was he would abolish elections.
Incidentally I do not expect a Corbyn government to be like War Communism under Lenin. However, there is a distinct possibility their policies would lead to a Venezuela outcome. Indeed, as we have fewer natural resources than Venezuela we are considerably more vulnerable to the they are.
I have recently got to know a young, smart, politically aware Venezuelan lady. Maria. She’s the kind of woman who might be a passionate Corbynite or XR-er if she were British
She fears, despises and loathes Corbyn. Because her family (not posh) suffered so much under Chavez. Including rape and death. Her Venezuelan husband encountered Corbyn on a train a few weeks go, and he went up to Jeremy to have words. Jeremy shrank away.
We need to listen to the Venezuelan people, not to Jeremy and his pals.
I have nothing good to say on Chavez. But Johnson and the Tories have been providing arms to Saudi. To decimate people. Even worse.
And, like Corbyn and co, Johnson and co have kept company with nefarious people at home and abroad.
Two wrongs don't make a right. One bad act doesn't justify another.
But if you're judging decision-makers and/or encouraging people to vote on that basis, compare evenly.
Either you haven't read the posts or you are misunderstanding them. It's not about his association with Chavez, or the neo-Nazi movement for that matter. It's about the very real risk that his policies would cause a Venezuela type implosion.
So the rest of your whataboutery is irrelevant. Yes, we all know Johnson associates with scumbags almost as loathsome as Corbyn's friends. But he's not the one proposing to print half a trillion quid to give his mates multiple orgasms by nationalising everything.
As for your claim lower down that you have never considered voting Labour, that's about as convincing as Corbyn's claim that he was present but not involved.
Boris mates have multiple organs about a hard Brexit, which if he gets a majority might only be a year away with no way of stopping it.
The LDs will get 15%. Jo Swinson will boast of almost doubling her party's vote share. But it will mostly just result in a load of second places. 19-23 seats.
The Labour Party will lose 60 seats to the Conservatives. They will also lose half their Scottish seats to the SNP. It won't be a total meltdown, but it won't be pretty.
And the Conservatives will end up winning 60 from the Labour Party, losing only two or three net to the LibDems, and actually gaining a seat in Scotland.
Boris Johnson will be sitting on a majority of 110.
You also deserve a special commendation for daring to suggest on PB that the Yellow Team are set to do so disastrously
Is it a disastrous performance?
The LDs will have recovered to a seat total only beaten in the post war period during the 13 years between 1997 and 2010. To get there from almost being wiped out in 2015 (and then to go backwards vote share-wise in 2017) is a decent performance.
Now, it's not challenging for government, or even for second place. But it wasn't long ago on this site that posters suggested that getting above 12% in a general election would be a decade-long challenge.
OK, disastrous is probably too strong a word, but <20 seats (or fewer than 4 London Cabs-full in PBspeak) would surely be hugely disappointing for the LDs. Just a few weeks ago they were around the high forties mark on the spreads in terms of winning GE seats. To have fallen by possibly more than half that figure so quickly certainly would take a lot of explaining by the leadership, but I think most of us in all truth know the underlying reason and unfortuately for her, it's mainly down to Swinson.
Looking at where the Tories are holding GOTV efforts it seems like they are being very conservative about what they think should be targets. Sensible, not to get carried away.
Labour voters have stopped reading the Sun. There's a surprise!
They'd better believe that at Millbank Tower, otherwise the portent is indeed dire.
Well we know that politics is shifting from class to age and education. By caricature at least, the Sun was a working class paper. It isn’t an educated person’s paper, and younger people don’t read newspapers at all. So it isn’t entirely unrealistic.
Say the House of Saud is worse than Chavez and his cronies... well, it's not like the Conservatives have been going around lauding them. Corbyn and his crew lionised the rule of Chavez.
It isn't the tories that sell arms to Saudi Arabia anyway, its the UK. eurofighter deal 2005. Secret attempt by PM to stifle SFO enquiry 2006. Not a tory PM.
The LDs will get 15%. Jo Swinson will boast of almost doubling her party's vote share. But it will mostly just result in a load of second places. 19-23 seats.
The Labour Party will lose 60 seats to the Conservatives. They will also lose half their Scottish seats to the SNP. It won't be a total meltdown, but it won't be pretty.
And the Conservatives will end up winning 60 from the Labour Party, losing only two or three net to the LibDems, and actually gaining a seat in Scotland.
Boris Johnson will be sitting on a majority of 110.
Say the House of Saud is worse than Chavez and his cronies... well, it's not like the Conservatives have been going around lauding them. Corbyn and his crew lionised the rule of Chavez.
It isn't the tories that sell arms to Saudi Arabia anyway, its the UK. eurofighter deal 2005. Secret attempt by PM to stifle SFO enquiry 2006. Not a tory PM.
The tories decided to do Op Shader using Typhoons (£80,000 per hour) to drop Paveway IVs (£70,000 each) on Toyota HiLuxes in Iraq and Syria that were (partially) paid for by money the Qataris gave ISIS. Meanwhile, somewhere in Lincolnshire, the RAF operates a joint squadron (12(B)) with the QEAF because we've sold them 24 Typhoons.
Labour voters have stopped reading the Sun. There's a surprise!
They'd better believe that at Millbank Tower, otherwise the portent is indeed dire.
Well we know that politics is shifting from class to age and education. By caricature at least, the Sun was a working class paper. It isn’t an educated person’s paper, and younger people don’t read newspapers at all. So it isn’t entirely unrealistic.
In 2017 over half of Sun readers didn't vote, I'd guess it'll be similar this time. It looks like a voodoo poll anyway.
I have nothing good to say on Chavez. But Johnson and the Tories have been providing arms to Saudi. To decimate people. Even worse.
And, like Corbyn and co, Johnson and co have kept company with nefarious people at home and abroad.
Two wrongs don't make a right. One bad act doesn't justify another.
But if you're judging decision-makers and/or encouraging people to vote on that basis, compare evenly.
Either you haven't read the posts or you are misunderstanding them. It's not about his association with Chavez, or the neo-Nazi movement for that matter. It's about the very real risk that his policies would cause a Venezuela type implosion.
So the rest of your whataboutery is irrelevant. Yes, we all know Johnson associates with scumbags almost as loathsome as Corbyn's friends. But he's not the one proposing to print half a trillion quid to give his mates multiple orgasms by nationalising everything.
As for your claim lower down that you have never considered voting Labour, that's about as convincing as Corbyn's claim that he was present but not involved.
But here's the thing.
Say the House of Saud is worse than Chavez and his cronies... well, it's not like the Conservatives have been going around lauding them. Corbyn and his crew lionised the rule of Chavez.
Also, a further point to consider, nobody is suggesting we imitate the Saudis (well, apart from some of our nuttier fundamentalists).
Corbyn’s manifesto is a highly expensive ripoff of Chavez’s.
I have nothing good to say on Chavez. But Johnson and the Tories have been providing arms to Saudi. To decimate people. Even worse.
And, like Corbyn and co, Johnson and co have kept company with nefarious people at home and abroad.
Two wrongs don't make a right. One bad act doesn't justify another.
But if you're judging decision-makers and/or encouraging people to vote on that basis, compare evenly.
Either you haven't read the posts or you are misunderstanding them. It's not about his association with Chavez, or the neo-Nazi movement for that matter. It's about the very real risk that his policies would cause a Venezuela type implosion.
So the rest of your whataboutery is irrelevant. Yes, we all know Johnson associates with scumbags almost as loathsome as Corbyn's friends. But he's not the one proposing to print half a trillion quid to give his mates multiple orgasms by nationalising everything.
As for your claim lower down that you have never considered voting Labour, that's about as convincing as Corbyn's claim that he was present but not involved.
But here's the thing.
Say the House of Saud is worse than Chavez and his cronies... well, it's not like the Conservatives have been going around lauding them. Corbyn and his crew lionised the rule of Chavez.
Also, a further point to consider, nobody is suggesting we imitate the Saudis (well, apart from some of our nuttier fundamentalists).
Corbyn’s manifesto is a highly expensive ripoff of Chavez’s.
Some Tory Brexiteers advocate we emulate Singapore. Not good at all.
The LDs will get 15%. Jo Swinson will boast of almost doubling her party's vote share. But it will mostly just result in a load of second places. 19-23 seats.
The Labour Party will lose 60 seats to the Conservatives. They will also lose half their Scottish seats to the SNP. It won't be a total meltdown, but it won't be pretty.
And the Conservatives will end up winning 60 from the Labour Party, losing only two or three net to the LibDems, and actually gaining a seat in Scotland.
Boris Johnson will be sitting on a majority of 110.
You also deserve a special commendation for daring to suggest on PB that the Yellow Team are set to do so disastrously
Is it a disastrous performance?
The LDs will have recovered to a seat total only beaten in the post war period during the 13 years between 1997 and 2010. To get there from almost being wiped out in 2015 (and then to go backwards vote share-wise in 2017) is a decent performance.
Now, it's not challenging for government, or even for second place. But it wasn't long ago on this site that posters suggested that getting above 12% in a general election would be a decade-long challenge.
OK, disastrous is probably too strong a word, but <20 seats (or fewer than 4 London Cabs-full in PBspeak) would surely be hugely disappointing for the LDs. Just a few weeks ago they were around the high forties mark on the spreads in terms of winning GE seats. To have fallen by possibly more than half that figure so quickly certainly would take a lot of explaining by the leadership, but I think most of us in all truth know the underlying reason and unfortuately for her, it's mainly down to Swinson. </p>
She’ll get the blame, but she isn’t the reason. The reason is Johnson called the election twelve months too soon for them, before Labour had time to crumble further. That forced a polarisation of the electorate.
Arguably the best outcome now for the Liberal Democrats is a lot of strong second places and about 30 gains in a hung parliament with both main parties falling back. They could then force an election next year from a position of comparative strength. But unless the Tories implies that now looks rather unlikely.
The LDs will get 15%. Jo Swinson will boast of almost doubling her party's vote share. But it will mostly just result in a load of second places. 19-23 seats.
The Labour Party will lose 60 seats to the Conservatives. They will also lose half their Scottish seats to the SNP. It won't be a total meltdown, but it won't be pretty.
And the Conservatives will end up winning 60 from the Labour Party, losing only two or three net to the LibDems, and actually gaining a seat in Scotland.
Boris Johnson will be sitting on a majority of 110.
Not far out in my view except I cannot see the Lib Dems exceeding their present 13 MPs - 6 or 7 more likely.
The LDs will get 15%. Jo Swinson will boast of almost doubling her party's vote share. But it will mostly just result in a load of second places. 19-23 seats.
The Labour Party will lose 60 seats to the Conservatives. They will also lose half their Scottish seats to the SNP. It won't be a total meltdown, but it won't be pretty.
And the Conservatives will end up winning 60 from the Labour Party, losing only two or three net to the LibDems, and actually gaining a seat in Scotland.
Boris Johnson will be sitting on a majority of 110.
You also deserve a special commendation for daring to suggest on PB that the Yellow Team are set to do so disastrously
Is it a disastrous performance?
The LDs will have recovered to a seat total only beaten in the post war period during the 13 years between 1997 and 2010. To get there from almost being wiped out in 2015 (and then to go backwards vote share-wise in 2017) is a decent performance.
Now, it's not challenging for government, or even for second place. But it wasn't long ago on this site that posters suggested that getting above 12% in a general election would be a decade-long challenge.
OK, disastrous is probably too strong a word, but <20 seats (or fewer than 4 London Cabs-full in PBspeak) would surely be hugely disappointing for the LDs. Just a few weeks ago they were around the high forties mark on the spreads in terms of winning GE seats. To have fallen by possibly more than half that figure so quickly certainly would take a lot of explaining by the leadership, but I think most of us in all truth know the underlying reason and unfortuately for her, it's mainly down to Swinson. </p>
Arguable - and I'd wait until after the campaign to draw that conclusion. Viewers saw last night how well she can perform in what was clearly the toughest spot. Decisions about strategy and policy appear responsible for the currently struggling campaign, together with some basic organisational stuff such as getting some supporters into last night's audience. The leader's direct decision making powers are fairly limited in the LDs; the revoke decision wont have been hers.
I should say I yet again received Lib Dem propaganda. It is literally daily. I wonder if they really are just targeting a very small number of seats really hard?
Maybe it’s just your house?
How are they managing to do. all this and stay within their expenses total. They are aware arent they that centrally posted material during the period goes against individual candidates returns now? That is a rule change.
Delivering to FO's house wont be that expensive
More seriously, a lot of active LibDem local parties have their own printing equipment and can legitimately charge the campaign at material cost price, the labour provided free as for any volunteer campaigner.
The LDs will get 15%. Jo Swinson will boast of almost doubling her party's vote share. But it will mostly just result in a load of second places. 19-23 seats.
The Labour Party will lose 60 seats to the Conservatives. They will also lose half their Scottish seats to the SNP. It won't be a total meltdown, but it won't be pretty.
And the Conservatives will end up winning 60 from the Labour Party, losing only two or three net to the LibDems, and actually gaining a seat in Scotland.
Boris Johnson will be sitting on a majority of 110.
And TSE will rend his garments in twain, Boris having restored a majority that May lost - and of a size that his Dream Team of David Cameron and George Osborne could never even dream about.
Bold call on SCons. Feel Boris will suffer some losses.
On Labour seats won - 60 is at the point where Labour's entire election spend on their fire wall has been utterly wasted. The great unknown for me is that next tier of seats beyond, where they have always been Labour and never had to make a meaningful defence since 1987 - or maybe even before. How equipped are they to get out their vote in these seats if Boris actually proves popular? Or Corbyn and his Grand Socialist Plan proves not?
There are 99 Labour seats held with a majority of under 10,000. There are very few of those that at this point can be utterly relaxed about holding their seat. On a really bad night for Labour, their majorities have just stayed home to watch the telly, rather than gone over to Boris. If numbers of them defy tradition and go over to Boris in heavy Leave seats - who knows where their losses might end.
Excellent point - safe / safeish seats do not have the background information to mount any defence in extreme times viz Labour 83, 87; Con 1997, 2001
That's the SNP's main problem summarised in a tweet. If the Scottish Government could provide all those (very largely middle class) freebies, like relief from tuition fees, prescription charges and social care costs, *AND* balance the budget then the 2014 referendum would most likely have had a different result and Scotland would already be independent by now.
But it can't, which leaves all the swing voters to imagine what goodies they will have to do without and/or how much more they'll be made to cough up in tax. That much said...
The LDs will get 15%. Jo Swinson will boast of almost doubling her party's vote share. But it will mostly just result in a load of second places. 19-23 seats.
The Labour Party will lose 60 seats to the Conservatives. They will also lose half their Scottish seats to the SNP. It won't be a total meltdown, but it won't be pretty.
And the Conservatives will end up winning 60 from the Labour Party, losing only two or three net to the LibDems, and actually gaining a seat in Scotland.
Boris Johnson will be sitting on a majority of 110.
It would be a big surprise if the SNP were to more-or-less tread water as @rcs1000 suggests. In fact, if SLAB survive this with 3 or 4 of their little collection of MPs intact and SCON actually advance it'll be utterly astonishing.
As far as the remainder of that prediction goes, I wish I could be that optimistic about the prospects for Labour getting a shellacking, but I'm still very worried that a lot more of the automatons are going to end up obeying their homing signals and Labour will be back up to 35% by polling day. The Lib Dem seat prediction is roughly in accordance with my own expectations, but I fancy they might be down to about 12% nationwide.
Massive surge in voter registration yesterday . Over 300,000 . Over two thirds of that was people under 34.
Isn't that similar to what happened in 2017? Is there any evidence that this contributed to Labour's late surge then
Voter registration is running well ahead of where it was in 2017 . There was an increase in younger turnout last time more pronounced in Remain areas .
Looking at where the Tories are holding GOTV efforts it seems like they are being very conservative about what they think should be targets. Sensible, not to get carried away.
Carshalton seems an odd choice. Yes, it was close-ish last time but the LibDems are on the rise in London (aren't they?).
Only place in London that they went backwards in last years locals...
It voted LEAVE as well didn't it?
Yes 56-44..but as others have said Brake is a limpet. There are some local.issues as well that could affect him such as an incinerator being built and very very unpopular parking policies put in by the lib dem council which Brake has refused to criticise.
Watching Question Time on catchup. Half way through Corbyn. An odd audience. Half seem to clap wildly every time he takes a breath, the other half asking abusive questions. And some gave him a standing ovation when he entered... Will be interesting to see if the others get the same
I should say I yet again received Lib Dem propaganda. It is literally daily. I wonder if they really are just targeting a very small number of seats really hard?
Maybe it’s just your house?
How are they managing to do. all this and stay within their expenses total. They are aware arent they that centrally posted material during the period goes against individual candidates returns now? That is a rule change.
Delivering to FO's house wont be that expensive
More seriously, a lot of active LibDem local parties have their own printing equipment and can legitimately charge the campaign at material cost price, the labour provided free as for any volunteer campaigner.
It has to be a realistic charge - but election expenses are as bad a minefield as FTPA and prorogation - we need a truly momentous Representation of the People Act to reform all these things.
What the BBC said in advance about their debate audience:
"How is the audience picked?
The audience will be selected by the Question Time production team to reflect how people in the country have voted. People apply online or by phone and will be asked about their past voting patterns and future voting intentions, whether they're members of political parties, and how they voted in the EU referendum.
The BBC aims to represent audiences across the UK during its election coverage, so while the audience will probably be broadly local to the venue, to ensure there are sufficient supporters of all the parties some will have travelled further."
I would love the BBC to answer this: how many of that audience voted Leave? They must know. They asked them.
I have an entirely non-conspiracy theory.
Younger people are more likely to be left wing, more likely to be pro-EU, more like to be Labour supporters, and are more likely to be boo and hiss and be loud.
A representative sample of the population, might tut tut Jeremy Corbyn, but it would boo Boris Johnson. That's not bias. It's simply a consequence of the median Conservative supporter being a decade and a half older than the median Labour supporter.
Interesting theory.
So what we see on TV is a representation that Corbynites are ruder and more aggressive while Boris's supporters are 'kinder and gentler'?
Boris mates have multiple organs about a hard Brexit, which if he gets a majority might only be a year away with no way of stopping it.
And even in the worst case scenario, that’s still far less damaging than Labour’s manifesto pledges would be.
Nope, I disagree.
You’re entitled to your view. You are however completely wrong.
A Narcissistic PM prepared to act unlawfully when the going gets tough, backed up by right wing nationalists and libertarians that cite Singapore as model for the UK is scary.
I should say I yet again received Lib Dem propaganda. It is literally daily. I wonder if they really are just targeting a very small number of seats really hard?
Maybe it’s just your house?
How are they managing to do. all this and stay within their expenses total. They are aware arent they that centrally posted material during the period goes against individual candidates returns now? That is a rule change.
Delivering to FO's house wont be that expensive
More seriously, a lot of active LibDem local parties have their own printing equipment and can legitimately charge the campaign at material cost price, the labour provided free as for any volunteer campaigner.
It has to be a realistic charge - but election expenses are as bad a minefield as FTPA and prorogation - we need a truly momentous Representation of the People Act to reform all these things.
Of course, but then when you buy printing commercially, labour, profit and overheads account for most of the cost. Paper and ink are cheap.
On a commercially-equivalent cost basis, the biggest cost is the delivery.
Boris mates have multiple organs about a hard Brexit, which if he gets a majority might only be a year away with no way of stopping it.
And even in the worst case scenario, that’s still far less damaging than Labour’s manifesto pledges would be.
Nope, I disagree.
You’re entitled to your view. You are however completely wrong.
A Narcissistic PM prepared to act unlawfully when the going gets tough, backed up by right wing nationalists and libertarians that cite Singapore as model for the UK is scary.
Looking at where the Tories are holding GOTV efforts it seems like they are being very conservative about what they think should be targets. Sensible, not to get carried away.
Carshalton seems an odd choice. Yes, it was close-ish last time but the LibDems are on the rise in London (aren't they?).
UK elect have it falling on their latest update. Interesting. Tom Brake will surely hold on?
Didn't 2015 teach us Libdem incumbency is not going to save them in a wave year.
I do agree that incumbency is only a minor benefit, and we will see some negative incumbency in seats where local MPs were idle or loathed.
It is rather different from previous waves. In 2015 the LD vote share collapsed by 2/3 from the previous election, this time it looks likely to double.
I think we will hold all but a couple of previous LD seats and gain a few seats. I would regard 30 as a good night, and 20 OK. Anything below that would be disappointing.
I tipped LD 20-29 on here a few weeks back at 11/2, so this is not a reverse ferret for me.
What the BBC said in advance about their debate audience:
"How is the audience picked?
The audience will be selected by the Question Time production team to reflect how people in the country have voted. People apply online or by phone and will be asked about their past voting patterns and future voting intentions, whether they're members of political parties, and how they voted in the EU referendum.
The BBC aims to represent audiences across the UK during its election coverage, so while the audience will probably be broadly local to the venue, to ensure there are sufficient supporters of all the parties some will have travelled further."
I would love the BBC to answer this: how many of that audience voted Leave? They must know. They asked them.
I have an entirely non-conspiracy theory.
Younger people are more likely to be left wing, more likely to be pro-EU, more like to be Labour supporters, and are more likely to be boo and hiss and be loud.
A representative sample of the population, might tut tut Jeremy Corbyn, but it would boo Boris Johnson. That's not bias. It's simply a consequence of the median Conservative supporter being a decade and a half older than the median Labour supporter.
Interesting theory.
So what we see on TV is a representation that Corbynites are ruder and more aggressive while Boris's supporters are 'kinder and gentler'?
I'm with Robert on this one.
Labour clearly got a handful of its activists into the audience; the noise and aggressive questions only came from a few people. And were probably counterproductive. You'd expect a representative audience to be majority anti-Tory, and it's true that younger people would tend to be more noisy and less respectful. The group of audience fans photographed with Bozo after the show and the applause he got indicates he had a fair few supporters in the audience, even if HY himself was turned away.
I should say I yet again received Lib Dem propaganda. It is literally daily. I wonder if they really are just targeting a very small number of seats really hard?
same... leaflet 8 in Finchley & Golders Green today
Yes, I've had half a dozen, and LibDem friends tell me they're astonished at the resources being made available to them in the target seats.
How many of those leaflet extolling the delights of "Jo Swinson, Prime Minister" have resulted in the LibDems losing a quarter to a third of their vote during the camapign is moot.
The LD leaflets I have seen are designed by Lib Dems to appeal to Lib Dems - I am astonished that Tim Farron's agent - who, unlike his master is incredibly shrewd did not veto them.
I should say I yet again received Lib Dem propaganda. It is literally daily. I wonder if they really are just targeting a very small number of seats really hard?
same... leaflet 8 in Finchley & Golders Green today
Yes, I've had half a dozen, and LibDem friends tell me they're astonished at the resources being made available to them in the target seats.
How many of those leaflet extolling the delights of "Jo Swinson, Prime Minister" have resulted in the LibDems losing a quarter to a third of their vote during the camapign is moot.
The LD leaflets I have seen are designed by Lib Dems to appeal to Lib Dems - I am astonished that Tim Farron's agent - who, unlike his master is incredibly shrewd did not veto them.
The LibDems always "target a very small number of seats really hard"; the voting system forces them to. This time they do have more £ than usual, on account of being the only remain (major) party.
I should say I yet again received Lib Dem propaganda. It is literally daily. I wonder if they really are just targeting a very small number of seats really hard?
same... leaflet 8 in Finchley & Golders Green today
Yes, I've had half a dozen, and LibDem friends tell me they're astonished at the resources being made available to them in the target seats.
How many of those leaflet extolling the delights of "Jo Swinson, Prime Minister" have resulted in the LibDems losing a quarter to a third of their vote during the camapign is moot.
The LD leaflets I have seen are designed by Lib Dems to appeal to Lib Dems - I am astonished that Tim Farron's agent - who, unlike his master is incredibly shrewd did not veto them.
The LibDems always "target a very small number of seats really hard"; the voting system forces them to. This time they do have more £ than usual, on account of being the only remain (major) party.
Agreed but that doesn't excuse producing leaflets which say vote for the LD and he will continue to frustrate the thing that means most to you as a voter. Hardly a wise move for the floating voter. Swinson seems to have had that problem last night.
Anti Brexitism reminds me of unilateralism in 1983. I remember Michael Jopling saying back then that it was a hook that the Labour fish would eventually have to bite. It was inevitable that Michael Foot - personally a charming man could not avoid it. Neither Corbyn nor Swinson has the charm of Michael Foot.
So another hurdle overcome and no change in the narrative or sense of direction. That will do nicely from the Tory perspective. From Labour’s there is very little sign of the unity of the anti Tory vote we saw the last time and I don’t think that neutral is going to cut it. Still time but the clock is ticking.
I should say I yet again received Lib Dem propaganda. It is literally daily. I wonder if they really are just targeting a very small number of seats really hard?
same... leaflet 8 in Finchley & Golders Green today
Yes, I've had half a dozen, and LibDem friends tell me they're astonished at the resources being made available to them in the target seats.
How many of those leaflet extolling the delights of "Jo Swinson, Prime Minister" have resulted in the LibDems losing a quarter to a third of their vote during the camapign is moot.
The LD leaflets I have seen are designed by Lib Dems to appeal to Lib Dems - I am astonished that Tim Farron's agent - who, unlike his master is incredibly shrewd did not veto them.
If I was going to identify a Lib Dem loss (despite the vote overall increasing) I would choose his seat over Brake’s.
***** Betting Post ***** The recent "massive surge" in voter registration made me wonder whether we might see a higher than anticipated overall turnout on 12 December, weather permitting of course. A visit to Oddschecker showed the following odds as being the best currently available:
Backing the 65% - 70% band with two thirds of one's stake and the 70 - 75% band with the remaining one third of one's stake, both with Betfred at the odds indicated above, would result in overall winning odds of 5/6 or 1.833 decimal, should either band prove successful.
Massive surge in voter registration yesterday . Over 300,000 . Over two thirds of that was people under 34.
Remember that's jus applications not new registrations. Every one of those could be people registering again just to be safe. I did due to moving into a new build and their being confusion over the postcode.
Corbyn’s manifesto is a highly expensive ripoff of Chavez’s.
I hold no torch for Corbyn (and Milne and Murray are vile scum in my book), but do you really think that the collective ownership of natural monopolies (as practised in countless advanced economies) necessarily equates to having all industries be run by Red Robbo?
Logic and justice surely call for collective ownership, rather than the creation of private monopolies (which contravene free-market principles).
It's Thatcherism that is discredited, out-of-time, and unsupported by evidence.
I'm sure Corbyn would bugger it up, and I wouldn't want the people around him having their disgraceful paws anywhere near power, but the ideas are credible. Anyway, we won't get a chance to see.
Book tip on this subject: Private Island by James Meek
Corbyn’s manifesto is a highly expensive ripoff of Chavez’s.
I hold no torch for Corbyn (and Milne and Murray are vile scum in my book), but do you really think that the collective ownership of natural monopolies (as practised in countless advanced economies) necessarily equates to having all industries be run by Red Robbo?
Logic and justice surely call for collective ownership, rather than the creation of private monopolies (which contravene free-market principles)
That’s what Chavez tried through seizing land and building publicly owned utilities.
Admittedly he also nicked most of the wealth, but I don’t trust Corbyn not to either.
So, yes, actually.
In any case, you are committing a foolish mistake comparing ‘collective ownership’ with ‘state ownership.’ The former is where a group runs an organisation for the benefit of its members. The latter is where a bunch of politicians run it for the benefit of themselves.
Comments
The LDs will have recovered to a seat total only beaten in the post war period during the 13 years between 1997 and 2010. To get there from almost being wiped out in 2015 (and then to go backwards vote share-wise in 2017) is a decent performance.
Now, it's not challenging for government, or even for second place. But it wasn't long ago on this site that posters suggested that getting above 12% in a general election would be a decade-long challenge.
Younger people are more likely to be left wing, more likely to be pro-EU, more like to be Labour supporters, and are more likely to be boo and hiss and be loud.
A representative sample of the population, might tut tut Jeremy Corbyn, but it would boo Boris Johnson. That's not bias. It's simply a consequence of the median Conservative supporter being a decade and a half older than the median Labour supporter.
So the rest of your whataboutery is irrelevant. Yes, we all know Johnson associates with scumbags almost as loathsome as Corbyn's friends. But he's not the one proposing to print half a trillion quid to give his mates multiple orgasms by nationalising everything.
As for your claim lower down that you have never considered voting Labour, that's about as convincing as Corbyn's claim that he was present but not involved.
I just can't see the Liberal Democrats winning that many.
If there is a majority Tory government the Withdrawal Agreement will pass but he's only given himself a year to agree an FTA which is much too short. It's as though he would rather exit with No Deal. So in a years time we'll be back in a Brexit crisis.
Say the House of Saud is worse than Chavez and his cronies... well, it's not like the Conservatives have been going around lauding them. Corbyn and his crew lionised the rule of Chavez.
If Johnson avoided harm, that's a good win for him.
I only saw bits and pieces. Saw Corbyn being questioned on anti-Semitism, but he seemed to keep a better lid on his anger than in the past.
Mostly, I was playing The Witcher 3.
Seems we would be given bonds probably redeemable in bolivars. As for our hard work, tens of thousands of hours ...
The Labour position is unlikely to do them much harm in the northern part of B4RN but Cat Smith is hardly likely to prosper.
Good.
Corbyn’s manifesto is a highly expensive ripoff of Chavez’s.
Arguably the best outcome now for the Liberal Democrats is a lot of strong second places and about 30 gains in a hung parliament with both main parties falling back. They could then force an election next year from a position of comparative strength. But unless the Tories implies that now looks rather unlikely.
NEW THREAD
More seriously, a lot of active LibDem local parties have their own printing equipment and can legitimately charge the campaign at material cost price, the labour provided free as for any volunteer campaigner.
But it can't, which leaves all the swing voters to imagine what goodies they will have to do without and/or how much more they'll be made to cough up in tax. That much said... It would be a big surprise if the SNP were to more-or-less tread water as @rcs1000 suggests. In fact, if SLAB survive this with 3 or 4 of their little collection of MPs intact and SCON actually advance it'll be utterly astonishing.
As far as the remainder of that prediction goes, I wish I could be that optimistic about the prospects for Labour getting a shellacking, but I'm still very worried that a lot more of the automatons are going to end up obeying their homing signals and Labour will be back up to 35% by polling day. The Lib Dem seat prediction is roughly in accordance with my own expectations, but I fancy they might be down to about 12% nationwide.
There are some local.issues as well that could affect him such as an incinerator being built and very very unpopular parking policies put in by the lib dem council which Brake has refused to criticise.
So what we see on TV is a representation that Corbynites are ruder and more aggressive while Boris's supporters are 'kinder and gentler'?
On a commercially-equivalent cost basis, the biggest cost is the delivery.
That’s not a good thing but it’s still a fact.
It is rather different from previous waves. In 2015 the LD vote share collapsed by 2/3 from the previous election, this time it looks likely to double.
I think we will hold all but a couple of previous LD seats and gain a few seats. I would regard 30 as a good night, and 20 OK. Anything below that would be disappointing.
I tipped LD 20-29 on here a few weeks back at 11/2, so this is not a reverse ferret for me.
Labour clearly got a handful of its activists into the audience; the noise and aggressive questions only came from a few people. And were probably counterproductive. You'd expect a representative audience to be majority anti-Tory, and it's true that younger people would tend to be more noisy and less respectful. The group of audience fans photographed with Bozo after the show and the applause he got indicates he had a fair few supporters in the audience, even if HY himself was turned away.
Anti Brexitism reminds me of unilateralism in 1983. I remember Michael Jopling saying back then that it was a hook that the Labour fish would eventually have to bite. It was inevitable that Michael Foot - personally a charming man could not avoid it. Neither Corbyn nor Swinson has the charm of Michael Foot.
Tonight’s polls will be interesting.
The recent "massive surge" in voter registration made me wonder whether we might see a higher than anticipated overall turnout on 12 December, weather permitting of course.
A visit to Oddschecker showed the following odds as being the best currently available:
65% - 70% ....... 2.75 Betfred
60% - 65% ....... 3.50 Unibet
70% - 75% ....... 5.50 Betfred
<60% .............. 9.00 Unibet
>75% ............ 17.00 Betfred
Backing the 65% - 70% band with two thirds of one's stake and the 70 - 75% band with the remaining one third of one's stake, both with Betfred at the odds indicated above, would result in overall winning odds of 5/6 or 1.833 decimal, should either band prove successful.
As ever DYOR.
Logic and justice surely call for collective ownership, rather than the creation of private monopolies (which contravene free-market principles).
It's Thatcherism that is discredited, out-of-time, and unsupported by evidence.
I'm sure Corbyn would bugger it up, and I wouldn't want the people around him having their disgraceful paws anywhere near power, but the ideas are credible. Anyway, we won't get a chance to see.
Book tip on this subject: Private Island by James Meek
Admittedly he also nicked most of the wealth, but I don’t trust Corbyn not to either.
So, yes, actually.
In any case, you are committing a foolish mistake comparing ‘collective ownership’ with ‘state ownership.’ The former is where a group runs an organisation for the benefit of its members. The latter is where a bunch of politicians run it for the benefit of themselves.