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?
Well let's see. Who can remember, without google, what they claimed to be actually fact checking? I've got a vague recollection it was something he said in his head to head with Boris. Maybe how he dealt with anti-Semetism?
The story became what they were doing not Corbyn's lies. Fail.
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.
How much of the public knows what a government bond is ?
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.
If someone said they were going to vote for a party, but ranked their likelihood of voting at 1/10, why should they be weighted as highly as someone who said they are absolutely nailed on certain to vote?
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.
And my point is that the narrative described by Byronic may well gather pace in the next few days as the media concentrate on some of those points and CCHQ tries to exploit them. After tonight's interview there's plenty to go on, and so far, the scrutiny of Waspi, marriage tax allowance, and dividend tax rises has been lacking. There's IHT in there too.
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.
Corbyn doesn't have that option. He was not nearly bright enough to go to University.
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.
If someone said they were going to vote for a party, but ranked their likelihood of voting at 1/10, why should they be weighted as highly as someone who said they are absolutely nailed on certain to vote?
I thought that was only used partially - isn't some of it based on historic turnout as well?
My view is the polls are probably quite accurate this time - but 7 points within the MOE isn't much room for something to go wrong on either side.
- 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?
Play the game differently. I give you six cards. Two are caricatures of Jews from the Mear One mural, and four are caricatures of Jews from Der Sturmer. I defy someone who hasn't recently looked at the mural to say which is which.
Why do you have to "know about Jewish history" to avoid writing a glowing foreword to a book which says "“united by the strongest bonds of organisation, always in closest and quickest touch with one another, situated in the very heart of the business capital of every state, controlled, so far as Europe is concerned, by men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them many centuries of financial experience, they are in a unique position to control the policy of nations". Not so much a dog whistle as a foghorn.
I think we will know whether this is wildly optimistic for the Tories, or really possible, by the end of this week.
This could be the week when the narrative starts to decisively change - if there are more signs of narrowing - or, by the end of week, the timeframe when an unbeatable lead is set.
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.
This is a real possibility; it gets drowned out by the political noise. I also think that Get Brexit Done will actually backfire too as a good chunk of people really don't want to leave and the spate of No Deal Yellowhammer adverts and broadcasts in October actually scared the crap out of lots of folk.
It's all very well spouting Marxist and god knows what else but the biggest real chance of screwing the economy must be leaving the largest trading bloc. Simple as that although the screamers and leavers will make you believe its an irrelevance. Tory suburbia is lovely and they will do anything to keep it bright blue and firmly in the black.
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.
How much of the public knows what a government bond is ?
The ignorance of some members of the public is no defence.
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 .
You not only have to weight it for turnout but for demography. Some "unskewers" were trying to unwind both to get a close result. I wouldn't be surprised if that's true for the latest numbers as well.
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.
And my point is that the narrative described by Byronic may well gather pace in the next few days as the media concentrate on some of those points and CCHQ tries to exploit them. After tonight's interview there's plenty to go on, and so far, the scrutiny of Waspi, marriage tax allowance, and dividend tax rises has been lacking. There's IHT in there too.
I don't think so, Labour voters at this point are incredibly dismissive of the press. As soon as it goes on the Daily Mail frontpage it will disappear.
That was the biggest error of the story today, it was on the Daily Mail and instantly lost a lot of credibility in their eyes.
These people won't be voting Labour anyway. Their perception will be "oh look Labour is still anti-Semitic"
I think we will know whether this is wildly optimistic for the Tories, or really possible, by the end of this week.
This could be the week when the narrative starts to decisively change - if there are more signs of narrowing - or, by the end of week, the timeframe when an unbeatable lead is set.
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.
The failure to understand borrowing when his entire policy is based on a serious increase in it is disappointing. Even someone as thick as him really should have grasped the basics after all these years. I mean, its not like he's ever had a proper job, he's had decades to understand this.
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.
And my point is that the narrative described by Byronic may well gather pace in the next few days as the media concentrate on some of those points and CCHQ tries to exploit them. After tonight's interview there's plenty to go on, and so far, the scrutiny of Waspi, marriage tax allowance, and dividend tax rises has been lacking. There's IHT in there too.
I don't think so, Labour voters at this point are incredibly dismissive of the press. As soon as it goes on the Daily Mail frontpage it will disappear.
That was the biggest error of the story today, it was on the Daily Mail and instantly lost a lot of credibility in their eyes.
These people won't be voting Labour anyway. Their perception will be "oh look Labour is still anti-Semitic"
Don't think I mentioned AS. I agree that that won't move many votes. I think the other stuff will though.
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.
This is a real possibility; it gets drowned out by the political noise. I also think that Get Brexit Done will actually backfire too as a good chunk of people really don't want to leave and the spate of No Deal Yellowhammer adverts and broadcasts in October actually scared the crap out of lots of folk.
It's all very well spouting Marxist and god knows what else but the biggest real chance of screwing the economy must be leaving the largest trading bloc. Simple as that although the screamers and leavers will make you believe its an irrelevance. Tory suburbia is lovely and they will do anything to keep it bright blue and firmly in the black.
If I was to be completely honest, I think this Labour "Government" will have a second referendum and then immediately fall apart and we will have another election. By that point Corbyn will be long gone.
He has no intention of staying long, I think that much is clear.
Which is why I find it extra strange people worry about his policies so much, they aren't going to go through the HOC.
Boris Johnson with a majority will do a hell of a lot more bad than Corbyn ever will be able to manage.
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.
Boris is not Theresa May. Boris is a showman. He will put on a show and that is what many voters will remember. A bit of bluster, a bit of tub-thumping and a good old wave or two of the UnionJack. Against him - the modern Michael Foot with about as much appeal as a used teabag. I mean... manhole "collecting" as a hobby. Oh yes, that will resonant will a lot of the public. Not. This is what we have. The bleak church of the Corbyn believers vs. Boris' Big Top. No one in non-nerd land has the time to figure which policies are true and which are Fake News because everyone knows that these days politicians lie like never before (Thank you Donald Trump and the Leave/Remain campaigns). It is heartbreaking that it has reached this level of farce.
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.
And my point is that the narrative described by Byronic may well gather pace in the next few days as the media concentrate on some of those points and CCHQ tries to exploit them. After tonight's interview there's plenty to go on, and so far, the scrutiny of Waspi, marriage tax allowance, and dividend tax rises has been lacking. There's IHT in there too.
I don't think so, Labour voters at this point are incredibly dismissive of the press. As soon as it goes on the Daily Mail frontpage it will disappear.
That was the biggest error of the story today, it was on the Daily Mail and instantly lost a lot of credibility in their eyes.
These people won't be voting Labour anyway. Their perception will be "oh look Labour is still anti-Semitic"
Don't think I mentioned AS. I agree that that won't move many votes. I think the other stuff will though.
I think by the same coin, people will just think it's another attack on Labour.
If you're voting Labour at this point, you'll be well aware of the anti-Semitism stuff. But like me you either don't believe it's as big of an issue as made out, you don't believe it at all (wrong), or you believe it's wipped up by the press (possible).
I think in truth if this was coming out today people would be shocked - but now it's all priced in. Labour voters see Corbyn as less bad than Johnson; and vice versa for Tory voters.
Nobody thinks either leader is fantastic, I certainly don't.
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.
I think a lot of people are uncomfortable saying they'll vote for Corbyn, but will ultimately vote against the Tories. Lots of don't knows on the left, as with 2017.
I don't think there's any chance of it being as close as last time, but it could hit that 6-8% gap that makes it difficult for the Tories.
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.
I think a lot of people are uncomfortable saying they'll vote for Corbyn, but will ultimately vote against the Tories. Lots of don't knows on the left, as with 2017.
I don't think there's any chance of it being as close as last time, but it could hit that 6-8% gap that makes it difficult for the Tories.
To be fair, even on the day nobody was thinking it would be 3 points. Many polls showed 8+ leads and indeed May "extended" her lead in the final week.
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.
I personally think you are right
I wish it was otherwise. If, on Friday 13th Dec, Boris has a minority govt I shall be buying a bottle of Champers to celebrate.
@Black_Rook A February election will be even worse for the Conservatives. If they fail this time they will need to ditch Levido for Cummings, ditch their austere manifesto for big spending promises like Labour's, and no one on one debates with Corbyn. Brexit would be delayed again though, I guess they could blame it all on Farage for not standing down in Labour seats, but they should have done a limited pact really.
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.
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 5 second snips are the best bits, though.
And this "it won't make any difference" argument is overdone - one poster has deployed it three times on this thread alone. It's like when a chancellor hikes the price of booze and all the borderline problem social drinkers say "this will not alter the behaviour of true alcoholics, just inconvenience responsible citizens like me" when the truth is that events do on the whole modify behaviour even if they don't cause huge and immediate overnight conversions. They just do.
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.
How much of the public knows what a government bond is ?
The ignorance of some members of the public is no defence.
I’m not saying it is . But I’d say the vast majority of the public don’t know what a government bond is . These types of forums attract people interested in politics , we might be picking apart the pledges but I’m afraid to say most other people are more interested in Celebrity etc .
@Black_Rook A February election will be even worse for the Conservatives. If they fail this time they will need to ditch Levido for Cummings, ditch their austere manifesto for big spending promises like Labour's, and no one on one debates with Corbyn. Brexit would be delayed again though, I guess they could blame it all on Farage for not standing down in Labour seats, but they should have done a limited pact really.
The lack of a Brexit pact may prove to be very helpful. It has certainly taken away an opposition attack line and made the Tories less toxic to plenty of remainers who may have leaned Lib Dem. It certainly has pros aswell as cons
- 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.
"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?
Play the game differently. I give you six cards. Two are caricatures of Jews from the Mear One mural, and four are caricatures of Jews from Der Sturmer. I defy someone who hasn't recently looked at the mural to say which is which.
Why do you have to "know about Jewish history" to avoid writing a glowing foreword to a book which says "“united by the strongest bonds of organisation, always in closest and quickest touch with one another, situated in the very heart of the business capital of every state, controlled, so far as Europe is concerned, by men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them many centuries of financial experience, they are in a unique position to control the policy of nations". Not so much a dog whistle as a foghorn.
Aw, he totally tricked you. The post was so ridiculous, you didn't even notice he didn't answer your question.
Does Corbyn know that if the bond markets went on strike, he wouldn’t actually be able to do anything?
It's far worse than that. If Corbyn won many, many tens of billions of funds would leave the UK the next morning before he could get McDonnell into number 11. Sterling would tank. Investment would cease. Many shares set for nationalisation would become untradable. It would be such a dislocation that the stress testing of our banks would not be adequate. It really doesn't bear thinking about.
@CorrectHorseBattery I was expecting a close result in 2017, the momentum was all one way towards Labour, you can draw a straight line in the average polling graphs from the start of the surge to election day and you would have ended up with the correct result. I always ignore pollsters in the last week of elections, they are usually all herding for safety.
Does Corbyn know that if the bond markets went on strike, he wouldn’t actually be able to do anything?
Only if the exchange markets went on strike as well, otherwise there's still the Bank of England.
People tell me off when I compare him to Chavez, but that attitude was one of the many things that got Venezuela into trouble.
Yes. It is both true that the deficit doesn't really matter to a sovereign currency issuer, only inflation really matters, and at the same time incredibly dangerous if politicians and the public start believing that. Still, £375bn of Quantitative Easing down and all it's actually caused inflation in is asset bubbles.
@CorrectHorseBattery I was expecting a close result in 2017, the momentum was all one way towards Labour, you can draw a straight line in the average polling graphs from the start of the surge to election day and you would have ended up with the correct result. I always ignore pollsters in the last week of elections, they are usually all herding for safety.
They certainly didn’t herd in 2017, there was a wide range of possible Tory leads (one even had a Labour lead).
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.
I think he retired shortly afterward.
Here it is. An interesting watch with seven years distance. Boris saying he is going to be Paxman's campaign manager to be next PM - and Paxo's exasperation about being sidetracked - is quite wonderful.
As for thinking the super rich would willingly pay "a little more tax", that will be a return to Labour in the 1970s when tax went up as high as 90+%. Andrew Neill was quite correct, the super rich will simply leave and take their money with them. Multi-national companies will offshore their registered offices and Corporation Tax revenues will plummet.
Capitalism is well and truly fooked as the super rich and multi nationals get greedier and greedier
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.
How much of the public knows what a government bond is ?
The ignorance of some members of the public is no defence.
I’m not saying it is . But I’d say the vast majority of the public don’t know what a government bond is . These types of forums attract people interested in politics , we might be picking apart the pledges but I’m afraid to say most other people are more interested in Celebrity etc .
Hence why I said CCHQ should make an effort explaining government bonds. You're just making the point that the Labour nationalisation explanation is a deceit that preys on the ignorant.
Does Corbyn know that if the bond markets went on strike, he wouldn’t actually be able to do anything?
It's far worse than that. If Corbyn won many, many tens of billions of funds would leave the UK the next morning before he could get McDonnell into number 11. Sterling would tank. Investment would cease. Many shares set for nationalisation would become untradable. It would be such a dislocation that the stress testing of our banks would not be adequate. It really doesn't bear thinking about.
Of course you’re right. Anyone with a brain can see it. McDonnell has half admitted it, saying there might be capital controls etc
So how come apparently intelligent Labour supporters CAN’T see this? There are a few explanations
1 they’re in a strange denial 2 they don’t care, socialism is worth it, but they can’t admit this, so they lie 3 they’re not intelligent at all. They’re weirdly dumb
Probably all 3 are at work but I wonder if option 3 is the best explanation
Does Corbyn know that if the bond markets went on strike, he wouldn’t actually be able to do anything?
It's far worse than that. If Corbyn won many, many tens of billions of funds would leave the UK the next morning before he could get McDonnell into number 11. Sterling would tank. Investment would cease. Many shares set for nationalisation would become untradable. It would be such a dislocation that the stress testing of our banks would not be adequate. It really doesn't bear thinking about.
Of course you’re right. Anyone with a brain can see it. McDonnell has half admitted it, saying there might be capital controls etc
So how come apparently intelligent Labour supporters CAN’T see this? There are a few explanations
1 they’re in a strange denial 2 they don’t care, socialism is worth it, but they can’t admit this, so they lie 3 they’re not intelligent at all. They’re weirdly dumb
Probably all 3 are at work but I wonder if option 3 is the best explanation
I am considering cashing in my pension and putting it into a fixed term savings account, even though it has been doing well in the short few years I've had it.
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.
How much of the public knows what a government bond is ?
The ignorance of some members of the public is no defence.
I’m not saying it is . But I’d say the vast majority of the public don’t know what a government bond is . These types of forums attract people interested in politics , we might be picking apart the pledges but I’m afraid to say most other people are more interested in Celebrity etc .
Hence why I said CCHQ should make an effort explaining government bonds. You're just making the point that the Labour nationalisation explanation is a deceit that preys on the ignorant.
Deceit is being played by both sides . There are no moral winners . Both parties have made promises they won’t keep .
The Hindus (pro) and the Sikhs (against) are piling into the Chief Rabbi’s row with Jeremy Corbyn too now. Just the Jedis left to come and that’s a religious full house. Take a bow, #GE2019 https://t.co/PgOSt3JXGJ
Isn't identity politics wonderful.
I'd say the Sikhs were not anti-Chief-Rabbi, rather saying "Oi - what about us".
Does Corbyn know that if the bond markets went on strike, he wouldn’t actually be able to do anything?
It's far worse than that. If Corbyn won many, many tens of billions of funds would leave the UK the next morning before he could get McDonnell into number 11. Sterling would tank. Investment would cease. Many shares set for nationalisation would become untradable. It would be such a dislocation that the stress testing of our banks would not be adequate. It really doesn't bear thinking about.
Of course you’re right. Anyone with a brain can see it. McDonnell has half admitted it, saying there might be capital controls etc
So how come apparently intelligent Labour supporters CAN’T see this? There are a few explanations
1 they’re in a strange denial 2 they don’t care, socialism is worth it, but they can’t admit this, so they lie 3 they’re not intelligent at all. They’re weirdly dumb
Probably all 3 are at work but I wonder if option 3 is the best explanation
The explanation is simple: visceral hatred of the Tories.
Does Corbyn know that if the bond markets went on strike, he wouldn’t actually be able to do anything?
It's far worse than that. If Corbyn won many, many tens of billions of funds would leave the UK the next morning before he could get McDonnell into number 11. Sterling would tank. Investment would cease. Many shares set for nationalisation would become untradable. It would be such a dislocation that the stress testing of our banks would not be adequate. It really doesn't bear thinking about.
Of course you’re right. Anyone with a brain can see it. McDonnell has half admitted it, saying there might be capital controls etc
So how come apparently intelligent Labour supporters CAN’T see this? There are a few explanations
1 they’re in a strange denial 2 they don’t care, socialism is worth it, but they can’t admit this, so they lie 3 they’re not intelligent at all. They’re weirdly dumb
Probably all 3 are at work but I wonder if option 3 is the best explanation
I wouldn’t be too smug! The fact so many Tory supporters believe all the guff spouted by Johnson . Anyway most of the Labour manifesto won’t see the light of day even if they win .
I'm assuming the discussion on Twitter about the Andrew Neil interview (7pm?) is the reason the Tories have tightened their Betfair prices over the last hour or so.
I don't see why? Boris will have a just as awful if not worse interview with AN.
Does Corbyn know that if the bond markets went on strike, he wouldn’t actually be able to do anything?
It's far worse than that. If Corbyn won many, many tens of billions of funds would leave the UK the next morning before he could get McDonnell into number 11. Sterling would tank. Investment would cease. Many shares set for nationalisation would become untradable. It would be such a dislocation that the stress testing of our banks would not be adequate. It really doesn't bear thinking about.
Of course you’re right. Anyone with a brain can see it. McDonnell has half admitted it, saying there might be capital controls etc
So how come apparently intelligent Labour supporters CAN’T see this? There are a few explanations
1 they’re in a strange denial 2 they don’t care, socialism is worth it, but they can’t admit this, so they lie 3 they’re not intelligent at all. They’re weirdly dumb
Probably all 3 are at work but I wonder if option 3 is the best explanation
My brother is sadly a Corbynista, Today in response to a post on Facebook about the Huge hole in labours spending plans this was his response :-
“ There is no such thing as money.. its all a crock of shit. We are spinning around a nuclear star and we have everything we need on the planet to exist.. We just need to distribute our resources evenly and fairly via a scientific approach and we will be fine..”
This is the mentality of the cult of Corbyn. Money doesn’t matter to them - it comes from a magic tree ! (Try telling this the poor people of Venezuela though)
Does Corbyn know that if the bond markets went on strike, he wouldn’t actually be able to do anything?
It's far worse than that. If Corbyn won many, many tens of billions of funds would leave the UK the next morning before he could get McDonnell into number 11. Sterling would tank. Investment would cease. Many shares set for nationalisation would become untradable. It would be such a dislocation that the stress testing of our banks would not be adequate. It really doesn't bear thinking about.
Of course you’re right. Anyone with a brain can see it. McDonnell has half admitted it, saying there might be capital controls etc
So how come apparently intelligent Labour supporters CAN’T see this? There are a few explanations
1 they’re in a strange denial 2 they don’t care, socialism is worth it, but they can’t admit this, so they lie 3 they’re not intelligent at all. They’re weirdly dumb
Probably all 3 are at work but I wonder if option 3 is the best explanation
The explanation is simple: visceral hatred of the Tories.
It really is that simple.
No it’s not. But if you have a pathological liar as PM then what do you expect . I despise the current Tory party because it alone has brought about Brexit because of its EU psychodrama and will be to blame for breaking up the Union .
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.
I think he reitred shortly afterward.
I remember that! It won't work on Neil. A couple of weeks ago, Cleverly was struggling under an AN grilling and appealed to Neil " Andrew, you and I both know that Corbyn is hopeless." Neil gave him both barrels.
Does Corbyn know that if the bond markets went on strike, he wouldn’t actually be able to do anything?
It's far worse than that. If Corbyn won many, many tens of billions of funds would leave the UK the next morning before he could get McDonnell into number 11. Sterling would tank. Investment would cease. Many shares set for nationalisation would become untradable. It would be such a dislocation that the stress testing of our banks would not be adequate. It really doesn't bear thinking about.
Of course you’re right. Anyone with a brain can see it. McDonnell has half admitted it, saying there might be capital controls etc
So how come apparently intelligent Labour supporters CAN’T see this? There are a few explanations
1 they’re in a strange denial 2 they don’t care, socialism is worth it, but they can’t admit this, so they lie 3 they’re not intelligent at all. They’re weirdly dumb
Probably all 3 are at work but I wonder if option 3 is the best explanation
We have reached a critical mass of people who have no concept of wealth creation or of living within their means.
And not all these people are Corbyn supporters either.
We have become an entitlement society where people believe it is the government's responsibility to provide the things they feel entitled to.
At that point it then makes sense for the people who are living within their means to concentrate on fighting for their place at the trough.
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?
Play the game differently. I give you six cards. Two are caricatures of Jews from the Mear One mural, and four are caricatures of Jews from Der Sturmer. I defy someone who hasn't recently looked at the mural to say which is which.
Why do you have to "know about Jewish history" to avoid writing a glowing foreword to a book which says "“united by the strongest bonds of organisation, always in closest and quickest touch with one another, situated in the very heart of the business capital of every state, controlled, so far as Europe is concerned, by men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them many centuries of financial experience, they are in a unique position to control the policy of nations". Not so much a dog whistle as a foghorn.
For clarity - those aren't Corbyn's words! He called the book very controversial.
Luciana Berger is undoubtedly a victim of Labour's antisemitism but why then is she trying to unseat Mike Freer? He has done nothing wrong in this scandal. Its a shame Berger can't be elected over an antisemite.
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?
Play the game differently. I give you six cards. Two are caricatures of Jews from the Mear One mural, and four are caricatures of Jews from Der Sturmer. I defy someone who hasn't recently looked at the mural to say which is which.
Why do you have to "know about Jewish history" to avoid writing a glowing foreword to a book which says "“united by the strongest bonds of organisation, always in closest and quickest touch with one another, situated in the very heart of the business capital of every state, controlled, so far as Europe is concerned, by men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them many centuries of financial experience, they are in a unique position to control the policy of nations". Not so much a dog whistle as a foghorn.
For clarity - those aren't Corbyn's words! He called the book very controversial.
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.
I think Tories in Scotland are pretty shy. Can't speak for anywhere else. Not sure shy left-wingery is a thing. Surely being left wing is like being a vegan - if you're not displaying it to everyone all the time, there's really no point.
Luciana Berger is undoubtedly a victim of Labour's antisemitism but why then is she trying to unseat Mike Freer? He has done nothing wrong in this scandal. Its a shame Berger can't be elected over an antisemite.
Because, she’s standing as a candidate in a general election?!!
Personal view: I think that the Deltapoll numbers are almost certainly spot on. They are almost exactly what I'd expect for the constituency: a big LD surge, but not enough.
I would expect similar results (i.e. a big surge... but not enough...) in Kensington, Cities of London & Westminster, Putney, and Wimbledon.
There will likely be a lot of close results, and some rather disappointed candidates (and ex-MPs).
It all depends on how smart/willing Labour voters are in voting tactically. It's also interesting to see how the LibDems campaign within the constituency: go too hard on Labour, and they will alienate potential tactical voters.
Luciana's best strategy is probably to emphasise a vote for her as a means of expressing positive support for the Jewish community, without hitting Labour too hard over anti-Semitism.
It will be interesting I think, although as you say she might fall just short.
Here in neighbouring Hampstead and Kilburn I've had six or seven leaflets / fake newspapers from "Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats" hitting Labour and the Tories equally hard (not just on Brexit, pushing green issues too). One cursory leaflet from Labour. Nothing from the Tories. Very low key on the ground though: a few Labour canvassers, but nobody at the farmers' market in the last few weeks: where are they all hiding? I reckon the Tories are out of it, so I'm free to waste my vote on the Greens.
The country has to see him beaten out of sight on the 12th December
Has there ever been a more disgraceful leader of the opposition
Iain Duncan Smith: when Blair was pushing his war crime on the nation, he not only failed to scrutinise it, he got it through parliament. He should still be in jail.
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.
I think Tories in Scotland are pretty shy. Can't speak for anywhere else. Not sure shy left-wingery is a thing. Surely being left wing is like being a vegan - if you're not displaying it to everyone all the time, there's really no point.
I know plenty quiet lefties. The reason why you don't is because of your political preference. People only find out the opinions of shy people once you have got to know them well.
Comments
https://mobile.twitter.com/326Pols/status/1199424248483319817
Apparently they called 2017 quite well
The story became what they were doing not Corbyn's lies. Fail.
My view is the polls are probably quite accurate this time - but 7 points within the MOE isn't much room for something to go wrong on either side.
Why do you have to "know about Jewish history" to avoid writing a glowing foreword to a book which says "“united by the strongest bonds of organisation, always in closest and quickest touch with one another, situated in the very heart of the business capital of every state, controlled, so far as Europe is concerned, by men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them many centuries of financial experience, they are in a unique position to control the policy of nations". Not so much a dog whistle as a foghorn.
This could be the week when the narrative starts to decisively change - if there are more signs of narrowing - or, by the end of week, the timeframe when an unbeatable lead is set.
It's all very well spouting Marxist and god knows what else but the biggest real chance of screwing the economy must be leaving the largest trading bloc. Simple as that although the screamers and leavers will make you believe its an irrelevance. Tory suburbia is lovely and they will do anything to keep it bright blue and firmly in the black.
Could happen to anybody.
Nite all.
That was the biggest error of the story today, it was on the Daily Mail and instantly lost a lot of credibility in their eyes.
These people won't be voting Labour anyway. Their perception will be "oh look Labour is still anti-Semitic"
Con 42.3
Lab 32.7
Con lead 9.6
He has no intention of staying long, I think that much is clear.
Which is why I find it extra strange people worry about his policies so much, they aren't going to go through the HOC.
Boris Johnson with a majority will do a hell of a lot more bad than Corbyn ever will be able to manage.
Against him - the modern Michael Foot with about as much appeal as a used teabag. I mean... manhole "collecting" as a hobby. Oh yes, that will resonant will a lot of the public. Not.
This is what we have. The bleak church of the Corbyn believers vs. Boris' Big Top. No one in non-nerd land has the time to figure which policies are true and which are Fake News because everyone knows that these days politicians lie like never before (Thank you Donald Trump and the Leave/Remain campaigns).
It is heartbreaking that it has reached this level of farce.
If you're voting Labour at this point, you'll be well aware of the anti-Semitism stuff. But like me you either don't believe it's as big of an issue as made out, you don't believe it at all (wrong), or you believe it's wipped up by the press (possible).
I think in truth if this was coming out today people would be shocked - but now it's all priced in. Labour voters see Corbyn as less bad than Johnson; and vice versa for Tory voters.
Nobody thinks either leader is fantastic, I certainly don't.
I don't think there's any chance of it being as close as last time, but it could hit that 6-8% gap that makes it difficult for the Tories.
Survation was laughed out of the room.
A February election will be even worse for the Conservatives.
If they fail this time they will need to ditch Levido for Cummings, ditch their austere manifesto for big spending promises like Labour's, and no one on one debates with Corbyn.
Brexit would be delayed again though, I guess they could blame it all on Farage for not standing down in Labour seats, but they should have done a limited pact really.
And this "it won't make any difference" argument is overdone - one poster has deployed it three times on this thread alone. It's like when a chancellor hikes the price of booze and all the borderline problem social drinkers say "this will not alter the behaviour of true alcoholics, just inconvenience responsible citizens like me" when the truth is that events do on the whole modify behaviour even if they don't cause huge and immediate overnight conversions. They just do.
https://order-order.com/2019/11/26/corbyn-asked-four-times-whether-rothschild-zionists-run-world-governments-anti-semitic/
I was expecting a close result in 2017, the momentum was all one way towards Labour, you can draw a straight line in the average polling graphs from the start of the surge to election day and you would have ended up with the correct result.
I always ignore pollsters in the last week of elections, they are usually all herding for safety.
This interview is over....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4ldiXhDrHw
https://order-order.com/2019/11/26/corbyn-invite-hamas-supporting-muslim-association-britain-downing-street-elected/
‘Jeremy Corbyn: It's right to plan for run on pound’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41393021
So how come apparently intelligent Labour supporters CAN’T see this? There are a few explanations
1 they’re in a strange denial
2 they don’t care, socialism is worth it, but they can’t admit this, so they lie
3 they’re not intelligent at all. They’re weirdly dumb
Probably all 3 are at work but I wonder if option 3 is the best explanation
It really is that simple.
“ There is no such thing as money.. its all a crock of shit. We are spinning around a nuclear star and we have everything we need on the planet to exist.. We just need to distribute our resources evenly and fairly via a scientific approach and we will be fine..”
This is the mentality of the cult of Corbyn. Money doesn’t matter to them - it comes from a magic tree ! (Try telling this the poor people of Venezuela though)
You should get out more
And not all these people are Corbyn supporters either.
We have become an entitlement society where people believe it is the government's responsibility to provide the things they feel entitled to.
At that point it then makes sense for the people who are living within their means to concentrate on fighting for their place at the trough.
I think of it as acting like Phaemon's dog.
Luciana's best strategy is probably to emphasise a vote for her as a means of expressing positive support for the Jewish community, without hitting Labour too hard over anti-Semitism.
It will be interesting I think, although as you say she might fall just short.
Here in neighbouring Hampstead and Kilburn I've had six or seven leaflets / fake newspapers from "Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats" hitting Labour and the Tories equally hard (not just on Brexit, pushing green issues too). One cursory leaflet from Labour. Nothing from the Tories. Very low key on the ground though: a few Labour canvassers, but nobody at the farmers' market in the last few weeks: where are they all hiding? I reckon the Tories are out of it, so I'm free to waste my vote on the Greens.