I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Paul Johnson said on Marr that the ones who had their benefits frozen with little notice have a far greater claim than the waspi
12-point lead on NHS for Tories shrinks to 6 points, but still - as you suggest - historically very poor figures for Labour on one of their core issues.
Angela Rayner just lied basically watching that link back from Charles.
She said people under the £80k bracket will not pay any more tax.
Simply a big fat lie for those millions who lose the MTA and £250pa and where 100% of them are basic rate taxpayers.
That's my new daily reminder I think instead.
And the Tories don’t lie and are a wonderful example of morality ! Really I’m not defending Rayner but seriously it’s like the Tories can do no wrong in some people’s eyes.
Having 'retired' from Tory membership over the Buffoon becoming PM and the 'wets' being expelled basically, some of us aren't quite as one-eyed.
She's lying but in my 'patch' of the world - I'd call out similar lies if I see a Tory do similar.
The closest I can do there currently is Hancock saying they've sorted the taper annual allowance problem for the high earning front-line workers in the NHS when all they are doing is paying the tax for them as a sticking plaster.
I am quite surprised no one has produced a poster of Boris with the slogan;
"If his wife can't trust him, why should the voters?"
Me too. Johnson's flaws are enormous and are more personal than political. I was expecting Labour ed.
Amber Rudd's personal comments about Boris during the referendum campaign backfired big-style. People know he's a shagger, it's priced in, so any attacks such as those just look like tackling the man not the ball, and most voters ignore it - or even further, push back against it.
Johnson ies have won the election and the promises he has made begin to unravel.
I'm still not sure the story form the American lady has been properly put to bed (sic).
If she confirms the relationship, Johnson is potentially in a lot of trouble if he directly approved public money for her business, yet failed to declare the conflict of interest.
Even if the Conservatives win the election, we could be quickly looking at another PM.
Equally significantly, her “I have kept your secrets” could easily be seen as a veiled threat. She arranged to go on television shortly afterwards, and might have been intending to spill some beans, then thought better of it leaving Lorraine to protest she hadn’t said anything (indeed, maybe she had pre-trailed that she would?).
Possibly there isn’t anything to tell. Possibly there is, but she has decided not to tell it? Or possibly she is waiting for the ideal moment, just before the election?
As for HY, he really doesn’t seem to care whether what he posts is accurate or truthful, or not. One can see why he likes Bozo so much.
The government has said what it wants. It has not said what it will sacrifice to achieve it. Until it does, the uncertainty remains. Once it confirms it is giving up on just-in-time, Europe-wide supply chains and rules of origin we will undoubtedly get certainty and its consequences. But we are not at that point yet.
Why would it give up on point of origin? That's included in the Canadian and Japanese trade deals. Unless you think the EU will be an unreasonable negotiating partner?
The EU will do what it judges is best for the EU. The Canadians and Japanese were negotiating enhanced access to the EU market. The UK will be negotiating the management of reduced access. What we do not yet know is how much the UK government is prepared to give up. Until we do there will be uncertainty.
But the EU have been happy to extend point of origin rules to other advanced economies, why would they not for the UK? Whether we are moving from 100% to 90% vs Canada and Japan moving from 80% to 90%. The end destination is broadly the same as what the EU has already agreed to previously.
The EU will decide, I agree, and the UK will either have to accept or walk away from any kind of deal. And there's the uncertainty.
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Paul Johnson said on Marr that the ones who had their benefits frozen with little notice have a far greater claim than the waspi
I'd agree but presumably Labour think there are more new voters to be recruited in the Waspi cohort than those on benefits?
Possibly there isn’t anything to tell. Possibly there is, but she has decided not to tell it? Or possibly she is waiting for the ideal moment, just before the election?
If it was me, I would would spill the beans about a week before the vote.
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Paul Johnson said on Marr that the ones who had their benefits frozen with little notice have a far greater claim than the waspi
I'd agree but presumably Labour think there are more new voters to be recruited in the Waspi cohort than those on benefits?
I have no doubt this is a last minute bung to try to close the polling gap
The government has said what it wants. It has not said what it will sacrifice to achieve it. Until it does, the uncertainty remains. Once it confirms it is giving up on just-in-time, Europe-wide supply chains and rules of origin we will undoubtedly get certainty and its consequences. But we are not at that point yet.
Why would it give up on point of origin? That's included in the Canadian and Japanese trade deals. Unless you think the EU will be an unreasonable negotiating partner?
The EU will do what it judges is best for the EU. The Canadians and Japanese were negotiating enhanced access to the EU market. The UK will be negotiating the management of reduced access. What we do not yet know is how much the UK government is prepared to give up. Until we do there will be uncertainty.
But the EU have been happy to extend point of origin rules to other advanced economies, why would they not for the UK? Whether we are moving from 100% to 90% vs Canada and Japan moving from 80% to 90%. The end destination is broadly the same as what the EU has already agreed to previously.
The EU will decide, I agree, and the UK will either have to accept or walk away from any kind of deal. And there's the uncertainty.
Honestly, sometimes your schtick gets very grating. It's clear to both of us that the landing zone is defined, the EU is going to go along with it and businesses will mostly be ok with it. But it doesn't suit your agenda to admit it so you dance on the head of a pin pretending that the EU doesn't want a trade deal similar to ones it has already agreed with other nations.
Possibly there isn’t anything to tell. Possibly there is, but she has decided not to tell it? Or possibly she is waiting for the ideal moment, just before the election?
If it was me, I would would spill the beans about a week before the vote.
Best do it just before or just after Trump sticks his oar in on his visit and talks about how great Boris is and how the NHS is on the table or something, to add to a storm of negative press that would generate.
As long as we can defend our own shores. We should not be fighting wars abroad.
There might be benefits to at least appearing to have the potential to take action if we wanted though.
Frankly with the Tories also splurging the cash I'm surprised that the military would not get a significant boost, and whatever the top brass want they'll face direction to boost numbers.
Isn't it like the US Congress supposedly approving massive tank building programmes despite the army saying they don't need more tanks? In that example because it makes jobs.
I do not think the EU, Greenland, Canada or the USA are likely to invade us. Other assets far, far away (like the Falklands).... well, we are no longer a world power and we are busy readying ourselves to become a pawn between powerblocs. Let them be the policemen of the world, we have given that up.
The EU recently held a joint miltary exercise where they invaded the UK. Disgraceful that our then Government allowed it really.
Well, what did you expect with a Foreign Sec. like ours?
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Paul Johnson said on Marr that the ones who had their benefits frozen with little notice have a far greater claim than the waspi
I'd agree but presumably Labour think there are more new voters to be recruited in the Waspi cohort than those on benefits?
Everybody does, even BXP mentioned this issue and given their manifesto is only 24 pages or so, restricted to the biggest, most effective policies they could be bothered to include, its probably a correct assumption.
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Paul Johnson said on Marr that the ones who had their benefits frozen with little notice have a far greater claim than the waspi
I'd agree but presumably Labour think there are more new voters to be recruited in the Waspi cohort than those on benefits?
That would be the case if it was either/or.
Reality is Labour are promising to throw money at everyone and hoping enough people are stupid enough to believe them.
Possibly there isn’t anything to tell. Possibly there is, but she has decided not to tell it? Or possibly she is waiting for the ideal moment, just before the election?
If it was me, I would would spill the beans about a week before the vote.
If its kiss and tell then meh, but if its 'illegal' favour is she likely to incriminate herself?
It’s irrelevant whether you or I feel they lost out . It’s what the 3.5 million think , if they feel they’ve been wronged that’s what matters .
Take me for example. Just one internet spod, who cares, but I'm spitting mad at the entitlement and phony arguments of the WASPI women being rewarded, and that will colour my views and actions moving forward. How many others will be similarly annoyed? Perhaps not as many as like receiving their grey vote bribe, but it does mean that their not being a wrong is perfectly relevant no matter they they feel they have been.
Seems like worst case is that this does nothing. Best case is that Corbyn makes Johnson argue about it and fall into a trap of attacking women, who he is already less trusted with than men.
Can't see it myself
Not really, the defence is simple. "Will you be raising taxes on working age women to pay for this?" Either answer lands Jez in a pile of shit.
"No I won't" "So what will you do Boris Johnson?"
Your line of attack hasn't worked so far, people voting Labour seem to frankly not care about taxes being raised.
The fact is if you’re one of the 3.5 million women effected by the pension changes would you be more or less likely to vote for Labour today .
And Labour will couch this as , if you can find billions to bail out the banks then why on earth can’t you help these women.
I fail to see how this doesn’t help Labour, all the bleating by some Tories is just irritation at this policy.
On the day Labour announce this the Tories will be delivering a manifesto which looks all a bit dull and puts bells and whistles on potholes . Yes they’re annoying but they’ve been allowed to get this bad because of the huge cuts to local government .
I think (hope) it is a mistake to think that just because 3.5m women are affected by the changes, that 3.5 women are supportive of the WASPI campaign. Surely most of them will have planned properly for their retirement and may well be resentful that those who (claim they) didn't seeking recompense of this nature.
It’s not just those effected , but will impact their husbands aswell and it’s the message it sends out to other women . We’re on your side .
I’m not saying it’s a game changer because the Tories have a big lead but I simply can’t see any way this doesn’t help Labour.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
Oh FFS! They didn't suffer a wrong. They got equality, that’s all. And were informed about it and had time to make plans, rather more time, in fact, than people affected by a budget or pledges made during an election campaign.
Since when is that a “wrong” or an “injustice”?
It’s the utter dishonesty and disingenuous special pleading of the campaign which really grates.
It’s irrelevant whether you or I feel they lost out . It’s what the 3.5 million think , if they feel they’ve been wronged that’s what matters .
I feel wronged that Poch has been sacked and Spurs won't get top 4 this year thus meaing my season ticket is going to be less rewarding than expected. How much will Labour pay me?
Nothing - but they will allow you to vote on future managerial changes...
It’s irrelevant whether you or I feel they lost out . It’s what the 3.5 million think , if they feel they’ve been wronged that’s what matters .
Take me for example. Just one internet spod, who cares, but I'm spitting mad at the entitlement and phony arguments of the WASPI women being rewarded, and that will colour my views and actions moving forward. How many others will be similarly annoyed? Perhaps not as many as like receiving their grey vote bribe, but it does mean that their not being a wrong is perfectly relevant no matter they they feel they have been.
As long as we can defend our own shores. We should not be fighting wars abroad.
There might be benefits to at least appearing to have the potential to take action if we wanted though.
Frankly with the Tories also splurging the cash I'm surprised that the military would not get a significant boost, and whatever the top brass want they'll face direction to boost numbers.
Isn't it like the US Congress supposedly approving massive tank building programmes despite the army saying they don't need more tanks? In that example because it makes jobs.
I do not think the EU, Greenland, Canada or the USA are likely to invade us. Other assets far, far away (like the Falklands).... well, we are no longer a world power and we are busy readying ourselves to become a pawn between powerblocs. Let them be the policemen of the world, we have given that up.
Your point doesn't seem to relate to mine at all. It wouldn't be about being the policeman of the world, but whether we could, in fact, do anything proactive at all, just in case. That's not a foolproof argument of course, but how much of an armed forced we do need even for the sake of home defence only is a bit of a tricky question.
What I was alluding to is that we have little to fear from our neighbours so there seems little need for a bigger army. The airforce and navy can at least justify their existence in terms of a UK only role.
Idle armie are never advisable to have sitting around. Sometimes their Generals get ideas and fix on internal enemies....
Potentially the big story next week is the Panorama interview with Virginia Roberts allegedly repeating her accusation Prince Andrew bedded her when she was 17
It’s irrelevant whether you or I feel they lost out . It’s what the 3.5 million think , if they feel they’ve been wronged that’s what matters .
Take me for example. Just one internet spod, who cares, but I'm spitting mad at the entitlement and phony arguments of the WASPI women being rewarded, and that will colour my views and actions moving forward. How many others will be similarly annoyed? Perhaps not as many as like receiving their grey vote bribe, but it does mean that their not being a wrong is perfectly relevant no matter they they feel they have been.
The trouble is that addressing generational inequality - which is a perfectly reasonable and indeed sensible thing to do - means upsetting a large and increasing number of voters. As the Tories found in 2017.
Possibly there isn’t anything to tell. Possibly there is, but she has decided not to tell it? Or possibly she is waiting for the ideal moment, just before the election?
If it was me, I would would spill the beans about a week before the vote.
If its kiss and tell then meh, but if its 'illegal' favour is she likely to incriminate herself?
When people get mad enough they are willing to do that, like when Chris Huhne's ex-wife spilled the beans about him. I don't see why that would happen here as there's less personal reason to be so mad as in that case, but she might do it unintentionally as well.
Possibly there isn’t anything to tell. Possibly there is, but she has decided not to tell it? Or possibly she is waiting for the ideal moment, just before the election?
If it was me, I would would spill the beans about a week before the vote.
But what beans? Sex tittle-tattle won't change peoples' views of BoJo; and he'll simply deny anything else, pointing out that the departmental enquiry into the award of £100k grant was 'appropriate'.
The government has said what it wants. It has not said what it will sacrifice to achieve it. Until it does, the uncertainty remains. Once it confirms it is giving up on just-in-time, Europe-wide supply chains and rules of origin we will undoubtedly get certainty and its consequences. But we are not at that point yet.
Why would it give up on point of origin? That's included in the Canadian and Japanese trade deals. Unless you think the EU will be an unreasonable negotiating partner?
The EU will do what it judges is best for the EU. The Canadians and Japanese were negotiating enhanced access to the EU market. The UK will be negotiating the management of reduced access. What we do not yet know is how much the UK government is prepared to give up. Until we do there will be uncertainty.
But the EU have been happy to extend point of origin rules to other advanced economies, why would they not for the UK? Whether we are moving from 100% to 90% vs Canada and Japan moving from 80% to 90%. The end destination is broadly the same as what the EU has already agreed to previously.
The EU will decide, I agree, and the UK will either have to accept or walk away from any kind of deal. And there's the uncertainty.
Honestly, sometimes your schtick gets very grating. It's clear to both of us that the landing zone is defined, the EU is going to go along with it and businesses will mostly be ok with it. But it doesn't suit your agenda to admit it so you dance on the head of a pin pretending that the EU doesn't want a trade deal similar to ones it has already agreed with other nations.
Hmmm - it seems to me that it does not suit your agenda to admit that a Canada-style deal would mean a fundamental change to the UK's current trading relationship with the single market. I am very happy to accept that the EU will give us a Canada-style deal. What is not clear is whether the government will be able to live with what such a deal will mean for UK agriculture, manufacturing and services. If it makes clear it can, there will indeed be certainty - and consequences.
Seems like worst case is that this does nothing. Best case is that Corbyn makes Johnson argue about it and fall into a trap of attacking women, who he is already less trusted with than men.
Can't see it myself
Not really, the defence is simple. "Will you be raising taxes on working age women to pay for this?" Either answer lands Jez in a pile of shit.
"No I won't" "So what will you do Boris Johnson?"
Your line of attack hasn't worked so far, people voting Labour seem to frankly not care about taxes being raised.
I wonder why!
Indeed, and it is working. It's driving Tory remainers back from Lib Dems. Labour's policy means higher taxes for all working age people to benefit older wealthy women.
Speaking as a young-ish person, the Tories haven't given me any reason to vote for them and that's kind of echoed by conversations I've had with others. But there are lots of reasons to vote against them.
Probably in direct contrast to the views of people older than me.
And this is a major major issue all round.
For example l’m sure there’s too much nimbyism in many Tory (but exclusive to them) councils in building new homes, but Labour’s policies such as rent controls are bonkers. Blair set us on a ruinous path of sending 50% to university, where we have a debt fuelled industry, producing increasingly worthless bits of paper, that seems to mainly benefit the people actually working in this bloated sector as they are getting paid to produce this grade inflation. And the Tories have done sod all about it except stick interest rates way over what they should be.
So the young feel debt burdened and feel housing is beyond them.
On the other hand having worked hard and honestly for over three decades and not having been born with any kind of spoon in my mouth let alone a silver one, I’ve got to the point where I’m comfortable and looking towards retirement. So Jezza coming along and threatening to take loads of it off me out of what I see as ideological jealousy, and taking me for a fool that announcing countless billions in extra spending on a daily basis is not going to bite me in the bum despite not being an oligarch, is not going down well chez Welshowl as you can doubtless imagine.
Trouble is honesty gets shot down so easily. Burnham and May tried to tackle the care issue and got fried for instance.
Denuding them of defence is an abdication of duty, as well as throwing away the means to defend the principle that free people have a right to determine their own destiny.
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Paul Johnson said on Marr that the ones who had their benefits frozen with little notice have a far greater claim than the waspi
I'd agree but presumably Labour think there are more new voters to be recruited in the Waspi cohort than those on benefits?
I have no doubt this is a last minute bung to try to close the polling gap
Plenty of time for Labour to splurge more money up the wall
The government has said what it wants. It has not said what it will sacrifice to achieve it. Until it does, the uncertainty remains. Once it confirms it is giving up on just-in-time, Europe-wide supply chains and rules of origin we will undoubtedly get certainty and its consequences. But we are not at that point yet.
Why would it give up on point of origin? That's included in the Canadian and Japanese trade deals. Unless you think the EU will be an unreasonable negotiating partner?
The EU will do what it judges is best for the EU. The Canadians and Japanese were negotiating enhanced access to the EU market. The UK will be negotiating the management of reduced access. What we do not yet know is how much the UK government is prepared to give up. Until we do there will be uncertainty.
But the EU have been happy to extend point of origin rules to other advanced economies, why would they not for the UK? Whether we are moving from 100% to 90% vs Canada and Japan moving from 80% to 90%. The end destination is broadly the same as what the EU has already agreed to previously.
The EU will decide, I agree, and the UK will either have to accept or walk away from any kind of deal. And there's the uncertainty.
Honestly, sometimes your schtick gets very grating. It's clear to both of us that the landing zone is defined, the EU is going to go along with it and businesses will mostly be ok with it. But it doesn't suit your agenda to admit it so you dance on the head of a pin pretending that the EU doesn't want a trade deal similar to ones it has already agreed with other nations.
Hmmm - it seems to me that it does not suit your agenda to admit that a Canada-style deal would mean a fundamental change to the UK's current trading relationship with the single market. I am very happy to accept that the EU will give us a Canada-style deal. What is not clear is whether the government will be able to live with what such a deal will mean for UK agriculture, manufacturing and services. If it makes clear it can, there will indeed be certainty - and consequences.
What are you talking about? I've clearly said plenty of times that the trading relationship with the EU wil change, we're moving from 100% alignment to not 100% alignment. It's one of the main reasons I voted to leave. Honestly, it's tiresome arguing with you sometimes.
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Paul Johnson said on Marr that the ones who had their benefits frozen with little notice have a far greater claim than the waspi
I'd agree but presumably Labour think there are more new voters to be recruited in the Waspi cohort than those on benefits?
Everybody does, even BXP mentioned this issue and given their manifesto is only 24 pages or so, restricted to the biggest, most effective policies they could be bothered to include, its probably a correct assumption.
The Tories biggest problem with this is how the Daily Mail respond to it. Given that they backed the WASPI case strongly.
Speaking as a young-ish person, the Tories haven't given me any reason to vote for them and that's kind of echoed by conversations I've had with others. But there are lots of reasons to vote against them.
Probably in direct contrast to the views of people older than me.
Trouble is honesty gets shot down so easily. Burnham and May tried to tackle the care issue and got fried for instance.
Hence why we have ended up with the politicians and campaign we deserve, sadly. I'm not sure what it would take for us, in this age, to tackle serious issues seriously without some populist ruining whoever proposed it.
As long as we can defend our own shores. We should not be fighting wars abroad.
There might be benefits to at least appearing to have the potential to take action if we wanted though.
Frankly with the Tories also splurging the cash I'm surprised that the military would not get a significant boost, and whatever the top brass want they'll face direction to boost numbers.
Isn't it like the US Congress supposedly approving massive tank building programmes despite the army saying they don't need more tanks? In that example because it makes jobs.
I do not think the EU, Greenland, Canada or the USA are likely to invade us. Other assets far, far away (like the Falklands).... well, we are no longer a world power and we are busy readying ourselves to become a pawn between powerblocs. Let them be the policemen of the world, we have given that up.
The EU recently held a joint miltary exercise where they invaded the UK. Disgraceful that our then Government allowed it really.
What is disgraceful is you lying.
Perfectly legitimate to have a debate about whether or not the EU should be involved in running joint military exercises with members. But don't lie about what these exercises involve.
Can someone tell me where does the £2400 per person figure come from as being the cost of the Labour manifesto. Javid is again trumpeting this out without any support or detail. Not surprising given the Tory record on fake news.
It was sad to see that the Tories have no vision for the economy as was pointed out by Sophie Ridge.
It's pretty clear to me that Labour has entirely given up and is just trying to get through the next two weeks and a bit before the next civil war can begin.
Didn't we think that last time? Yes yes, it's not 2017, and it's true that the polls at least are starting to show a difference for Labour (not yet continuing to rise like they did last time), but the talk of Labour infighting, recriminations, and the manifesto not being costed, well, we've heard it before.
It's nonsense. I'm helped once in Portsmouth South (going back there shortly) and ever since I've been getting 80-120 WhatsApp texts from dozens of people down there urging me to come to street X at time Y and reporting back from when they did = they have been doing 3 canvasses a day in all weather for weeks and seem to be actually accelerating by having parallel canvasses in different parts of the seat.
In my seat, not so much Though the LibDems have provoked us with some barchartery into contradicting them in social media, which we've not done up to now.
The government has said what it wants. It has not said what it will sacrifice to achieve it. Until it does, the uncertainty remains. Once it confirms it is giving up on just-in-time, Europe-wide supply chains and rules of origin we will undoubtedly get certainty and its consequences. But we are not at that point yet.
Why would it give up on point of origin? That's included in the Canadian and Japanese trade deals. Unless you think the EU will be an unreasonable negotiating partner?
The EU will do what it judges is best for the EU. The Canadians and Japanese were negotiating enhanced access to the EU market. The UK will be negotiating the management of reduced access. What we do not yet know is how much the UK government is prepared to give up. Until we do there will be uncertainty.
But the EU have been happy to extend point of origin rules to other advanced economies, why would they not for the UK? Whether we are moving from 100% to 90% vs Canada and Japan moving from 80% to 90%. The end destination is broadly the same as what the EU has already agreed to previously.
The EU will decide, I agree, and the UK will either have to accept or walk away from any kind of deal. And there's the uncertainty.
Honestly, sometimes your schtick gets very grating. It's clear to both of us that the landing zone is defined, the EU is going to go along with it and businesses will mostly be ok with it. But it doesn't suit your agenda to admit it so you dance on the head of a pin pretending that the EU doesn't want a trade deal similar to ones it has already agreed with other nations.
Hmmm - and consequences.
What are you talking about? I've clearly said plenty of times that the trading relationship with the EU wil change, we're moving from 100% alignment to not 100% alignment. It's one of the main reasons I voted to leave. Honestly, it's tiresome arguing with you sometimes.
OK - so if you are happy to accept that a Canada-style agreement will lead to a fundamental change to the UK's current trading relationship with the single market, we agree on that. Can you point me to anything the Tories have said that indicates they believe the same? Until the government accepts this and the impact it will have on, for example, manufacturing supply chains, agricultural exports and the ability of service industries to operate in the single market we will have uncertainty.
So gap is now 12.8 points. The squeeze really has to come pretty quickly, it's still only a few points they probably need to make up to get a bit of momentum going - but they're really running out of time.
This keeps being posted too, I don't know how accurate it is.
With 2.5 weeks left of the campaign, the Tory lead continues to widen, while the Labour average fails to break 30%? It wasn't supposed to be like this...
Surely the other story here is the Lib Dems trending down.
Baxtered even last night's BMG puts the Lib Dems on 25 seats while the average puts them below 20. And plenty more time to be squeezed.
Yes there may be some tactical voting in individual constituencies that benefits the Lib Dems but they have failed to reach out to Labour voters who still blame them for the coalition years, their policy on revoke is widely seen as a mis-step and few wealthy remainers will risk lending their vote in case it lets Corbyn in?
Surely the 1.97 on BF exchange for Lib Dems under 25.5 seats looks like value?
If a sizeable Tory majority looks nailed on by election day then the Lib Dems will do better than expected because it will feel safe for remain Tories to cast an LD vote and in most of the South Labour will be so obviously a lost cause. I agree with SO, I think Labour have all but given up.
A fair point. But if you're right, we should start seeing an uptick in polling for the Lib Dems. They're still trending downwards at the moment and that BMG looks like a bit of an outlier.
Look at the conversation on here this morning, if PB Tories are representative of Tories in general they really don't like Swinson. I reckon those who are going to defect to the Lib Dems already have and are therefore priced on.
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Paul Johnson said on Marr that the ones who had their benefits frozen with little notice have a far greater claim than the waspi
I'd agree but presumably Labour think there are more new voters to be recruited in the Waspi cohort than those on benefits?
Everybody does, even BXP mentioned this issue and given their manifesto is only 24 pages or so, restricted to the biggest, most effective policies they could be bothered to include, its probably a correct assumption.
The Tories biggest problem with this is how the Daily Mail respond to it. Given that they backed the WASPI case strongly.
Surely it depends if the Daily Mail have any reason to believe an unfunded £58 billion bribe that wasn't in the manifesto is to be believed or not?
Still nothing from the LDs leaflet wise for me, but have just received a Green party 'newspaper'. It pillories Johnson, obviously, but also says Corbyn doesn't know what his Brexit policy is. They also claim credit for decisions at the local council, despite having no councillors on it. I assume on the basis they feel they inspired them, but it's a pretty lousy half truth at best.
Does anyone in Don Valley know if Caroline Flint would still vote for the Brexit Deal If re-elected? It wouldn’t surprise me if she u-turned and refused to back it and that her previous efforts were designed to save her seat in an election campaign. Someone needs to hold her to account in an election where the numbers could again be slim.
Can someone tell me where does the £2400 per person figure come from as being the cost of the Labour manifesto. Javid is again trumpeting this out without any support or detail. Not surprising given the Tory record on fake news.
It was sad to see that the Tories have no vision for the economy as was pointed out by Sophie Ridge.
Even Guido has lamented the Tories not being positive for business for example.
Possibly there isn’t anything to tell. Possibly there is, but she has decided not to tell it? Or possibly she is waiting for the ideal moment, just before the election?
If it was me, I would would spill the beans about a week before the vote.
But what beans? Sex tittle-tattle won't change peoples' views of BoJo; and he'll simply deny anything else, pointing out that the departmental enquiry into the award of £100k grant was 'appropriate'.
I thought the police inquiry was still ongoing?
Anyway it's not his sex life that's an issue, beyond suggesting a chaotic and irresponsible personal life. That is probably factored in, as you say. It's whether he spent public money on supporting Ms Acuri, who seems to have had few business credentials that might justify it.
Well the bit about RAF pilots becoming obsolete is true. I know a company making an artificial intelligence which is capable of shooting down USAF top guns 100% of the time in simulated combat.
Still nothing from the LDs leaflet wise for me, but have just received a Green party 'newspaper'. It pillories Johnson, obviously, but also says Corbyn doesn't know what his Brexit policy is. They also claim credit for decisions at the local council, despite having no councillors on it. I assume on the basis they feel they inspired them, but it's a pretty lousy half truth at best.
We're in a key Tory/Labour marginal. We've had no leaflets and no canvassers since the election campaign started - though we did get very big, shiny brochures from both before it began!
Possibly there isn’t anything to tell. Possibly there is, but she has decided not to tell it? Or possibly she is waiting for the ideal moment, just before the election?
If it was me, I would would spill the beans about a week before the vote.
If its kiss and tell then meh, but if its 'illegal' favour is she likely to incriminate herself?
If there was a sexual relationship and Johnson was giving her public money, then he would have been bound to declare the relationship and recuse himself from the decision. If they just knew each other and flirted a bit, then he's not done anything (legally) wrong.
It's a weird case, that the existence (or otherwise) of the relationship is key to whether an offence has been committed by Johnson.
I don't see how Arcuri would have committed any offence (unless she signed a declaration regarding possible conflict of interest).
Big family meal yesterday where multi generations of that family were present/
Only 1 person present favoured Labour (20 something male(
The rest of the family took Labour to pieces and Granddad pointed out what Labour and powerful unions meant in the 70's, including rubbish piling up everywhere.
((( 🕷Frances Coppola))) Verified account @Frances_Coppola 13h13 hours ago
(((
🕷Frances Coppola))) Retweeted Jeremy Corbyn
You've just demonstrated that you have zero understanding of the issue. Your proposal is muddled, unfair and regressive. It is also possibly illegal, since it is not offered to men who have lost access to Pension Credit and whose state pension age is rising to 66. #WASPI
Can someone tell me where does the £2400 per person figure come from as being the cost of the Labour manifesto. Javid is again trumpeting this out without any support or detail. Not surprising given the Tory record on fake news.
It was sad to see that the Tories have no vision for the economy as was pointed out by Sophie Ridge.
Even Guido has lamented the Tories not being positive for business for example.
“Not Caracas on Thames”. That’ll do just fine. No real need to elaborate.
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
“There are 15.3 million women working. They will have to pay more tax to pay this money to 3.5 women. Why, Mr Corbyn, are you for the few rather than the many?”
I think the £58bn is going to backfire badly on Labour. Loads of solid red friends of mine are pretty annoyed by it and the rest see it as a massive exercise in vote buying with their (30-40 year old professionals) money.
Well the bit about RAF pilots becoming obsolete is true. I know a company making an artificial intelligence which is capable of shooting down USAF top guns 100% of the time in simulated combat.
OK - so if you are happy to accept that a Canada-style agreement will lead to a fundamental change to the UK's current trading relationship with the single market, we agree on that. Can you point me to anything the Tories have said that indicates they believe the same? Until the government accepts this and the impact it will have on, for example, manufacturing supply chains, agricultural exports and the ability of service industries to operate in the single market we will have uncertainty.
Just because there's some technical changes doesn't mean supply chains can't and won't adapt.
Just In Time trade exists even with WTO nations and we aren't going to that.
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
Well the bit about RAF pilots becoming obsolete is true. I know a company making an artificial intelligence which is capable of shooting down USAF top guns 100% of the time in simulated combat.
Only USAF pilots? Is it a ZX Sprectrum?
LOL. if it has been tested on other nation's pilots I haven't been told
You can currently lay Michael Bloomberg at 19.5 for the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton at 18 for it. Mystifying.
Yes, but I've run out of money to do it.
If those prices are still available on Saturday 14th December, and I've done well, I may reinvest quite a bit.
When are the possibilities likely to disappear such that we could extract most profits, but not so it’s impossible to trade the bet and we have to leave the cash tied up? First primary?
“There are 15.3 million women working. They will have to pay more tax to pay this money to 3.5 women. Why, Mr Corbyn, are you for the few rather than the many?”
Someone get this to Boris, asap. On this issue alone I wouldn't want someone getting one over on him. We can compensate by sending good answers to the others on some of the many issues Boris is awful on.
Well the bit about RAF pilots becoming obsolete is true. I know a company making an artificial intelligence which is capable of shooting down USAF top guns 100% of the time in simulated combat.
Only USAF pilots? Is it a ZX Spectrum?
The ZX Spectrum is the greatest computer in the history of computing.
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
To me the realistic national choice at this election is binary -
1. A Con majority. Vacuous amoral clown as PM. Hard Brexit. 5 years of Torydom. 2. No Con majority. PM tbc. Brexit tbc. Political chaos. Ref2s, EU/Scot. Another GE.
And the only one of Labour's key manifesto 'plans' to feature in (2) is the Ref2 on Brexit.
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Only if you believe Boris and what he says right now.
I'm up for him getting a big majority now (if possible) and I certainly think it's better than a small one.
He might end up doing over the hardcore of the ERG and going for a fairly close relationship with the EU.
As long as we can defend our own shores. We should not be fighting wars abroad.
There might be benefits to at least appearing to have the potential to take action if we wanted though.
Frankly with the Tories also splurging the cash I'm surprised that the military would not get a significant boost, and whatever the top brass want they'll face direction to boost numbers.
Isn't it like the US Congress supposedly approving massive tank building programmes despite the army saying they don't need more tanks? In that example because it makes jobs.
I do not think the EU, Greenland, Canada or the USA are likely to invade us. Other assets far, far away (like the Falklands).... well, we are no longer a world power and we are busy readying ourselves to become a pawn between powerblocs. Let them be the policemen of the world, we have given that up.
The EU recently held a joint miltary exercise where they invaded the UK. Disgraceful that our then Government allowed it really.
Well the bit about RAF pilots becoming obsolete is true. I know a company making an artificial intelligence which is capable of shooting down USAF top guns 100% of the time in simulated combat.
Only USAF pilots? Is it a ZX Spectrum?
The ZX Spectrum is the greatest computer in the history of computing.
Possibly there isn’t anything to tell. Possibly there is, but she has decided not to tell it? Or possibly she is waiting for the ideal moment, just before the election?
If it was me, I would would spill the beans about a week before the vote.
If it were you, Bev, we would expect you to post the evidence here on PB first so we could all place our bets.
As long as we can defend our own shores. We should not be fighting wars abroad.
There might be benefits to at least appearing to have the potential to take action if we wanted though.
Frankly with the Tories also splurging the cash I'm surprised that the military would not get a significant boost, and whatever the top brass want they'll face direction to boost numbers.
Isn't it like the US Congress supposedly approving massive tank building programmes despite the army saying they don't need more tanks? In that example because it makes jobs.
I do not think the EU, Greenland, Canada or the USA are likely to invade us. Other assets far, far away (like the Falklands).... well, we are no longer a world power and we are busy readying ourselves to become a pawn between powerblocs. Let them be the policemen of the world, we have given that up.
The EU recently held a joint miltary exercise where they invaded the UK. Disgraceful that our then Government allowed it really.
Citation needed.
I can think of several NATO exercises where a bit of the U.K. becomes “Red Land”. I assumed he’d misunderstood one of them and skimmed over it.
Labour hits the panic button: John McDonnell rushes out £58BILLION pledge to help women who 'lost out due to changes in state pension age' - but admits it was NOT costed in the manifesto and the government will have to borrow the money
Also I note:
They have already lost a legal challenge on the issue - but are mounting an appeal.
If my memory serves me right, at this time in May 2017, with a similar or approximate vote share, this forum was predicting a Theresa May tally of 400-450 seats. That didn't end well, did it?? Jeremy Corbyn may have had his name and reputation tarnished by the right wing media. Brexit may camouflage serious misdeeds of the Tories, in the last 9 years. However don't underestimate, the pain, suffering and misery, caused by the Tories, to a significant section of the population. Which was not needed, for a country that has the 5th largest economy.
OK - so if you are happy to accept that a Canada-style agreement will lead to a fundamental change to the UK's current trading relationship with the single market, we agree on that. Can you point me to anything the Tories have said that indicates they believe the same? Until the government accepts this and the impact it will have on, for example, manufacturing supply chains, agricultural exports and the ability of service industries to operate in the single market we will have uncertainty.
Just because there's some technical changes doesn't mean supply chains can't and won't adapt.
Just In Time trade exists even with WTO nations and we aren't going to that.
Yep - it all depends on what the changes are and that will depend on how much alignment the UK government is prepared to accept. If we are going to Canada, then it will be much less than now and that will clearly have a significant impact.
Possibly there isn’t anything to tell. Possibly there is, but she has decided not to tell it? Or possibly she is waiting for the ideal moment, just before the election?
If it was me, I would would spill the beans about a week before the vote.
But what beans? Sex tittle-tattle won't change peoples' views of BoJo; and he'll simply deny anything else, pointing out that the departmental enquiry into the award of £100k grant was 'appropriate'.
I thought the police inquiry was still ongoing?
Anyway it's not his sex life that's an issue, beyond suggesting a chaotic and irresponsible personal life. That is probably factored in, as you say. It's whether he spent public money on supporting Ms Acuri, who seems to have had few business credentials that might justify it.
That would be a concern, especially to Londoners.
I'm not suggesting the Arcuri business is solved long-term but for the purposes of the election period Boris will simply deny everything (which may or may not be valid) and the media will be very cautious of what they report because of the broadcasting rules during election periods.
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Only if you believe Boris and what he says right now.
I'm up for him getting a big majority now (if possible) and I certainly think it's better than a small one.
He might end up doing over the hardcore of the ERG and going for a fairly close relationship with the EU.
I think the problem with that is that the new influx of Tory MPs is very likely to be heavily skewed to the ERG in terms of its outlook.
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
I'll be particularly interested in the defence and foreign policy sections of the manifesto.
I don't expect to be particularly enlightened, but it will give a flavour of how Boris and his Conservatives see the British role on the world stage post Brexit.
If my memory serves me right, at this time in May 2017, with a similar or approximate vote share, this forum was predicting a Theresa May tally of 400-450 seats. That didn't end well, did it?? Jeremy Corbyn may have had his name and reputation tarnished by the right wing media. Brexit may camouflage serious misdeeds of the Tories, in the last 9 years. However don't underestimate, the pain, suffering and misery, caused by the Tories, to a significant section of the population. Which was not needed, for a country that has the 5th largest economy.
Some people were predicting such massive Tory seat shares. Not everyone. Like most places most people thought the Tories would get a majority, and were wrong.
But while the Tories are definitely hated by many, they were last time and look this time like they will be the most popular political party in the United Kingdom - so people should also not overestimate the pain, suffering and miserty caused by the Tories to a significant section of the population.
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Only if you believe Boris and what he says right now.
I'm up for him getting a big majority now (if possible) and I certainly think it's better than a small one.
He might end up doing over the hardcore of the ERG and going for a fairly close relationship with the EU.
I think the problem with that is that the new influx of Tory MPs is very likely to be heavily skewed to the ERG in terms of its outlook.
I’ve wondered about that. Almost whatever the election result we know a large chunk of the Tory Party will be new MPs. It would be interesting to look at their biographies.
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
Only if you believe Boris and what he says right now.
I'm up for him getting a big majority now (if possible) and I certainly think it's better than a small one.
He might end up doing over the hardcore of the ERG and going for a fairly close relationship with the EU.
I think the problem with that is that the new influx of Tory MPs is very likely to be heavily skewed to the ERG in terms of its outlook.
I think it's more complex than that.
They don't have the baggage of the 1990s as so many of the Spartan veterans do. Different generation.
OK - so if you are happy to accept that a Canada-style agreement will lead to a fundamental change to the UK's current trading relationship with the single market, we agree on that. Can you point me to anything the Tories have said that indicates they believe the same? Until the government accepts this and the impact it will have on, for example, manufacturing supply chains, agricultural exports and the ability of service industries to operate in the single market we will have uncertainty.
Just because there's some technical changes doesn't mean supply chains can't and won't adapt.
Just In Time trade exists even with WTO nations and we aren't going to that.
Yep - it all depends on what the changes are and that will depend on how much alignment the UK government is prepared to accept. If we are going to Canada, then it will be much less than now and that will clearly have a significant impact.
Why will it clearly when we will have a trade deal and be geographically close still?
You can currently lay Michael Bloomberg at 19.5 for the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton at 18 for it. Mystifying.
Yes, but I've run out of money to do it.
If those prices are still available on Saturday 14th December, and I've done well, I may reinvest quite a bit.
When are the possibilities likely to disappear such that we could extract most profits, but not so it’s impossible to trade the bet and we have to leave the cash tied up? First primary?
I increasingly think some punters won't give up on Clinton and Bloomberg until their shadows fade into the night.
Look at the conversation on here this morning, if PB Tories are representative of Tories in general they really don't like Swinson. I reckon those who are going to defect to the Lib Dems already have and are therefore priced on.
I'm not sure Pbers are a good guide to wider opinion, ever. We are all very interested and many of us are actiuvely involved. It's a shock when any of us actually change our preferences.
Most people aren't like that at all. There is a category of floating voter which is really not going to decide till polling day - people who don't like Johnson or Corbyn or Swinson especially, are reluctant to give any of them a thumping vote of confidence, and will have a think on Dec 12 about whether and how to vote.
Well the bit about RAF pilots becoming obsolete is true. I know a company making an artificial intelligence which is capable of shooting down USAF top guns 100% of the time in simulated combat.
Only USAF pilots? Is it a ZX Spectrum?
The ZX Spectrum is the greatest computer in the history of computing.
Perhaps Labour can give us all one as part of their bribes err spending package
You can currently lay Michael Bloomberg at 19.5 for the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton at 18 for it. Mystifying.
Yes, but I've run out of money to do it.
If those prices are still available on Saturday 14th December, and I've done well, I may reinvest quite a bit.
When are the possibilities likely to disappear such that we could extract most profits, but not so it’s impossible to trade the bet and we have to leave the cash tied up? First primary?
I increasingly think some punters won't give up on Clinton and Bloomberg until their shadows fade into the night.
They are probably also betting heavily on David Milliband as next Labour leader.
Comments
She's lying but in my 'patch' of the world - I'd call out similar lies if I see a Tory do similar.
The closest I can do there currently is Hancock saying they've sorted the taper annual allowance problem for the high earning front-line workers in the NHS when all they are doing is paying the tax for them as a sticking plaster.
Not quite the same.
Possibly there isn’t anything to tell. Possibly there is, but she has decided not to tell it? Or possibly she is waiting for the ideal moment, just before the election?
As for HY, he really doesn’t seem to care whether what he posts is accurate or truthful, or not. One can see why he likes Bozo so much.
This is like a Good For Yes parody.
Reality is Labour are promising to throw money at everyone and hoping enough people are stupid enough to believe them.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-football-fans-vote-who-20945594
Idle armie are never advisable to have sitting around. Sometimes their Generals get ideas and fix on internal enemies....
Nothing from other parties except the tories
The tory one was a while ago and I binned it without reading :-)
LIB DEMS first
"The Lib Dems are winning"
"Recent polls show support for the Lib Dems now at record levels"
Jo Swinson is the most popular party leader"
"by staying at the heart of a MODERNISED EU we can improve peoples lives"
Labour
Promise to only take 33k salary and donate the rest to "worthwhile local causes"
Points out mp's are "insulated by 80k paycheck"
No mention of Corbyn
"Labour is the tactical vote in Colchester"
"at last election Labour stormed 9k ahead of Lib Dems and only a few thousand behind the tories" (a few = 6k)
A Tory brexit means drug deals could cost an extra 500 mil a week - all going to big US corporations"
For example l’m sure there’s too much nimbyism in many Tory (but exclusive to them) councils in building new homes, but Labour’s policies such as rent controls are bonkers. Blair set us on a ruinous path of sending 50% to university, where we have a debt fuelled industry, producing increasingly worthless bits of paper, that seems to mainly benefit the people actually working in this bloated sector as they are getting paid to produce this grade inflation. And the Tories have done sod all about it except stick interest rates way over what they should be.
So the young feel debt burdened and feel housing is beyond them.
On the other hand having worked hard and honestly for over three decades and not having been born with any kind of spoon in my mouth let alone a silver one, I’ve got to the point where I’m comfortable and looking towards retirement. So Jezza coming along and threatening to take loads of it off me out of what I see as ideological jealousy, and taking me for a fool that announcing countless billions in extra spending on a daily basis is not going to bite me in the bum despite not being an oligarch, is not going down well chez Welshowl as you can doubtless imagine.
Trouble is honesty gets shot down so easily. Burnham and May tried to tackle the care issue and got fried for instance.
A choice of the least bad is where we are.
Denuding them of defence is an abdication of duty, as well as throwing away the means to defend the principle that free people have a right to determine their own destiny.
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1198529621555372032?s=20
Perfectly legitimate to have a debate about whether or not the EU should be involved in running joint military exercises with members. But don't lie about what these exercises involve.
It was sad to see that the Tories have no vision for the economy as was pointed out by Sophie Ridge.
In my seat, not so much
Look at the conversation on here this morning, if PB Tories are representative of Tories in general they really don't like Swinson. I reckon those who are going to defect to the Lib Dems already have and are therefore priced on.
What do you think?
Anyway it's not his sex life that's an issue, beyond suggesting a chaotic and irresponsible personal life. That is probably factored in, as you say. It's whether he spent public money on supporting Ms Acuri, who seems to have had few business credentials that might justify it.
That would be a concern, especially to Londoners.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50536205
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
It's a weird case, that the existence (or otherwise) of the relationship is key to whether an offence has been committed by Johnson.
I don't see how Arcuri would have committed any offence (unless she signed a declaration regarding possible conflict of interest).
Sons girlfriend is a nurse in her 20's
She is voting blue
The mum works on the railways
Big family meal yesterday where multi generations of that family were present/
Only 1 person present favoured Labour (20 something male(
The rest of the family took Labour to pieces and Granddad pointed out what Labour and powerful unions meant in the 70's, including rubbish piling up everywhere.
They all with exception of that lad HATE Corbyn.
🕷Frances Coppola)))
Verified account @Frances_Coppola
13h13 hours ago
(((
🕷Frances Coppola))) Retweeted Jeremy Corbyn
You've just demonstrated that you have zero understanding of the issue. Your proposal is muddled, unfair and regressive. It is also possibly illegal, since it is not offered to men who have lost access to Pension Credit and whose state pension age is rising to 66. #WASPI
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1198382413191303168
I'm expecting to work (in some form) until I'm 75. What I might do is go part-time from 65.
How about this?
“There are 15.3 million women working. They will have to pay more tax to pay this money to 3.5 women. Why, Mr Corbyn, are you for the few rather than the many?”
If those prices are still available on Saturday 14th December, and I've done well, I may reinvest quite a bit.
Just In Time trade exists even with WTO nations and we aren't going to that.
On a very good night they could end up with 16 or 17 seats.
1. A Con majority. Vacuous amoral clown as PM. Hard Brexit. 5 years of Torydom.
2. No Con majority. PM tbc. Brexit tbc. Political chaos. Ref2s, EU/Scot. Another GE.
And the only one of Labour's key manifesto 'plans' to feature in (2) is the Ref2 on Brexit.
I'm up for him getting a big majority now (if possible) and I certainly think it's better than a small one.
He might end up doing over the hardcore of the ERG and going for a fairly close relationship with the EU.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7719197/Labour-promises-compensate-women-lost-financially-changes-state-pension-age.html
Labour hits the panic button: John McDonnell rushes out £58BILLION pledge to help women who 'lost out due to changes in state pension age' - but admits it was NOT costed in the manifesto and the government will have to borrow the money
Also I note:
They have already lost a legal challenge on the issue - but are mounting an appeal.
Should not Labour wait then?
Oh wait - they are desperate
That didn't end well, did it??
Jeremy Corbyn may have had his name and reputation tarnished by the right wing media. Brexit may camouflage serious misdeeds of the Tories, in the last 9 years. However don't underestimate, the pain, suffering and misery, caused by the Tories, to a significant section of the population. Which was not needed, for a country that has the 5th largest economy.
https://mobile.twitter.com/dril/status/1198408178766974976
I don't expect to be particularly enlightened, but it will give a flavour of how Boris and his Conservatives see the British role on the world stage post Brexit.
But while the Tories are definitely hated by many, they were last time and look this time like they will be the most popular political party in the United Kingdom - so people should also not overestimate the pain, suffering and miserty caused by the Tories to a significant section of the population.
They don't have the baggage of the 1990s as so many of the Spartan veterans do. Different generation.
Most people aren't like that at all. There is a category of floating voter which is really not going to decide till polling day - people who don't like Johnson or Corbyn or Swinson especially, are reluctant to give any of them a thumping vote of confidence, and will have a think on Dec 12 about whether and how to vote.