Anecdotal, but signs in Finchley & GG are that the message is sinking in: vote Berger, get Corbyn. Besides which, they have precious little base support to build from, and (beyond lots of leaflets) have been pretty invisible so far.
Similar logic should help see the Tories home in next door Hendon as well.
Voting lib dem does not get corbyn stop you lying trolling the gap between both of the other parties is huge with the two toss pots running them if they won’t change their leader then there is no c+s but corbyn is going to be sub 200 so stop shifting yourself and stop ramping
What is this eccentric obsession with ‘ramping’? You bang on about it so much people just ignore you.
We always have rampers on here at election time, new posters who disappear on the bong at 10 o'clock on polling day.
I don't necessarily agree with what either Endillion or Nichomar are posting but I think it is unfair to class either of them as rampers just turning up for the election. They have both been regular posters on PB for a good amount of time and discuss any and everything just like the rest of us.
Indeed. And they have a lot of comments for someone who "just turned up". About 6,000 between the pair of them
I imagine this will be forgotten about quickly, when Johnson just dodges the debates this week? And no doubt the Twitter crowd will buery it, those who are Labour fans will attack Andrew Neil, the press will run with it and just turn Corbyn into more of an outsider. Like I said, they blew their load far too early.
People who hate Corbyn will think it was terrible, those who don’t won’t. This will make zero difference.
What will swing voters think?
They'll never see it.
Quite. One wonders how much impact any of these set pieces will make. Besides, from what little I've read Corbyn seemed to struggle most on Labour's fantasy spending plans, and his target voters don't appear at all interested in whether or not the sums add up. All they're thinking is that their pockets will be stuffed with someone else's money, and what a marvellous thing this is.
They won't see the whole interview no, but not many do these days. It's the excerpts people will see.
A horrible half hour for Labour but I doubt Bozo will fair much better .
Fair. Boris is going to be destroyed. Anything less would seem like partiality on Neil's side.
Boris is better suited to handling hostile interviewers than Corbyn. He might bluster, play the buffoon and make big gestures - but he is still better equipped than Corbyn at dealing with hostility.
Corbyn is only comfortable when he is surrounded by those in his bubble. And whilst he did - just about - hold it together tonight, you could see the anger in his eyes, the deep sighs, the eye rolling and the lack of courtesy at the end.
Boris will quite rightly face tough questions but he will almost certainly handle it better. Whether you believe him or like him is for another time - but he will not let it get away from him as Corbyn did tonight.
Not sure that’s true. Boris has the advantage that his manifesto is not insane and full of risible lies. But, unlike Corbyn, he has a desperate need to be liked, and bumbles badly when his interviewer refuses to be charmed. Boris is also really bad on detail.
I can see his half hour easily being as painful as Corbyn’s, but perhaps not as politically damaging.
A horrible half hour for Labour but I doubt Bozo will fair much better .
Fair. Boris is going to be destroyed. Anything less would seem like partiality on Neil's side.
Boris is better suited to handling hostile interviewers than Corbyn. He might bluster, play the buffoon and make big gestures - but he is still better equipped than Corbyn at dealing with hostility.
Corbyn is only comfortable when he is surrounded by those in his bubble. And whilst he did - just about - hold it together tonight, you could see the anger in his eyes, the deep sighs, the eye rolling and the lack of courtesy at the end.
Boris will quite rightly face tough questions but he will almost certainly handle it better. Whether you believe him or like him is for another time - but he will not let it get away from him as Corbyn did tonight.
Andrew Neill is near universally praised. I wonder why other journalists aren't as merciless.
I imagine this will be forgotten about quickly, when Johnson just dodges the debates this week? And no doubt the Twitter crowd will buery it, those who are Labour fans will attack Andrew Neil, the press will run with it and just turn Corbyn into more of an outsider. Like I said, they blew their load far too early.
@afneil When did you last beat your wife? I’ve never beaten - Would you like to apologise for beating your wife? But I’ve never - So you won’t apologise? Andrew I - Right. We’ll move on to your support for the IRA -
I imagine this will be forgotten about quickly, when Johnson just dodges the debates this week? And no doubt the Twitter crowd will buery it, those who are Labour fans will attack Andrew Neil, the press will run with it and just turn Corbyn into more of an outsider. Like I said, they blew their load far too early.
Does anyone know if @Scott_P is ok? He hasn't posted or been on the site for weeks. As he usually posts about 50 times a day, that seems a little worrying
I think the last time he was away for a while it turned out he was away on holiday.
These multi-millionaire Remainers jetting about around the world for weeks one end...
Have sent him an email. Will notify PB of any response.
rcs claimed to have banned him for disrespect to radiohead. I assumed at the time he was joking...
His profile doesn’t suggest he’s banned, but equally it shows no activity since November 15th. Was that the day of the password lockout or was that earlier?
It was Andrew - with Epstein turning up part way through with a fifteen year old girl.....
Almost as if details of a Tory interviewer on a Tory broadcasting platform was being reported by clique of ardent Tories. Corbyn's this Corbyn's that! You are terrified he is going to pay young and disadvantaged people more.
Does anyone know if @Scott_P is ok? He hasn't posted or been on the site for weeks. As he usually posts about 50 times a day, that seems a little worrying
I think the last time he was away for a while it turned out he was away on holiday.
These multi-millionaire Remainers jetting about around the world for weeks one end...
Have sent him an email. Will notify PB of any response.
rcs claimed to have banned him for disrespect to radiohead. I assumed at the time he was joking...
If that is true he got off light. Serious offenders are usually banished to ConHome.
I imagine this will be forgotten about quickly, when Johnson just dodges the debates this week? And no doubt the Twitter crowd will buery it, those who are Labour fans will attack Andrew Neil, the press will run with it and just turn Corbyn into more of an outsider. Like I said, they blew their load far too early.
People who hate Corbyn will think it was terrible, those who don’t won’t. This will make zero difference.
What will swing voters think?
They'll never see it.
Quite. One wonders how much impact any of these set pieces will make. Besides, from what little I've read Corbyn seemed to struggle most on Labour's fantasy spending plans, and his target voters don't appear at all interested in whether or not the sums add up. All they're thinking is that their pockets will be stuffed with someone else's money, and what a marvellous thing this is.
If you’re a Labour voter you saw him highlight public services and poverty . If you’re not you saw a mess over spending .
On Waspi , it got some airtime , some women might have not been aware yet .
On anti semitism Corbyn attacked the Chief Rabbi on his accusations , refused to apologize . That might not play well but equally if you apologize does that mean you accept blame .
If you liked Corbyn before you’ll still like him , if you don’t this interview wouldn’t change that .
People who hate Corbyn will think it was terrible, those who don’t won’t. This will make zero difference.
What will swing voters think?
They'll never see it.
Quite. One wonders how much impact any of these set pieces will make. Besides, from what little I've read Corbyn seemed to struggle most on Labour's fantasy spending plans, and his target voters don't appear at all interested in whether or not the sums add up. All they're thinking is that their pockets will be stuffed with someone else's money, and what a marvellous thing this is.
Well, I have not bothered watching any of them so they will not be influencing my vote.
If you come on pb you must be interested in politics. And this is the most intriguing and crucial election in many decades.
Yet you’re so uninterested you don’t watch vital interviews? Odd.
I imagine this will be forgotten about quickly, when Johnson just dodges the debates this week? And no doubt the Twitter crowd will buery it, those who are Labour fans will attack Andrew Neil, the press will run with it and just turn Corbyn into more of an outsider. Like I said, they blew their load far too early.
A horrible half hour for Labour but I doubt Bozo will fair much better .
Fair. Boris is going to be destroyed. Anything less would seem like partiality on Neil's side.
If people are used to AN interviewing style then watching they’ll probably be more forgiving . As a Labour supporter I have no problems with AN eviscerating Corbyn , he does it to all politicians.
I have no time for people ranting at AN , hes there to do a job and does it brilliantly .
And he did it to Sturgeon and he will do it to Johnson.
Have listened to him from the early 80’s when he had a phone in on LBC he has always been the best and least biased interviewer I’ve come across despite, apparently being a Tory.
A horrible half hour for Labour but I doubt Bozo will fair much better .
Fair. Boris is going to be destroyed. Anything less would seem like partiality on Neil's side.
Boris is better suited to handling hostile interviewers than Corbyn. He might bluster, play the buffoon and make big gestures - but he is still better equipped than Corbyn at dealing with hostility.
Corbyn is only comfortable when he is surrounded by those in his bubble. And whilst he did - just about - hold it together tonight, you could see the anger in his eyes, the deep sighs, the eye rolling and the lack of courtesy at the end.
Boris will quite rightly face tough questions but he will almost certainly handle it better. Whether you believe him or like him is for another time - but he will not let it get away from him as Corbyn did tonight.
Not sure that’s true. Boris has the advantage that his manifesto is not insane and full of risible lies. But, unlike Corbyn, he has a desperate need to be liked, and bumbles badly when his interviewer refuses to be charmed. Boris is also really bad on detail.
I can see his half hour easily being as painful as Corbyn’s, but perhaps not as politically damaging.
That's not quite true.
I can see him being taken to the cleaners over getting a deal with the EU within the year and not being forced into an extension of the transition period.
We've also seen that he can't answer the question when pushed on trust.
AN will also take him to the cleaners when he keeps saying 'get brexit done'
@afneil When did you last beat your wife? I’ve never beaten - Would you like to apologise for beating your wife? But I’ve never - So you won’t apologise? Andrew I - Right. We’ll move on to your support for the IRA -
That took you some time to think of, and doesn't work. He made no attempt to deny there was anything to apologise for. So it was more
When did you last beat your wife?
Look, I have been very clear that every woman no matter what her marital status should be protected from all forms of assault be it in the home, on the trains or in the workplace
...when he could have said "never." Why didn't he?
OT. Miriam Margolyes excellent on Ch 4 News in defence of Jeremy Corbyn. I happen to know her and she is a woman of the utmost integrity and what's more unlike most commentators on this subject by virtue of her age and history she knows what she's talking about.
There is no defence for Corbyn
Would you like to list the instances of anti semitism that particularly offend you? Two or three will do.
All and every example
It isn't reasonable to slander someone as a racist and then not even be able to produce a single example. In fct it's pathetic. No use posing as a great moral force on here when all you are is bluster.
I will give you five
- Commemorating the death of a Jew killing terrorist - Liking an obviously anti-Semitic mural painted by an anti-Semite - Endorsing an anti-Semitic book as a great work - Calling openly anti-Semitic terrorist groups his friends - Saying he can't comment on anti-Semitic complaints as the process must be independent while his office interferes to protect anti-Semites
As I thought. All but one relate to the state of Israel. A land the Chief Rabbi singularly failed to mention in his long Times article. Extraordinary as he is so closely associated with that country and their politics and he must have realised that it was at the centre of the criticism.
When Boris sits down,Andrew Neil is going to go after 1. Trust, 2. Women. 3. Letterboxes and 4. Do or due,Brexit by end 2020
It will be painful;
Boris needs to develop acute appendicitis ASAP.
Dreadful though Corbyn was, it is vanishingly unlikely he will become PM after the election. Not so Johnson. So I'm kind of hoping Neil will emphasise that passing his deal is the begining, not the end, of the Brexit anguish and that a No Deal or Extension on 31/12/2020 is highly likely.
The other Party Leaders have failed to get this across to the public so far.
A horrible half hour for Labour but I doubt Bozo will fair much better .
Fair. Boris is going to be destroyed. Anything less would seem like partiality on Neil's side.
If people are used to AN interviewing style then watching they’ll probably be more forgiving . As a Labour supporter I have no problems with AN eviscerating Corbyn , he does it to all politicians.
I have no time for people ranting at AN , hes there to do a job and does it brilliantly .
He is one of the few left who still know the basis of good interviewing is to be absolutely on top of the brief. You need to know as much, if not more, about every subject under discussion than the interviewee and to be able to present it cogently. Too many interviewers these days are not willing to put in the hard work before the interview to get that depth of knowledge. That is why politicians are able to get away with obfuscation and outright lies.
The trouble is that most TV interviewers are incapable of being on top of their brief - because they haven't got the faintest idea re, eg, what the marriage allowance is, or how dividends are taxed or how national insurance works etc. It would be like asking the average poster on here to brief themselves on nuclear physics - they wouldn't even be able to try, even if they wanted to.
People who hate Corbyn will think it was terrible, those who don’t won’t. This will make zero difference.
What will swing voters think?
They'll never see it.
Quite. One wonders how much impact any of these set pieces will make. Besides, from what little I've read Corbyn seemed to struggle most on Labour's fantasy spending plans, and his target voters don't appear at all interested in whether or not the sums add up. All they're thinking is that their pockets will be stuffed with someone else's money, and what a marvellous thing this is.
They won't see the whole interview no, but not many do these days. It's the excerpts people will see.
My swingometer that I posted is two swingometers in one due to the Brexit party. In Labour seats you should subtract BRX from Conservatives in the polls to get the swing, the reverse holds in Conservative seats.
I also take into account that if the swing is small the Conservatives might lose 5 seats due to tactical voting.
The total effect is that a Hung Parliament occurs in a very wide range, from a Labour lead of 5% to Conservative lead of 9%.
A horrible half hour for Labour but I doubt Bozo will fair much better .
Fair. Boris is going to be destroyed. Anything less would seem like partiality on Neil's side.
If people are used to AN interviewing style then watching they’ll probably be more forgiving . As a Labour supporter I have no problems with AN eviscerating Corbyn , he does it to all politicians.
I have no time for people ranting at AN , hes there to do a job and does it brilliantly .
He is one of the few left who still know the basis of good interviewing is to be absolutely on top of the brief. You need to know as much, if not more, about every subject under discussion than the interviewee and to be able to present it cogently. Too many interviewers these days are not willing to put in the hard work before the interview to get that depth of knowledge. That is why politicians are able to get away with obfuscation and outright lies.
The trouble is that most TV interviewers are incapable of being on top of their brief - because they haven't got the faintest idea re, eg, what the marriage allowance is, or how dividends are taxed or how national insurance works etc. It would be like asking the average poster on here to brief themselves on nuclear physics - they wouldn't even be able to try, even if they wanted to.
Don’t be so sure. I might have to spend an hour or two reacquainting myself with the semi-empirical mass formula, but I haven’t forgotten everything I once knew...
Moreover, the basics of nuclear physics are not really that hard: give me a few hours one to one and I could probably get the basics across to anyone on this forum.
Anecdotal, but signs in Finchley & GG are that the message is sinking in: vote Berger, get Corbyn. Besides which, they have precious little base support to build from, and (beyond lots of leaflets) have been pretty invisible so far.
Similar logic should help see the Tories home in next door Hendon as well.
Pure spin. Labour will be a poor third and aren’t in the running in Finchley
Maybe. Lib Dems lost their deposit in 15, and only just got it back in 17. They have no history of doing well in the seat. But that isn't even the point. If Labour are the largest party, or even if they are a close second, Corbyn gets first shot at forming a government. I don't trust Swinson not to renege on her promise not to allow that, especially once the clock starts ticking on No Deal 31 Jan. And I have no idea what Berger does if Swinson signs up to some loose C&S deal with Corbyn on a bill-by-bill basis. Nor, it seems, do many others. The only way to prevent that is to maximise the number of Tory MPs. Remember that for Jews it's Corbyn having the legitimacy of being PM that is scary, not the ability to implement his manifesto.
" If Labour are the largest party, or even if they are a close second...."
Since this is a betting-oriented political site may I suggest you check out the odds against these improbable scenarios. It may make you a tad less hysterical.
Current markets, somewhere between 5 and 10%, depending on your assumptions. It requires a slightly larger seat swing than was achieved in 2017. I'm not really sure what your point was? Even the safest of safe MPs are knocking on doors, making sure their supporters vote, just in case.
The evidence of the special lens he has in his glasses is seen by some as evidence of having had a stroke - it is one frequently used by stroke victims
Hard to know for certain - but it shows something isn't right with his vision, if nothing else
Anecdotal, but signs in Finchley & GG are that the message is sinking in: vote Berger, get Corbyn. Besides which, they have precious little base support to build from, and (beyond lots of leaflets) have been pretty invisible so far.
Similar logic should help see the Tories home in next door Hendon as well.
Pure spin. Labour will be a poor third and aren’t in the running in Finchley
OT. Miriam Margolyes excellent on Ch 4 News in defence of Jeremy Corbyn. I happen to know her and she is a woman of the utmost integrity and what's more unlike most commentators on this subject by virtue of her age and history she knows what she's talking about.
Well, I know her too. A good actress. Not sure what expertise she has in investigations of anti-semitism or indeed investigations at all. None at all I am guessing. So your point is what, exactly?
I still think we're headed for a Hung Parliament - but I have to say if the polls don't narrow further that possibility is quickly diminishing.
Apparently the youth turnout can make 9% difference, I highly doubt this is true is it? Presumably that's if they all turn out?
If you want to put tinfoil hat on, many pollsters last time had a 10 point gap on the day, so you could perhaps say things are tied now. I don't think that, I think it's probably about a five point gap.
(Or it could be a misrepresentation - don’t know. In CA for example, property values increase by inflation based on original purchase price plus any improvements. They don’t reflect market value)
OT. Miriam Margolyes excellent on Ch 4 News in defence of Jeremy Corbyn. I happen to know her and she is a woman of the utmost integrity and what's more unlike most commentators on this subject by virtue of her age and history she knows what she's talking about.
There is no defence for Corbyn
Would you like to list the instances of anti semitism that particularly offend you? Two or three will do.
All and every example
It isn't reasonable to slander someone as a racist and then not even be able to produce a single example. In fct it's pathetic. No use posing as a great moral force on here when all you are is bluster.
I will give you five
- Commemorating the death of a Jew killing terrorist - Liking an obviously anti-Semitic mural painted by an anti-Semite - Endorsing an anti-Semitic book as a great work - Calling openly anti-Semitic terrorist groups his friends - Saying he can't comment on anti-Semitic complaints as the process must be independent while his office interferes to protect anti-Semites
As I thought. All but one relate to the state of Israel. A land the Chief Rabbi singularly failed to mention in his long Times article. Extraordinary as he is so closely associated with that country and their politics and he must have realised that it was at the centre of the criticism.
"Chief Rabbi associated with world's only Jewish country" "Stay tuned for shocking news about the Pope's secret connections to the Vatican"
People who hate Corbyn will think it was terrible, those who don’t won’t. This will make zero difference.
What will swing voters think?
They'll never see it.
Quite. One wonders how much impact any of these set pieces will make. Besides, from what little I've read Corbyn seemed to struggle most on Labour's fantasy spending plans, and his target voters don't appear at all interested in whether or not the sums add up. All they're thinking is that their pockets will be stuffed with someone else's money, and what a marvellous thing this is.
Well, I have not bothered watching any of them so they will not be influencing my vote.
If you come on pb you must be interested in politics. And this is the most intriguing and crucial election in many decades.
Yet you’re so uninterested you don’t watch vital interviews? Odd.
@Byronic - I think it is a foregone conclusion. The LDs cannot win. Corbyn will not win either. The Tories WILL win, much as I regret it. I cannot see anything that will change that result. Corbyn will not improve and the Leave vote is piled up in the Tory camp. The size of the win is all that is in doubt.
The evidence of the special lens he has in his glasses is seen by some as evidence of having had a stroke - it is one frequently used by stroke victims
Hard to know for certain - but it shows something isn't right with his vision, if nothing else
I think it’s a lot simpler than some suggest. Put simply, there’s a reason most people have retired by his age. They need/want to slow down a bit. By contrast he already has a stressful job, and one that will become considerably more so if he becomes PM (being british PM is, I think more stressful that something like US President as you have to be in the detail of everything, always).
The evidence of the special lens he has in his glasses is seen by some as evidence of having had a stroke - it is one frequently used by stroke victims
Hard to know for certain - but it shows something isn't right with his vision, if nothing else
I think it’s a lot simpler than some suggest. Put simply, there’s a reason most people have retired by his age. They need/want to slow down a bit. By contrast he already has a stressful job, and one that will become considerably more so if he becomes PM (being british PM is, I think more stressful that something like US President as you have to be in the detail of everything, always).
If Labour do manage, at the end of all this, to go backwards and allow Johnson to win his majority then it'll be an astonishing failure. The Tories have been in charge of austerity for nearly a decade, all the while struggling with Brexit, and are already on their third leader. This election really ought to be an open goal for the Left, but they've frightened so many people that they're struggling to get much above core vote levels (if you believe the polls, though of course a 1992-style fiasco involving Shy Labourites cannot be ruled out.)
That said, if Labour keeps promising to hose people down with cash and goes on mithering about the NHS for the rest of the campaign, then they ought to be able to grind that majority back down to nothing.
(Or it could be a misrepresentation - don’t know. In CA for example, property values increase by inflation based on original purchase price plus any improvements. They don’t reflect market value)
His stubborn refusal to release his tax returns intrigues. Pretty much every other candidate/President regards it as routine. You have to suspect there is something there.
In all honesty I'd say that interview was very bad - but I'm not sure I'd stretch for car crash. Corbyn was clearly pissed off at yet again being accused by implication of being anti-Semitic. I don't see why he should apologise for something he isn't. Indeed he's already apologised, he apologised during the debate.
At some point you have to stand up when people just go on and on - and he didn't do it in the best way but I can see where he was coming from, to be honest. I'm sure that's just my bias coming through.
The more surprising thing was the poor lack of policy detail - he's been good on that so far during the debates. But he had nothing, I wonder if he's ill, he didn't look well.
Can't see this swinging many people. People will either say Neil is a cock or Corbyn is a cock. Really nothing new was covered.
People who hate Corbyn will think it was terrible, those who don’t won’t. This will make zero difference.
What will swing voters think?
They'll never see it.
Quite. One wonders how much impact any of these set pieces will make. Besides, from what little I've read Corbyn seemed to struggle most on Labour's fantasy spending plans, and his target voters don't appear at all interested in whether or not the sums add up. All they're thinking is that their pockets will be stuffed with someone else's money, and what a marvellous thing this is.
Well, I have not bothered watching any of them so they will not be influencing my vote.
If you come on pb you must be interested in politics. And this is the most intriguing and crucial election in many decades.
Yet you’re so uninterested you don’t watch vital interviews? Odd.
@Byronic - I think it is a foregone conclusion. The LDs cannot win. Corbyn will not win either. The Tories WILL win, much as I regret it. I cannot see anything that will change that result. Corbyn will not improve and the Leave vote is piled up in the Tory camp. The size of the win is all that is in doubt.
You could have said much of that in 2017, and Labour still pushed the Tories off their perch.
This time Corbyn just has to stop Boris winning a majority, and Corbyn will likely be some kind of PM. And the polls are narrowing.
This is the third or fourth time I've seen somebody mention the shy Labour effect - do people think it's a real phenomenon? I can't imagine a shy Tory effect this time around.
Oh fuck, he’s just said he’ll pay pension changes from reserves and has admitted there isn’t enough money here to do it.
As I pointed out on the previous thread.
Yes, you did. But I’m still stunned Corbyn was trapped into actually admitting it.
None of this will be noticed by the intended recipients of the bribes. The £-signs will flash before their eyes and everything else will be blanked out as irrelevant background noise.
Lots and lots of money for them, paid for by someone else. Billionaires or banks or the tooth fairy or something, what do they care?
OT. Miriam Margolyes excellent on Ch 4 News in defence of Jeremy Corbyn. I happen to know her and she is a woman of the utmost integrity and what's more unlike most commentators on this subject by virtue of her age and history she knows what she's talking about.
There is no defence for Corbyn
Would you like to list the instances of anti semitism that particularly offend you? Two or three will do.
All and every example
It isn't reasonable to slander someone as a racist and then not even be able to produce a single example. In fct it's pathetic. No use posing as a great moral force on here when all you are is bluster.
I will give you five
- Commemorating the death of a Jew killing terrorist - Liking an obviously anti-Semitic mural painted by an anti-Semite - Endorsing an anti-Semitic book as a great work - Calling openly anti-Semitic terrorist groups his friends - Saying he can't comment on anti-Semitic complaints as the process must be independent while his office interferes to protect anti-Semites
As I thought. All but one relate to the state of Israel. A land the Chief Rabbi singularly failed to mention in his long Times article. Extraordinary as he is so closely associated with that country and their politics and he must have realised that it was at the centre of the criticism.
"Chief Rabbi associated with world's only Jewish country" "Stay tuned for shocking news about the Pope's secret connections to the Vatican"
While we're on the subject, which two do you think "relate to the state of Israel" out of the rigging of Antisemitism complaints to get antisemites off, praising an Antisemitic book written in 1902, and supporting a mural with Sturmer-themed caricatures of Jews who died in 1915 and 1932.
That should be a game changer. But will anyone watch it? Does anyone care? Hmm.
The full interview? No. That will probably not change many views. He was dire, but most people who pay attention to such things (on both sides) knew that already. What will damage Corbyn are the clips. The refusal to apologise, the admission that ordinary people will pay more tax, and the confession that his WASPI pledge is unaffordable. Those three clips played widely on TV could well hurt Labour badly. Especially the last two as it instantly removes the one area his supporters claim to see an advantage over Johnson, wrong though they are - honesty.
It's the last two - the admission that ordinary people will pay more tax, and the confession that his WASPI pledge is unaffordable - that should be focused on.
The polling average is shifting to that direction, it all depends on the squeeze on the Brexit Party in Labour seats. Brexit not standing in Conservative seats means that it is very difficult for the opposition to gain seats from the government. Anything from a Labour lead of 5 to a Conservative lead of 9% could result in no Government being possible to form, if the BRX party is at 5% nationally.
The polling average is shifting to that direction, it all depends on the squeeze on the Brexit Party in Labour seats. Brexit not standing in Conservative seats means that it is very difficult for the opposition to gain seats from the government. Anything from a Labour lead of 5 to a Conservative lead of 9% could result in no Government being possible to form, if the BRX party is at 5% nationally.
If we see a poll with a 5 point gap this week or next, things are going to get squeezy.
What I have seen this week is a bit of momentum starting - but is it too late? Who knows
Corbyn doesn't know what government bonds are. He said that they're not borrowing. CCHQ should spend some time explaining that they are, exactly, government borrowing. The man and his acolytes know so little about finance and are a terrible risk to this country's economy and well being.
The evidence of the special lens he has in his glasses is seen by some as evidence of having had a stroke - it is one frequently used by stroke victims
Hard to know for certain - but it shows something isn't right with his vision, if nothing else
This sort of discussion does annoy me a bit.
It is worth remembering that both the men leading the UK and US during WW2 were extremely ill at times throughout much of their time in office and Roosevelt actually died in office. Churchill had a heart attack whilst visiting Roosevelt in 1941. That didn't mean they weren't exactly the right people to have in power at the time. I am all for attacking Corbyn because he will wreck the country. But the arguments about his health are spurious and should play no part in discussions as to his suitability for office.
@Byronic Corbyn will become PM only if the DUP get few seats and the non DUP & Conservative MP's are more than 322. The question has to be asked what will happen if no one can form a government after this election.
When Boris sits down,Andrew Neil is going to go after 1. Trust, 2. Women. 3. Letterboxes and 4. Do or due,Brexit by end 2020
It will be painful;
I really do think Neil is a poor interviewer. He is too hyper aggressive and badgering. He is better chairing a panel like on a week in politics.
Sometimes his hyper-aggressive style turns up forensic details others have missed, but often it's reminiscent of his red-braces years at the Sunday Times, over-certain in that distinctly 1980s way that brutally outspoken is best for all.
This is the third or fourth time I've seen somebody mention the shy Labour effect - do people think it's a real phenomenon? I can't imagine a shy Tory effect this time around.
Yes, I wouldn't be at all surprised. Most likely nice, PC middle class people who've been paying attention to all the anti-Semitism coverage. Pretending they'll go LD or Green or that they're undecided, when they're likely or certain to back Labour in the privacy of the polling booth.
Corbyn doesn't know what government bonds are. He said that they're not borrowing. CCHQ should spend some time explaining that they are, exactly, government borrowing. The man and his acolytes know so little about finance and are a terrible risk to this country's economy and well being.
That's a very good point. According to the BBC he said that Waspi would be paid for from Reserves, but also said there were not sufficient reserves. Separately he mentioned Government Bonds which are obviously borrowing. He's clueless.
This is the third or fourth time I've seen somebody mention the shy Labour effect - do people think it's a real phenomenon? I can't imagine a shy Tory effect this time around.
The trouble is that this time almost everyone has a reason to be shy
I don't know if somebody can explain how wrong I am again - but Kantar without turnout adjustments again shows a very small gap. So does this mean in theory the parties could be only a couple of points apart - or is the sample only useful when weighted based on turnout?
In all honesty I'd say that interview was very bad - but I'm not sure I'd stretch for car crash. Corbyn was clearly pissed off at yet again being accused by implication of being anti-Semitic. I don't see why he should apologise for something he isn't. Indeed he's already apologised, he apologised during the debate.
At some point you have to stand up when people just go on and on - and he didn't do it in the best way but I can see where he was coming from, to be honest. I'm sure that's just my bias coming through.
The more surprising thing was the poor lack of policy detail - he's been good on that so far during the debates. But he had nothing, I wonder if he's ill, he didn't look well.
Can't see this swinging many people. People will either say Neil is a cock or Corbyn is a cock. Really nothing new was covered.
I think it would be completely naive to think that many of the undecided or can't be bothered are going to take half an hour out to watch Andrew Neill eviscerate a party leader. The odd 5 second snip on social media or the news is probably the extent of it.
Its something that satisfies political nerds. And the odd psychopath.
The evidence of the special lens he has in his glasses is seen by some as evidence of having had a stroke - it is one frequently used by stroke victims
Hard to know for certain - but it shows something isn't right with his vision, if nothing else
This sort of discussion does annoy me a bit.
It is worth remembering that both the men leading the UK and US during WW2 were extremely ill at times throughout much of their time in office and Roosevelt actually died in office. Churchill had a heart attack whilst visiting Roosevelt in 1941. That didn't mean they weren't exactly the right people to have in power at the time. I am all for attacking Corbyn because he will wreck the country. But the arguments about his health are spurious and should play no part in discussions as to his suitability for office.
This is, ostensibly, a betting blog. I see nothing wrong with people discussing a politician's health. I don't think anyone is saying it rules him out as being PM. MANY other things do that.
I don't know if somebody can explain how wrong I am again - but Kantar without turnout adjustments again shows a very small gap. So does this mean in theory the parties could be only a couple of points apart - or is the sample only useful when weighted based on turnout?
I remember an interview Boris had with Paxman, where Paxman's usual schtick was utterly useless against Boris. Paxman was just reduced to laughing and shrugging his shoulders.
Corbyn doesn't know what government bonds are. He said that they're not borrowing. CCHQ should spend some time explaining that they are, exactly, government borrowing. The man and his acolytes know so little about finance and are a terrible risk to this country's economy and well being.
That's a very good point. According to the BBC he said that Waspi would be paid for from Reserves, but also said there were not sufficient reserves. Separately he mentioned Government Bonds which are obviously borrowing. He's clueless.
No on that he did actually answer.
He said it would be paid over a long period - and if there were reserves then that would pay for some of it. Borrowing would pay for some of it.
He did actually answer that question, it was one of the few he actually answered.
Corbyn's problem is that he doesn't really do short answers, he tried to answer it the wrong way, which works in a debate or in a crowd but not one on one. He interviews dreadfully.
I think the problem with Neil is that he makes a good point and then goes overboard on it.
We learnt nothing new there from Corbyn, absolutely nothing at all.
We learned that he doesn’t understand debt. And that poor people will pay more in tax. And that he has no idea how to fund his WASPI pledge. And he has no grasp of tax take.
We learned that he is unfit to be prime minister and that his manifesto is based on lies.
If Labour do manage, at the end of all this, to go backwards and allow Johnson to win his majority then it'll be an astonishing failure. The Tories have been in charge of austerity for nearly a decade, all the while struggling with Brexit, and are already on their third leader. This election really ought to be an open goal for the Left, but they've frightened so many people that they're struggling to get much above core vote levels (if you believe the polls, though of course a 1992-style fiasco involving Shy Labourites cannot be ruled out.)
That said, if Labour keeps promising to hose people down with cash and goes on mithering about the NHS for the rest of the campaign, then they ought to be able to grind that majority back down to nothing.
If labour had a half decent leader Johnson would by now be on the ropes, by an half decent sensible social democrat who through winning an election can actually help the people the current leadership claim they wish to help. It’s quite simple you can be as pure a socialist as you like if you don’t win then you will benefit no one. Either get back to the center ground or go back to your old student union and prepare for NUS presidency.
When Boris sits down,Andrew Neil is going to go after 1. Trust, 2. Women. 3. Letterboxes and 4. Do or due,Brexit by end 2020
It will be painful;
Doubt that Andrew Neil will go on women. Boris might just remind Neil that it's no quite so straightforward is it, Andrew?
Has Neil ever been suspected of financing his mistress out of public funds?
Probably not, but as I recall it the Pamella Bordes affair was hugely embarrassing for Neil. He'll steer clear of Arcuri in the interview, not least because the public have no interest in it and thus far he's no evidence to cite. Boris will just repeat his current line that he did nothing wrong. A pointless discussion.
In all honesty I'd say that interview was very bad - but I'm not sure I'd stretch for car crash. Corbyn was clearly pissed off at yet again being accused by implication of being anti-Semitic. I don't see why he should apologise for something he isn't. Indeed he's already apologised, he apologised during the debate.
At some point you have to stand up when people just go on and on - and he didn't do it in the best way but I can see where he was coming from, to be honest. I'm sure that's just my bias coming through.
The more surprising thing was the poor lack of policy detail - he's been good on that so far during the debates. But he had nothing, I wonder if he's ill, he didn't look well.
Can't see this swinging many people. People will either say Neil is a cock or Corbyn is a cock. Really nothing new was covered.
I think it would be completely naive to think that many of the undecided or can't be bothered are going to take half an hour out to watch Andrew Neill eviscerate a party leader. The odd 5 second snip on social media or the news is probably the extent of it.
Its something that satisfies political nerds. And the odd psychopath.
I think we overestimate how much people pay attention - those Ashcroft polls are interesting for that.
What is so interesting is how much (relatively) the Tory factchecking thing got through. I wonder if it has backfired?
I think the problem with Neil is that he makes a good point and then goes overboard on it.
We learnt nothing new there from Corbyn, absolutely nothing at all.
We learned that he doesn’t understand debt. And that poor people will pay more in tax. And that he has no idea how to fund his WASPI pledge. And he has no grasp of tax take.
We learned that he is unfit to be prime minister and that his manifesto is based on lies.
It’s not a bad haul for half an hour.
Yes but you believed that going in, that's exactly my point.
@Byronic Corbyn will become PM only if the DUP get few seats and the non DUP & Conservative MP's are more than 322. The question has to be asked what will happen if no one can form a government after this election.
I assume that Johnson gets to have a go at forming a Government, he loses a vote of confidence, Corbyn then gets to have a try, and if he also fails and no further candidate emerges then there's another General Election.
I'm assuming that Johnson wouldn't resign unless someone else could demonstrate that they had the confidence of the HoC, so (unless he throws in the towel of his own volition, or is persuaded to quit by his party,) he would go into the February 2020 election as the sitting Prime Minister again.
OT. Miriam Margolyes excellent on Ch 4 News in defence of Jeremy Corbyn. I happen to know her and she is a woman of the utmost integrity and what's more unlike most commentators on this subject by virtue of her age and history she knows what she's talking about.
There is no defence for Corbyn
Would you like to list the instances of anti semitism that particularly offend you? Two or three will do.
All and every example
It isn't reasonable to slander someone as a racist and then not even be able to produce a single example. In fct it's pathetic. No use posing as a great moral force on here when all you are is bluster.
I will give you five
- Commemorating the death of a Jew killing terrorist - Liking an obviously anti-Semitic mural painted by an anti-Semite - Endorsing an anti-Semitic book as a great work - Calling openly anti-Semitic terrorist groups his friends - Saying he can't comment on anti-Semitic complaints as the process must be independent while his office interferes to protect anti-Semites
As I thought. All but one relate to the state of Israel. A land the Chief Rabbi singularly failed to mention in his long Times article. Extraordinary as he is so closely associated with that country and their politics and he must have realised that it was at the centre of the criticism.
"Chief Rabbi associated with world's only Jewish country" "Stay tuned for shocking news about the Pope's secret connections to the Vatican"
While we're on the subject, which two do you think "relate to the state of Israel" out of the rigging of Antisemitism complaints to get antisemites off, praising an Antisemitic book written in 1902, and supporting a mural with Sturmer-themed caricatures of Jews who died in 1915 and 1932.
The caracatures of Jews is nonsense in my opinion.I asked my daughter and her friends if they thought it was anti semitic they said 'no why?' try it on some of your own friends. Older jews might get it but I'd be surprised if many gentiles would and almost no-one Jew or Gentile under 40 would. It was tasteless towards bankers not Jews. 1902 book. Corbyn knows nothing about jewish history as i doubt you do about Islam. I don't even know it. What book was it?
I don't know if somebody can explain how wrong I am again - but Kantar without turnout adjustments again shows a very small gap. So does this mean in theory the parties could be only a couple of points apart - or is the sample only useful when weighted based on turnout?
Without the turnout weighting when they just ask who would you vote for the Tories are on 36 and Labour are on 35.
But of course you need to weight the sample for expected turnout . Indeed all the polling I’ve seen has a differential turnout between Tory and Labour voters .
I don't know if somebody can explain how wrong I am again - but Kantar without turnout adjustments again shows a very small gap. So does this mean in theory the parties could be only a couple of points apart - or is the sample only useful when weighted based on turnout?
It’s weighted by turnout for a reason.
But is the sample still represenative if it isn't? I thought the actual sample was still represenative, regardless of weighting. Weighting just makes it more accurate - and is based on what pollsters think will happen (and they usually do pretty well).
I'm just wondering of the mechanics of how it works.
Corbyn doesn't know what government bonds are. He said that they're not borrowing. CCHQ should spend some time explaining that they are, exactly, government borrowing. The man and his acolytes know so little about finance and are a terrible risk to this country's economy and well being.
That's a very good point. According to the BBC he said that Waspi would be paid for from Reserves, but also said there were not sufficient reserves. Separately he mentioned Government Bonds which are obviously borrowing. He's clueless.
No on that he did actually answer.
He said it would be paid over a long period - and if there were reserves then that would pay for some of it. Borrowing would pay for some of it.
He did actually answer that question, it was one of the few he actually answered.
Corbyn's problem is that he doesn't really do short answers, he tried to answer it the wrong way, which works in a debate or in a crowd but not one on one. He interviews dreadfully.
I was talking about the half a trillion nationalisation bonds. He said that they weren't borrowing.
People who hate Corbyn will think it was terrible, those who don’t won’t. This will make zero difference.
What will swing voters think?
They'll never see it.
Quite. One wonders how much impact any of these set pieces will make. Besides, from what little I've read Corbyn seemed to struggle most on Labour's fantasy spending plans, and his target voters don't appear at all interested in whether or not the sums add up. All they're thinking is that their pockets will be stuffed with someone else's money, and what a marvellous thing this is.
Well, I have not bothered watching any of them so they will not be influencing my vote.
If you come on pb you must be interested in politics. And this is the most intriguing and crucial election in many decades.
Yet you’re so uninterested you don’t watch vital interviews? Odd.
@Byronic - I think it is a foregone conclusion. The LDs cannot win. Corbyn will not win either. The Tories WILL win, much as I regret it. I cannot see anything that will change that result. Corbyn will not improve and the Leave vote is piled up in the Tory camp. The size of the win is all that is in doubt.
Corbyn doesn't know what government bonds are. He said that they're not borrowing. CCHQ should spend some time explaining that they are, exactly, government borrowing. The man and his acolytes know so little about finance and are a terrible risk to this country's economy and well being.
That's a very good point. According to the BBC he said that Waspi would be paid for from Reserves, but also said there were not sufficient reserves. Separately he mentioned Government Bonds which are obviously borrowing. He's clueless.
No on that he did actually answer.
He said it would be paid over a long period - and if there were reserves then that would pay for some of it. Borrowing would pay for some of it.
He did actually answer that question, it was one of the few he actually answered.
Corbyn's problem is that he doesn't really do short answers, he tried to answer it the wrong way, which works in a debate or in a crowd but not one on one. He interviews dreadfully.
I was talking about the half a trillion nationalisation bonds. He said that they weren't borrowing.
@CorrectHorseBattery To make sure I've been collecting anecdotal imformation from all sorts of constituencies, too early to tell but the Labour manifesto has been very uplifting for Labour morale. No politician has lost votes by promising free money to voters.
This is what the Conservatives did when they where in the same predicament in 1986, this is what they essentially did: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbOZwr5WLww Douglas Hurd:"Whe've cut everything for years and now there is nothing left" Sound familiar? Boris needs to promise tens of billions in money to the voters in the next 2 weeks, elections are a bidding war anyway.
I think the problem with Neil is that he makes a good point and then goes overboard on it.
We learnt nothing new there from Corbyn, absolutely nothing at all.
We learned that he doesn’t understand debt. And that poor people will pay more in tax. And that he has no idea how to fund his WASPI pledge. And he has no grasp of tax take.
We learned that he is unfit to be prime minister and that his manifesto is based on lies.
Comments
I imagine this will be forgotten about quickly, when Johnson just dodges the debates this week? And no doubt the Twitter crowd will buery it, those who are Labour fans will attack Andrew Neil, the press will run with it and just turn Corbyn into more of an outsider. Like I said, they blew their load far too early.
Not sure that’s true. Boris has the advantage that his manifesto is not insane and full of risible lies. But, unlike Corbyn, he has a desperate need to be liked, and bumbles badly when his interviewer refuses to be charmed. Boris is also really bad on detail.
I can see his half hour easily being as painful as Corbyn’s, but perhaps not as politically damaging.
When did you last beat your wife?
I’ve never beaten -
Would you like to apologise for beating your wife?
But I’ve never -
So you won’t apologise?
Andrew I -
Right. We’ll move on to your support for the IRA -
Fall off, off, off
Off, off, off
Off, off, off
The wheels on the bus
Fall off, off, off
All day long....
On Waspi , it got some airtime , some women might have not been aware yet .
On anti semitism Corbyn attacked the Chief Rabbi on his accusations , refused to apologize . That might not play well but equally if you apologize does that mean you accept blame .
If you liked Corbyn before you’ll still like him , if you don’t this interview wouldn’t change that .
https://twitter.com/EtanSmallman/status/1199421501314928641
Yet you’re so uninterested you don’t watch vital interviews? Odd.
I can see him being taken to the cleaners over getting a deal with the EU within the year and not being forced into an extension of the transition period.
We've also seen that he can't answer the question when pushed on trust.
AN will also take him to the cleaners when he keeps saying 'get brexit done'
If that interview is what convinces you, well then I don't think you were voting Labour in the first place.
When did you last beat your wife?
Look, I have been very clear that every woman no matter what her marital status should be protected from all forms of assault be it in the home, on the trains or in the workplace
...when he could have said "never." Why didn't he?
The other Party Leaders have failed to get this across to the public so far.
Away you go Andrew.
It would be like asking the average poster on here to brief themselves on nuclear physics - they wouldn't even be able to try, even if they wanted to.
I also take into account that if the swing is small the Conservatives might lose 5 seats due to tactical voting.
The total effect is that a Hung Parliament occurs in a very wide range, from a Labour lead of 5% to Conservative lead of 9%.
Moreover, the basics of nuclear physics are not really that hard: give me a few hours one to one and I could probably get the basics across to anyone on this forum.
Or maybe Durham NW??
I'm not really sure what your point was? Even the safest of safe MPs are knocking on doors, making sure their supporters vote, just in case.
Hard to know for certain - but it shows something isn't right with his vision, if nothing else
Apparently the youth turnout can make 9% difference, I highly doubt this is true is it? Presumably that's if they all turn out?
If you want to put tinfoil hat on, many pollsters last time had a 10 point gap on the day, so you could perhaps say things are tied now. I don't think that, I think it's probably about a five point gap.
(Or it could be a misrepresentation - don’t know. In CA for example, property values increase by inflation based on original purchase price plus any improvements. They don’t reflect market value)
"Stay tuned for shocking news about the Pope's secret connections to the Vatican"
I cannot see anything that will change that result. Corbyn will not improve and the Leave vote is piled up in the Tory camp. The size of the win is all that is in doubt.
He’s probably just knackered.
But I’m still stunned Corbyn was trapped into actually admitting it.
That said, if Labour keeps promising to hose people down with cash and goes on mithering about the NHS for the rest of the campaign, then they ought to be able to grind that majority back down to nothing.
At some point you have to stand up when people just go on and on - and he didn't do it in the best way but I can see where he was coming from, to be honest. I'm sure that's just my bias coming through.
The more surprising thing was the poor lack of policy detail - he's been good on that so far during the debates. But he had nothing, I wonder if he's ill, he didn't look well.
Can't see this swinging many people. People will either say Neil is a cock or Corbyn is a cock. Really nothing new was covered.
This time Corbyn just has to stop Boris winning a majority, and Corbyn will likely be some kind of PM. And the polls are narrowing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50565209
Lots and lots of money for them, paid for by someone else. Billionaires or banks or the tooth fairy or something, what do they care?
It's the last two - the admission that ordinary people will pay more tax, and the confession that his WASPI pledge is unaffordable - that should be focused on.
The polling average is shifting to that direction, it all depends on the squeeze on the Brexit Party in Labour seats.
Brexit not standing in Conservative seats means that it is very difficult for the opposition to gain seats from the government. Anything from a Labour lead of 5 to a Conservative lead of 9% could result in no Government being possible to form, if the BRX party is at 5% nationally.
https://twitter.com/NSP55/status/1199411565956603905?s=19
What I have seen this week is a bit of momentum starting - but is it too late? Who knows
We learnt nothing new there from Corbyn, absolutely nothing at all.
Wow, yes. He looks tired, sad, annoyed and utterly clueless all at once.
It is worth remembering that both the men leading the UK and US during WW2 were extremely ill at times throughout much of their time in office and Roosevelt actually died in office. Churchill had a heart attack whilst visiting Roosevelt in 1941. That didn't mean they weren't exactly the right people to have in power at the time. I am all for attacking Corbyn because he will wreck the country. But the arguments about his health are spurious and should play no part in discussions as to his suitability for office.
Corbyn will become PM only if the DUP get few seats and the non DUP & Conservative MP's are more than 322. The question has to be asked what will happen if no one can form a government after this election.
Its something that satisfies political nerds. And the odd psychopath.
I think he reitred shortly afterward.
He said it would be paid over a long period - and if there were reserves then that would pay for some of it. Borrowing would pay for some of it.
He did actually answer that question, it was one of the few he actually answered.
Corbyn's problem is that he doesn't really do short answers, he tried to answer it the wrong way, which works in a debate or in a crowd but not one on one. He interviews dreadfully.
We learned that he is unfit to be prime minister and that his manifesto is based on lies.
It’s not a bad haul for half an hour.
What is so interesting is how much (relatively) the Tory factchecking thing got through. I wonder if it has backfired?
I'm assuming that Johnson wouldn't resign unless someone else could demonstrate that they had the confidence of the HoC, so (unless he throws in the towel of his own volition, or is persuaded to quit by his party,) he would go into the February 2020 election as the sitting Prime Minister again.
But of course you need to weight the sample for expected turnout . Indeed all the polling I’ve seen has a differential turnout between Tory and Labour voters .
I'm just wondering of the mechanics of how it works.
That’s all you need to know.
To make sure I've been collecting anecdotal imformation from all sorts of constituencies, too early to tell but the Labour manifesto has been very uplifting for Labour morale. No politician has lost votes by promising free money to voters.
This is what the Conservatives did when they where in the same predicament in 1986, this is what they essentially did:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbOZwr5WLww
Douglas Hurd:"Whe've cut everything for years and now there is nothing left"
Sound familiar?
Boris needs to promise tens of billions in money to the voters in the next 2 weeks, elections are a bidding war anyway.