We need to stop saying "this won't change any votes".
1)We don't know what will and what won't change votes
2) an interview like that won"t change a ton of votes but a few votes/minds will change, because if that doesnt change atleast a few votes, nothing will and there's no point having a campaign.
Can any Corbynites explain how the investments will be repaid at the maturity of their nationalisation bonds? Or does it not matter to you people?
Ooh please sir, please sir may I be allowed to answer? It doesn't matter a tuppeny fuck. No one who is thinking of voting Lab will care where or how he got his figures, or indeed if, as he demonstrated this evening, he was pulling them out of his arse. They care that his heart is in the right place and that he is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The rest is details. Billions, quillions, kabillions. Who cares?
Anyone with any sense cares. I'm not surprised Corbynites don't.
After the financial crisis and QE, people aren’t frightened of illions any more.
Are you stupid enough not to care?
My party seems to be the only one that does.
If your party is somehow, despite the ridiculous pledges, Labour, then you clearly don't care how many billions or trillions it will cost.
I think the most damaging bit was probably the person on £14k a year who would have to pay an additional £400 a year in tax. The example of someone married who receives modest dividend income was of course carefully chosen but it was a scenario that millions will be able to relate to. I am sure that the Tories will use that heavily. His ignorance about what proportion the very well paid in tax already showed he had no concept about the consequences for his plans or how they would simply fall apart.
Yep, and that is why the Tories must be relentless in exposing Corbyn's proposals of marriage tax allowance, dividend taxes and IHT. In addition to those proposals making ordinary people worse off Labour lied about nobody paying more tax other than the top 5%.
What proportion of the population receive dividends?
Most pensioners? And so, in time, most people.
Really? Do you meant directly or indirectly through their private pensions?
About 20% of households hold some shares but the majority of them have only a few (probably ex privatisation shares I would guess) and trade them rarely.
Sounds right. Dividends are a minority interest, even more so than IHT.
I don’t think that link considers pensions. The reality is that almost anyone without access to a final salary pension has exposure to the market and would be affected by changes to dividend taxation etc. They won’t realise this though.
Oh yes this is direct ownership of traded shares. Millions more will have shares related to their employment and of course almost everyone has shares related to their pension given the legal requirement to have a works based pension.
It would be awfully convenient for politicians if they could refuse to answer questions in interviews but defend themselves (or have their outriders defend them) on the basis they'd answered the point somewhere else. Might as well answer every Neil question with 'Look at what I said on X ' and leave it at that. Oh crap, I think politicians do actually try that.
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
And that is the problem the Lib Dems have. Many will be thinking as you are and they will be thinking vote Lib Dem, get Corbyn. That is something the country cannot risk.
When you say "That is something the country cannot risk" you mean it's something you would not risk. Many people feel thay have nothing to lose.
By coincidence I was canvassed by Labour this morning, and I said, forcefully, that I wont be voting for Corbyn because he doesn't accept there is anti-Semitism in Labour party and he wont do anything.
Can any Corbynites explain how the investments will be repaid at the maturity of their nationalisation bonds? Or does it not matter to you people?
Ooh please sir, please sir may I be allowed to answer? It doesn't matter a tuppeny fuck. No one who is thinking of voting Lab will care where or how he got his figures, or indeed if, as he demonstrated this evening, he was pulling them out of his arse. They care that his heart is in the right place and that he is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The rest is details. Billions, quillions, kabillions. Who cares?
Anyone with any sense cares. I'm not surprised Corbynites don't.
After the financial crisis and QE, people aren’t frightened of illions any more.
Are you stupid enough not to care?
My party seems to be the only one that does.
If your party is somehow, despite the ridiculous pledges, Labour, then you clearly don't care how many billions or trillions it will cost.
And if you're a Lib Dem you should be criticising the Labour plans as hard as I am.
We need to stop saying "this won't change any votes".
1)We don't know what will and what won't change votes
2) an interview like that won"t change a ton of votes but a few votes/minds will change, because if that doesnt change atleast a few votes, nothing will and there's no point having a campaign.
I second this. Taken individually virtually nothing will change votes, certainly on any scale, not even big promises like the Tory triple no tax rise silliness, or Labour's shameful WASPI bribe, will change all that many votes. It's cumulative effect. A few are changed here or there, it adds up to something big, or the impact of one on another causes a big effect. Taken logically no piece of propaganda pushed through a letterbox or stupid PEB should change anyone's minds either, but parties clearly think they serve a useful purpose.
Edit: More generally, we know these little things do change minds, even as the straw breaking the camel's back. I don't recall the precise moment my support of Brexit changed, but it will have happened in response to something that on its own won't have meant anything to most people.
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
And that is the problem the Lib Dems have. Many will be thinking as you are and they will be thinking vote Lib Dem, get Corbyn. That is something the country cannot risk.
When you say "That is something the country cannot risk" you mean it's something you would not risk. Many people feel thay have nothing to lose.
When people use that as a reason to vote Brexit they are told that is stupid because it won't solve their problems.
We need to stop saying "this won't change any votes".
1)We don't know what will and what won't change votes
2) an interview like that won"t change a ton of votes but a few votes/minds will change, because if that doesnt change atleast a few votes, nothing will and there's no point having a campaign.
I second this. Taken individually virtually nothing will change votes, certainly on any scale, not even big promises like the Tory triple no tax rise silliness, or Labour's shameful WASPI bribe, will change all that many votes. It's cumulative effect. A few are changed here or there, it adds up to something big, or the impact of one on another causes a big effect. Taken logically no piece of propaganda pushed through a letterbox or stupid PEB should change anyone's minds either, but parties clearly think they serve a useful purpose.
I sometimes wonder if part of what does for politicians is when they are seen to be “losers”. It shouldn’t be how people see elections, but I think it is a factor.
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
And that is the problem the Lib Dems have. Many will be thinking as you are and they will be thinking vote Lib Dem, get Corbyn. That is something the country cannot risk.
When you say "That is something the country cannot risk" you mean it's something you would not risk. Many people feel thay have nothing to lose.
And we will take no lectures from the Party that has increased the debt more in the last 9 yrs than every Labour Govt in history and still found enough money for tax cuts for millionaires and the DUP
@DavidL I agree that a Corbyn government would be a disaster, but not on borrowing costs. In theory the only limit for a sovereign government's deficit is the printing press , value of it's currency, and inflation. But as Japan and America has showed in today's world there is no limit to deficits, even Greece has had negative intererst rates this year.
Go to Greece and ask them how things are going......
Also care to remind us what happened to youth unemployment over there
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
And that is the problem the Lib Dems have. Many will be thinking as you are and they will be thinking vote Lib Dem, get Corbyn. That is something the country cannot risk.
When you say "That is something the country cannot risk" you mean it's something you would not risk. Many people feel thay have nothing to lose.
When people use that as a reason to vote Brexit they are told that is stupid because it won't solve their problems.
Well, I've spent the day trying to help a few people with Universal Credit claims in Citzens Advice. Maybe that's coloured my views a bit today.
Still chuckling at BigG’s suggestion that Boris has gravitas.
Boris clearly has and exploits a seductive charm for various manipulative ends, but he is yet to achieve gravitas.
Despite his many denouncements of Boris a few months ago, Big is now clearly in love with the man. I'm not sure what's changed though.
I am not in love with Boris. Boris is the only person who can save us from the nightmare of Corbyn. I am supporting Boris and the party to conclude brexit and move on
As a side issue I do accept I like his more liberal domestic policies
And you know very well what changed, he got a deal and reinstated many of the conservatives he sacked which precipitated my resignation
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
And that is the problem the Lib Dems have. Many will be thinking as you are and they will be thinking vote Lib Dem, get Corbyn. That is something the country cannot risk.
When you say "That is something the country cannot risk" you mean it's something you would not risk. Many people feel thay have nothing to lose.
And we will take no lectures from the Party that has increased the debt more in the last 9 yrs than every Labour Govt in history and still found enough money for tax cuts for millionaires and the DUP
Labour is clearly not a party into taking responsibility for its actions.
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
And that is the problem the Lib Dems have. Many will be thinking as you are and they will be thinking vote Lib Dem, get Corbyn. That is something the country cannot risk.
When you say "That is something the country cannot risk" you mean it's something you would not risk. Many people feel thay have nothing to lose.
And we will take no lectures from the Party that has increased the debt more in the last 9 yrs than every Labour Govt in history and still found enough money for tax cuts for millionaires and the DUP
But you screamed about austerity - which is it?
The reason the debt racked up incidentally is Labours handling of the economy.
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
And that is the problem the Lib Dems have. Many will be thinking as you are and they will be thinking vote Lib Dem, get Corbyn. That is something the country cannot risk.
When you say "That is something the country cannot risk" you mean it's something you would not risk. Many people feel thay have nothing to lose.
And we will take no lectures from the Party that has increased the debt more in the last 9 yrs than every Labour Govt in history and still found enough money for tax cuts for millionaires and the DUP
The Conservatives found £1 billion for NI (although i’m not sure it was ever redeemed?). Labour have found £2 billion (in their manifesto)
And we will take no lectures from the Party that has increased the debt more in the last 9 yrs than every Labour Govt in history and still found enough money for tax cuts for millionaires and the DUP
I see this posted regularly by those on the left.
Do you genuinely not understand why the debt increased or do you understand but hope that potential voters don't?
The argument doesn't survive even cursory consideration.
By coincidence I was canvassed by Labour this morning, and I said, forcefully, that I wont be voting for Corbyn because he doesn't accept there is anti-Semitism in Labour party and he wont do anything.
Still chuckling at BigG’s suggestion that Boris has gravitas.
Boris clearly has and exploits a seductive charm for various manipulative ends, but he is yet to achieve gravitas.
I agree with you and I should have said charisma
I'll give you that. Sadly, charisma is rarely an indicator of a good leader.
True, but I think we're all pretty bad at identifying what makes a good leader. A technocratic centrist automaton might be great at one moment, but terrible for another, another might be great at inspiring a vision but horrendous at delivering it, or they might well start of great, develop bad habits and become terrible. With Boris at least I understand his charismatic appeal a bit more, even though I find his schtick mostly irritating these days. But its about being upbeat, relatable and flexible. Corbyn clearly has charismatic appeal because you don't get people singing your name out of partisan obligation, but I'm more baffled by it, because the parts of his style which are more appealing - appearing serious, sincere and genuinely caring about people - seem more like they would engender respect (if you buy it) rather than worship, but worship is what he receives.
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
And that is the problem the Lib Dems have. Many will be thinking as you are and they will be thinking vote Lib Dem, get Corbyn. That is something the country cannot risk.
When you say "That is something the country cannot risk" you mean it's something you would not risk. Many people feel thay have nothing to lose.
And we will take no lectures from the Party that has increased the debt more in the last 9 yrs than every Labour Govt in history and still found enough money for tax cuts for millionaires and the DUP
You should take lectures from the party that inherited the largest budget deficit that UK has ever had, and that has managed to decrease it. If you don't understand how such a massive deficit will inevitably increase debt at such a historically high rate then I'm not sure you should vote until you do understand.
And we will take no lectures from the Party that has increased the debt more in the last 9 yrs than every Labour Govt in history and still found enough money for tax cuts for millionaires and the DUP
I see this posted regularly by those on the left.
Do you genuinely not understand why the debt increased or do you understand but hope that potential voters don't?
The argument doesn't survive even cursory consideration.
We need to stop saying "this won't change any votes".
1)We don't know what will and what won't change votes
2) an interview like that won"t change a ton of votes but a few votes/minds will change, because if that doesnt change atleast a few votes, nothing will and there's no point having a campaign.
As people are repeatedly trying to point out, it's not that the interview wasn't horrifically bad, it's that these issues are not relevant to people either planning to vote labour, or people who who might switch Tory against Labour who haven't already done so. E.g. someone voting Labour currently isn't doing so because they are concerned with Labour's economic credibility.
It seems Tories have completely lost the ability to preach to anyone but the choir.
I see Labour’s top operative is sharpening its attack lines.
stop the presses
That can't be real... can it?
Genuine, just checked.
I can't believe it. The leader of the Tory party is a... Tory?
Ok so he goes on to say "He stands up for the billionaires because he’s from the same political team as Thatcher, Cameron and the rest." But the misquote is his own fault really...
I see Labour’s top operative is sharpening its attack lines.
One of the standout features of this campaign has been the weakness of the Labour attack. The goal is wide open, but they refuse to put the ball in the back of the net. Their attacks are predictable and really only preach to the choir.
An effective attack would undermine Conservative faith in Boris. One such way would be to remind the voters of his disloyalty to May and dither on Brexit.
Here's an open question. What GE outcome would be most problematic in the short/medium turn for the country? I'm thinking something like: Con 318, Lab 248, SNP 45, LDs 16 (which Electoral Calculus gives on a not implausible 41.5/33/14 Con/Lab/LD vote split). In this scenario Tories are a few seats short of a majority, Labour are down, SNP up, LDs up a bit but nothing like as much as they hoped. What happens next? Boris can’t command a majority and has no sympathetic partners who will help his EU bill through without a 2nd ref. It’s even worse for Corbyn who surely has to go after a 2nd defeat? Could be an interesting outcome.
Firstly I don’t believe electoral calculus’ model is accurate there. An 8 point lead with labour in the low 30s and the Tories into the 40s sees a majority as far as I’m concerned. It might be small but I don’t think we’re in hung parliament territory.
But if a result like that came about, I could only see two options - a Corbyn minority government propped up by SNP and LDs or a second election in early 2020. The key would be which way Swinson would jump. I suggest she’d probably be wary about being blamed for a second vote so soon so I think she’d reluctantly back Labour and a second referendum.
And that is the problem the Lib Dems have. Many will be thinking as you are and they will be thinking vote Lib Dem, get Corbyn. That is something the country cannot risk.
When you say "That is something the country cannot risk" you mean it's something you would not risk. Many people feel thay have nothing to lose.
When people use that as a reason to vote Brexit they are told that is stupid because it won't solve their problems.
Well, I've spent the day trying to help a few people with Universal Credit claims in Citzens Advice. Maybe that's coloured my views a bit today.
For some it will be true. But it usually is not true for as many people as think it is true about themselves. Voting Labour or Tory is not a choice without difference, there will be different outcomes from that choice and some people thinking they must ignore the negatives of either because they cannot risk the worse alternative will find it true for themselves. But a lot lot more, I suspect, woud find that in fact they do have more to lose than they think.
I'm not great at money management, and I don't save as much as I should, but I'm seriously worried about Corbynites… How much do you all think it's ok to borrow?
I'm not great at money management, and I don't save as much as I should, but I'm seriously worried about Corbynites… How much do you all think it's ok to borrow?
Don't worry, the billionaires will pick up the tab.
I'm honestly not trying to be a contrarian, maverick or 'free thinker' here, but I've just caught up with the bit of Jezza's interview about anti-Semitism and I didn't think it was quite as bad as everyone is making out. Jezza was clearly peeved and in a foul mood, but I thought he countered forcefully enough.
I see Labour’s top operative is sharpening its attack lines.
Well, that's one way to try and shift the narrative on from Corbyn's interview.
I like the new Burgon character and Cummings and Milne provide a lot of comedy, but I really miss Malcolm Tucker and the series as a whole feels a bit far fetched.
I'm honestly not trying to be a contrarian, maverick or 'free thinker' here, but I've just caught up with the bit of Jezza's interview about anti-Semitism and I didn't think it was quite as bad as everyone is making out. Jezza was clearly peeved and in a foul mood, but I thought he countered forcefully enough.
From the Tory party tonight to me on the WASPI issue:-
"Thank you for contacting us about the State Pension Age. Since the Conservatives came into Government in 2010, we have provided greater security, choice and dignity for people in retirement, while also ensuring that the system is sustainable for future generations. In 1995, the then-Government decided that it was going to make the State Pension Age the same for men and women, as a long-overdue move towards gender equality. Raising the State Pension Age in line with life expectancy changes has been the policy of successive administrations over many years. The State Pension Age has been equalised in a gradual way by governments of all colours – Conservative, Labour and Coalition. When the rate of change was accelerated in 2011, nearly six million letters were sent out by the Department for Work and Pensions to inform people, and more than £1 billion has been provided to ensure no woman retired more than 18 months later than originally planned in 1995. Over three million women stand to receive an average of £550 more per year by 2030 as a result of the recent reforms Conservatives have made to the State Pension – and we are providing a clearer, sustainable system for the future."
It seems a reasonable response to me but I am not the best person to judge. Your view?
I'm honestly not trying to be a contrarian, maverick or 'free thinker' here, but I've just caught up with the bit of Jezza's interview about anti-Semitism and I didn't think it was quite as bad as everyone is making out. Jezza was clearly peeved and in a foul mood, but I thought he countered forcefully enough.
I watched it and thought he was crap, grumpy, shifty and mendacious.
I'm honestly not trying to be a contrarian, maverick or 'free thinker' here, but I've just caught up with the bit of Jezza's interview about anti-Semitism and I didn't think it was quite as bad as everyone is making out. Jezza was clearly peeved and in a foul mood, but I thought he countered forcefully enough.
Yes, if I’m honest I didn’t see a knockout blow. But it might be that we’ve subconsciously set the bar so low for him.
I see Labour’s top operative is sharpening its attack lines.
stop the presses
That can't be real... can it?
In fairness there’s a few other lines below, but it’s real.
The context does not make the opening much better frankly. https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/1199432830176104450 It's a very lazy attack line. I'd be focusing on how Boris is worse than Cameron, since the voters gave Cameron a majority (albeit on less of the vote than what Boris will likely achieve, whether he gets a majority or not), to focus on people who might be tempted to flirt with a Tory vote, but who would not consider voting for an especially bad Tory like Boris. I'd not mention Thatcher because I'm not a reactionary fool still stuck in the 70s, a party robot regurgitating trite cliches (my cliches are far from trite), or a spotty 17 year old boring their parents because they've just learned about the period in 4th period history class. (This message brought to you from people who wish Tories and Labour would stop banging on about Thatcher)
I see Labour’s top operative is sharpening its attack lines.
One of the standout features of this campaign has been the weakness of the Labour attack. The goal is wide open, but they refuse to put the ball in the back of the net. Their attacks are predictable and really only preach to the choir.
An effective attack would undermine Conservative faith in Boris. One such way would be to remind the voters of his disloyalty to May and dither on Brexit.
It’s frustrating to watch. So many opportunities.
What makes you think the Tory voters would be annoyed at Boris's disloyalty to May?
Tory voters didn't back May either. At the European elections remember. Not only did May only get a 9% score in the European Elections, the Tory vote then was just 11% of the Tory vote at the General Election. 89% of voters who voted Tory at the last election either abstained or voted for someone else.
@DavidL I agree that a Corbyn government would be a disaster, but not on borrowing costs. In theory the only limit for a sovereign government's deficit is the printing press , value of it's currency, and inflation. But as Japan and America has showed in today's world there is no limit to deficits, even Greece has had negative intererst rates this year.
And once the bond markets refuse to finance government spending?
The metaphorical printing presses start and we produce all the money needed to finance Labour's promises.
And then inflation takes hold.
And then sterling gradually becomes a currency nobody wants to own.
And then the country collapses.
It isn't even theoretical; it has happened time and again...often in countries admired by Corbyn and his type.
@DavidL I agree that a Corbyn government would be a disaster, but not on borrowing costs. In theory the only limit for a sovereign government's deficit is the printing press , value of it's currency, and inflation. But as Japan and America has showed in today's world there is no limit to deficits, even Greece has had negative intererst rates this year.
Go to Greece and ask them how things are going......
Also care to remind us what happened to youth unemployment over there
They're not a sovereign government, and they don't have a printing press.
And we will take no lectures from the Party that has increased the debt more in the last 9 yrs than every Labour Govt in history and still found enough money for tax cuts for millionaires and the DUP
I see this posted regularly by those on the left.
Do you genuinely not understand why the debt increased or do you understand but hope that potential voters don't?
The argument doesn't survive even cursory consideration.
On top of that they scream about austerity.
Ed M ran into quite a bit of difficulty trying to combine his attacks of 'The Tories have unnecessarily cut spending' and 'the Tories have failed to cut spending as much as they said they would'. There was a space to make the point I assume it was making, about the Tories being incompetent in their own plans as well as ideologically driven down the wrong path, but it came across as criticising them for not cutting faster, while also criticising them for cutting at all.
I see Labour’s top operative is sharpening its attack lines.
One of the standout features of this campaign has been the weakness of the Labour attack. The goal is wide open, but they refuse to put the ball in the back of the net. Their attacks are predictable and really only preach to the choir.
An effective attack would undermine Conservative faith in Boris. One such way would be to remind the voters of his disloyalty to May and dither on Brexit.
It’s frustrating to watch. So many opportunities.
What makes you think the Tory voters would be annoyed at Boris's disloyalty to May?
Tory voters didn't back May either. At the European elections remember. Not only did May only get a 9% score in the European Elections, the Tory vote then was just 11% of the Tory vote at the General Election. 89% of voters who voted Tory at the last election either abstained or voted for someone else.
Some Tories take a dim view on Boris’s dishonesty and dishonourable behaviour. An old school minority perhaps, but enough to make a difference.
Can I ask those on here who are Labour/Corbyn supporters, what was your reception to that interview?
I cant tell if it really was as bad as I am making it out or my Anti Cornym bias taking over.
I don't know - I never watch Andrew Neil (and won't watch his interviews with Johnson and Swinson either) - IMO one of the worst practitioners of interview by browbeating and interruption (Paxman and Humphries are the others I avoid).
What does get me about that Neil interview is that none of the questions were that hard to predict and prepare for (the same will be true of Boris).
If you are actually a campaigner against racism it should be the most natural thing in the world to say that you’re horrified that such a large portion of the Jewish community feel like that, and you’re very sorry that any members of the party you lead and love have made it happen. You then say you want to redouble your efforts and announce an independent enquiry, using the opportunity to flag the issue Boris has here. I presume he didn’t do any of that because he actually doesn’t see any of what’s being done in his name as wrong.
It’s priced in to the polls though and, like I said above, I don’t think he was any worse than he usually is.
I see Labour’s top operative is sharpening its attack lines.
One of the standout features of this campaign has been the weakness of the Labour attack. The goal is wide open, but they refuse to put the ball in the back of the net. Their attacks are predictable and really only preach to the choir.
An effective attack would undermine Conservative faith in Boris. One such way would be to remind the voters of his disloyalty to May and dither on Brexit.
It’s frustrating to watch. So many opportunities.
What makes you think the Tory voters would be annoyed at Boris's disloyalty to May?
Tory voters didn't back May either. At the European elections remember. Not only did May only get a 9% score in the European Elections, the Tory vote then was just 11% of the Tory vote at the General Election. 89% of voters who voted Tory at the last election either abstained or voted for someone else.
Some Tories take a dim view on Boris’s dishonesty and dishonourable behaviour. An old school minority perhaps, but enough to make a difference.
What dishonourable behaviour?
Rejecting May wasn't dishonourable, its what you do when your leader is making horrendous mistakes. Maybe Labour could take note - May was the worst PM in centuries but looks like Churchill compared to Corbyn who still hasn't been ousted by the dishonourable ditherers behind him in the Commons.
Can I ask those on here who are Labour/Corbyn supporters, what was your reception to that interview?
I cant tell if it really was as bad as I am making it out or my Anti Cornym bias taking over.
I don't know - I never watch Andrew Neil (and won't watch his interviews with Johnson and Swinson either) - IMO one of the worst practitioners of interview by browbeating and interruption (Paxman and Humphries are the others I avoid).
Interesting. Personally I'm a fan but can understand the differing point of view.
Can I ask those on here who are Labour/Corbyn supporters, what was your reception to that interview?
I cant tell if it really was as bad as I am making it out or my Anti Cornym bias taking over.
I don't know - I never watch Andrew Neil (and won't watch his interviews with Johnson and Swinson either) - IMO one of the worst practitioners of interview by browbeating and interruption (Paxman and Humphries are the others I avoid).
At least he knows some details, and follows up his questions with further question pressing on those details. Most of the other interviewers around seem to just follow a rather lame script..
Can I ask those on here who are Labour/Corbyn supporters, what was your reception to that interview?
I cant tell if it really was as bad as I am making it out or my Anti Cornym bias taking over.
I don't know - I never watch Andrew Neil (and won't watch his interviews with Johnson and Swinson either) - IMO one of the worst practitioners of interview by browbeating and interruption (Paxman and Humphries are the others I avoid).
I think interviewers can overdo it, but politicians in recent times have retaliated by whinging incessantly about it happening even when it is not (so they and their supporters can whinge later about it if it goes badly), or is not unreasonable, so it cancels itself out.
@DavidL I agree that a Corbyn government would be a disaster, but not on borrowing costs. In theory the only limit for a sovereign government's deficit is the printing press , value of it's currency, and inflation. But as Japan and America has showed in today's world there is no limit to deficits, even Greece has had negative intererst rates this year.
And once the bond markets refuse to finance government spending?
The metaphorical printing presses start and we produce all the money needed to finance Labour's promises.
And then inflation takes hold.
And then sterling gradually becomes a currency nobody wants to own.
And then the country collapses.
It isn't even theoretical; it has happened time and again...often in countries admired by Corbyn and his type.
@DavidL I agree that a Corbyn government would be a disaster, but not on borrowing costs. In theory the only limit for a sovereign government's deficit is the printing press , value of it's currency, and inflation. But as Japan and America has showed in today's world there is no limit to deficits, even Greece has had negative intererst rates this year.
And once the bond markets refuse to finance government spending?
The metaphorical printing presses start and we produce all the money needed to finance Labour's promises.
And then inflation takes hold.
And then sterling gradually becomes a currency nobody wants to own.
And then the country collapses.
It isn't even theoretical; it has happened time and again...often in countries admired by Corbyn and his type.
It wouldn't be gradual.
It would begin Friday 13th if the election results are a horror show.
Can I ask those on here who are Labour/Corbyn supporters, what was your reception to that interview?
I cant tell if it really was as bad as I am making it out or my Anti Cornym bias taking over.
I don't know - I never watch Andrew Neil (and won't watch his interviews with Johnson and Swinson either) - IMO one of the worst practitioners of interview by browbeating and interruption (Paxman and Humphries are the others I avoid).
Paxman browbeats but Neil concentrates on factual issues that matters. Sounds like you don't want politicians facing tough scrutiny.
Still chuckling at BigG’s suggestion that Boris has gravitas. Boris clearly has and exploits a seductive charm for various manipulative ends, but he is yet to achieve gravitas.
We need to stop saying "this won't change any votes".
1)We don't know what will and what won't change votes
2) an interview like that won"t change a ton of votes but a few votes/minds will change, because if that doesnt change atleast a few votes, nothing will and there's no point having a campaign.
As people are repeatedly trying to point out, it's not that the interview wasn't horrifically bad, it's that these issues are not relevant to people either planning to vote labour, or people who who might switch Tory against Labour who haven't already done so. E.g. someone voting Labour currently isn't doing so because they are concerned with Labour's economic credibility.
It seems Tories have completely lost the ability to preach to anyone but the choir.
Disagree. There was a section on taxes rising for those on below 80k. A few voters might change their minds, because that is definitely relevant to people voting Labour. Tories need to hit Labour hard on this.
Can I ask those on here who are Labour/Corbyn supporters, what was your reception to that interview?
I cant tell if it really was as bad as I am making it out or my Anti Cornym bias taking over.
I don't know - I never watch Andrew Neil (and won't watch his interviews with Johnson and Swinson either) - IMO one of the worst practitioners of interview by browbeating and interruption (Paxman and Humphries are the others I avoid).
At least he knows some details, and follows up his questions with further question pressing on those details. Most of the other interviewers around seem to just follow a rather lame script..
I would think the key to a good example and a bad one, and it might difficult to spot the difference depending on the interviewer and the interviewee, is whether they are able to as you suggest follow up on a point raised, in a way that seems genuinely to be pinning the politician down on what they just said, rather than giving the impression they are working off a checklist of gotcha points they want to get through to show how smart they, the interviewer are. It would be tricky, since obviously they'll have prepared some key moments, but if an approach is not getting anything new out of the interviewee it needs to be dropped rather than the interviewer looking like they have nothing else to go on (so repeating a question would be fine, but depends on how much the subject has avoided answering, and how petulantly), and they need to not leap on to a separate subject to prove how smart they are if having tugged on a thread successfully the politician is either unravelling or at least saying something new and of value.
I see Labour’s top operative is sharpening its attack lines.
One of the standout features of this campaign has been the weakness of the Labour attack. The goal is wide open, but they refuse to put the ball in the back of the net. Their attacks are predictable and really only preach to the choir.
An effective attack would undermine Conservative faith in Boris. One such way would be to remind the voters of his disloyalty to May and dither on Brexit.
It’s frustrating to watch. So many opportunities.
What makes you think the Tory voters would be annoyed at Boris's disloyalty to May?
Tory voters didn't back May either. At the European elections remember. Not only did May only get a 9% score in the European Elections, the Tory vote then was just 11% of the Tory vote at the General Election. 89% of voters who voted Tory at the last election either abstained or voted for someone else.
Some Tories take a dim view on Boris’s dishonesty and dishonourable behaviour. An old school minority perhaps, but enough to make a difference.
What dishonourable behaviour?
Rejecting May wasn't dishonourable, its what you do when your leader is making horrendous mistakes. Maybe Labour could take note - May was the worst PM in centuries but looks like Churchill compared to Corbyn who still hasn't been ousted by the dishonourable ditherers behind him in the Commons.
Agreeing at chequers, then resigning in a way to cause maximum damage, whipping dissent on the backbenches, courting the DUP and cheering Mays defeat. He should have been sacked from the party for any of that. The fact he ended up actually voting for the thing he opposed when it was too late to gain a figleaf of loyalty, is the cherry on the cake.
He treated her abysmally. He complains about delay and dither, when he was the chief source of both.
Can I ask those on here who are Labour/Corbyn supporters, what was your reception to that interview?
I cant tell if it really was as bad as I am making it out or my Anti Cornym bias taking over.
I don't know - I never watch Andrew Neil (and won't watch his interviews with Johnson and Swinson either) - IMO one of the worst practitioners of interview by browbeating and interruption (Paxman and Humphries are the others I avoid).
I've just watched the Neil interview of Corbyn. I was expecting a car crash from comments on here and headlines in the papers. But I came away sympathising with Corbyn and I'm a LibDem If you can put yourself in the shoes of an undecided voter, curious about what Corbyn will reveal in this interview, I think you will sympathise with him. A gentle quietly spoken considerate man being bullied but coping politely with it. I think Corbyn will get a slight boost from this. The screeching headlines and Tory whooping will just reinforce the nasty image of the Tories. In the same vein, I think Jo Swinson got a slight boost by the way she handled the hostile QT audience.
Comments
1)We don't know what will and what won't change votes
2) an interview like that won"t change a ton of votes but a few votes/minds will change, because if that doesnt change atleast a few votes, nothing will and there's no point having a campaign.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1199445881466081288
Jeremy Corbyn's TV disaster with Andrew Neil made the Hindenburg explosion look like a minor prang
LMAO
Magic grandpa well and truly found out
Might as well answer every Neil question with 'Look at what I said on X ' and leave it at that.
Oh crap, I think politicians do actually try that.
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/1199325992168374282
Total disaster.
It's cumulative effect. A few are changed here or there, it adds up to something big, or the impact of one on another causes a big effect.
Taken logically no piece of propaganda pushed through a letterbox or stupid PEB should change anyone's minds either, but parties clearly think they serve a useful purpose.
Edit: More generally, we know these little things do change minds, even as the straw breaking the camel's back. I don't recall the precise moment my support of Brexit changed, but it will have happened in response to something that on its own won't have meant anything to most people.
What a day for Labour
Sadly, charisma is rarely an indicator of a good leader.
Rest of press: Corbyn refuses to apologise.
Also care to remind us what happened to youth unemployment over there
As a side issue I do accept I like his more liberal domestic policies
And you know very well what changed, he got a deal and reinstated many of the conservatives he sacked which precipitated my resignation
We all need to be more grown up to be honest
The reason the debt racked up incidentally is Labours handling of the economy.
"no more boom and bust"
Can they keep their seat total above 200?
Do you genuinely not understand why the debt increased or do you understand but hope that potential voters don't?
The argument doesn't survive even cursory consideration.
With Boris at least I understand his charismatic appeal a bit more, even though I find his schtick mostly irritating these days. But its about being upbeat, relatable and flexible. Corbyn clearly has charismatic appeal because you don't get people singing your name out of partisan obligation, but I'm more baffled by it, because the parts of his style which are more appealing - appearing serious, sincere and genuinely caring about people - seem more like they would engender respect (if you buy it) rather than worship, but worship is what he receives.
then I'm not sure you should vote until you do understand.
I can't believe it. The leader of the Tory party is a... Tory?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/26/men-sentenced-releasing-fox-path-kimblewick-hunt-oxfordshire-animal
Amazing. This is something I was assured never happened. Even when caught on film.
It seems Tories have completely lost the ability to preach to anyone but the choir.
An effective attack would undermine Conservative faith in Boris. One such way would be to remind the voters of his disloyalty to May and dither on Brexit.
It’s frustrating to watch. So many opportunities.
My determination to keep these arses from power just went through the roof
Not just foolish and gaff prone but utter imbeciles
I cant tell if it really was as bad as I am making it out or my Anti Cornym bias taking over.
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/1199432830176104450
It's a very lazy attack line. I'd be focusing on how Boris is worse than Cameron, since the voters gave Cameron a majority (albeit on less of the vote than what Boris will likely achieve, whether he gets a majority or not), to focus on people who might be tempted to flirt with a Tory vote, but who would not consider voting for an especially bad Tory like Boris.
I'd not mention Thatcher because I'm not a reactionary fool still stuck in the 70s, a party robot regurgitating trite cliches (my cliches are far from trite), or a spotty 17 year old boring their parents because they've just learned about the period in 4th period history class.
(This message brought to you from people who wish Tories and Labour would stop banging on about Thatcher)
Tory voters didn't back May either. At the European elections remember. Not only did May only get a 9% score in the European Elections, the Tory vote then was just 11% of the Tory vote at the General Election. 89% of voters who voted Tory at the last election either abstained or voted for someone else.
The metaphorical printing presses start and we produce all the money needed to finance Labour's promises.
And then inflation takes hold.
And then sterling gradually becomes a currency nobody wants to own.
And then the country collapses.
It isn't even theoretical; it has happened time and again...often in countries admired by Corbyn and his type.
No flies on him.
Greece isn't the comparison you're looking for.
https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1199463595614060544
If you are actually a campaigner against racism it should be the most natural thing in the world to say that you’re horrified that such a large portion of the Jewish community feel like that, and you’re very sorry that any members of the party you lead and love have made it happen. You then say you want to redouble your efforts and announce an independent enquiry, using the opportunity to flag the issue Boris has here. I presume he didn’t do any of that because he actually doesn’t see any of what’s being done in his name as wrong.
It’s priced in to the polls though and, like I said above, I don’t think he was any worse than he usually is.
Rejecting May wasn't dishonourable, its what you do when your leader is making horrendous mistakes. Maybe Labour could take note - May was the worst PM in centuries but looks like Churchill compared to Corbyn who still hasn't been ousted by the dishonourable ditherers behind him in the Commons.
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/election-2019-50564263?__twitter_impression=true
A few voters might change their minds, because that is definitely relevant to people voting Labour. Tories need to hit Labour hard on this.
Boris won’t turn up for a brilloing, Why risk it?
He treated her abysmally. He complains about delay and dither, when he was the chief source of both.
If you can put yourself in the shoes of an undecided voter, curious about what Corbyn will reveal in this interview, I think you will sympathise with him. A gentle quietly spoken considerate man being bullied but coping politely with it. I think Corbyn will get a slight boost from this. The screeching headlines and Tory whooping will just reinforce the nasty image of the Tories.
In the same vein, I think Jo Swinson got a slight boost by the way she handled the hostile QT audience.