So whilst the press will try and dissect the reality of this statement from Labour, most people will just get the trickle: NHS, Tories, USA. It will bump against their priors: privatisation, US healthcare is awful, Trump. Even if the reality isn't as bad as Labour are making out, it will move the needle.
I think that is about right. What a contrast with the amoral Johnson.
What have we done to deserve these two?
It encapsulates the choice very clearly - and also makes it very easy.
Would you rather have an amoral leader along the lines of Nixon or Kennedy or an absolutist leader along the lines of Khrushchev or Mao?
Remember this is not theoretical. John McDonnell quoted admiringly from the writings of one of the 20th centuries' greatest mass murderers in Parliament only a few years ago.
What choice? Corbyn's chances of leading the next Government are vanishingly small.
The best hope for someone like me is that a Hung Parliament leads to the removal of both leaders and other desireable outcomes like stopping Brexit.
It is a slim hope but I'll vote for it anyway.
It is what I am hoping for as well, but the reality is different. If there is a hung parliament, one of Johnson or Corbyn will need to be PM to stop a no deal Brexit on Jan 31st. There is no timescale to allow another GE before that deadline, which gives them massive leverage over the minor parties.
So whilst the press will try and dissect the reality of this statement from Labour, most people will just get the trickle: NHS, Tories, USA. It will bump against their priors: privatisation, US healthcare is awful, Trump. Even if the reality isn't as bad as Labour are making out, it will move the needle.
Not For Sale! Not For Sale! Not For Sale !!!
So No trade deal with the US.
And without a trade deal with the US why are we leaving the other big market we are a member of?
Sky confirming these documents were from Theresa May's time and before Boris Johnson came into office in Downing Street
So that changes the USA's views and red lines in what way?
It probably doesn't change their views at all, but it also shows how unlikely it is that we will get a substantial trade deal with the US. Even someone as dozy as Boris is unlikely to agree to a deal that would see the NHS drug costs more than double.
So whilst the press will try and dissect the reality of this statement from Labour, most people will just get the trickle: NHS, Tories, USA. It will bump against their priors: privatisation, US healthcare is awful, Trump. Even if the reality isn't as bad as Labour are making out, it will move the needle.
Not For Sale! Not For Sale! Not For Sale !!!
So No trade deal with the US.
And without a trade deal with the US why are we leaving the other big market we are a member of?
To keep the Tory party together and elect an Etonian as PM.
Finally watched the Corbyn-Neil interview. Of course I think he cane across shiftily, but i suspect both sides will be able to mine for social media clips so probably a score draw. However what interests me is this: Neil asked is the phrase “Rothschild Zionists rule Israel and the world” anti Semitic or not? Corbyn didn’t and wouldn’t give a straight answer. A simple yes would have closed it down The only reason why I can think he wouldn’t have done that is he was aware/afraid that Neil had evidence that a friend/ally of Corbyn’s had said that (it turned out to be someone called Liam Moore who I’ve never heard of) Can anyone else explain why Corbyn wouldn’t answer this question? It looked terrible.
Perhaps watch again if you can bear it. Because he did answer it. He said it was an antisemitic trope.
You're quite right. This is from the transcript:
AN: Well, let’s look for some. Let me ask you this. Is it anti-Semitic to say Rothschild’s Zionists run Israel and world governments?
JC: In the Chakrabarti Report we asked that people did not use comparisons about conspiracies, not use –
AN: Is that anti-Semitic?
JC: – because in the belief of Shami, and I support her on this in that report, that can be constructed as being an anti-Semitic statement and therefore – and therefore should not be –
AN: Right, but let’s just get it clear. I asked you – I gave you a specific quote. Are the words ‘Rothschild’s Zionists run Israel and world government’. Is that anti-Semitic?
JC: It should not be used and it is.
AN: But you can’t say it’s anti-Semitic?
JC: Look, I just said that it should not be used.
AN: That’s different from being – there’s lots of things shouldn’t be used but that’s not the same as anti-Semitic. Is it, or isn’t it anti-Semitic?
JC: Andrew, it is an anti-Semitic trope that has been used and that was – if you’d let me finish before, I made that very clear in the Chakrabarti Report which we did very early on – very early on during my –
AN: So we’re agreed it’s anti-Semitic? Right, that’s all I wanted to establish.
I think that is about right. What a contrast with the amoral Johnson.
What have we done to deserve these two?
It encapsulates the choice very clearly - and also makes it very easy.
Would you rather have an amoral leader along the lines of Nixon or Kennedy or an absolutist leader along the lines of Khrushchev or Mao?
Remember this is not theoretical. John McDonnell quoted admiringly from the writings of one of the 20th centuries' greatest mass murderers in Parliament only a few years ago.
What choice? Corbyn's chances of leading the next Government are vanishingly small.
The best hope for someone like me is that a Hung Parliament leads to the removal of both leaders and other desireable outcomes like stopping Brexit.
It is a slim hope but I'll vote for it anyway.
If its a Hung Parliament either Johnson or Corbyn will be PM afterwards just as May ended in Downing Street still in 2017 and Corbyn claimed victory in 2017.
Corbyn essentially claimed victory even when May returned to Downing Street. If there's enough MPs to get a Labour-led coalition against the odds rather than a Tory victory then Corbyn will 100% definitely claim victory and go to Downing Street. Are you prepared to vote for that?
IIRC, because I did look it up but have forgotten the exact figure, that would be an increase larger than the entire current NHS drug budget. It's bonkers to suggest we would want such a deal.
As I said in another post, we (the UK) do not want such a deal. The US, OTOH, would love such a deal. Trump is in the Whitehouse. He has said the NHS is on the table if we want a deal. America First!
Trump can ask for the moon on a stick, it doesn't mean we would give it to him. Especially if it had a £26 billion a year price tag.
So Boris & the Brexiteers banging on about how the EU stops us having a Trade Deal with the USA is just another Brexit fantasy?
Not at all. We cannot sign a trade deal until we brexit
The more Ms Sturgeon and Mr Corbyn flirt with one another, the easier it is for the Tories to motivate their target voters. Each time the first minister mentions independence, plenty of No voters are reminded that some things are more important than even Brexit and every time Labour is asked about a second referendum on independence, a Tory angel gains its wings.
"Liam Fox was at first meeting which was back in July 2017 - Most of the documents do not relate to medicines or the NHS and can't see in documents yet mentions of other ministers there" Laura K.
The papers that are most damaging being rolled out over next 3 days according to the source who told me Jezza had them and was unveiling them at 10am
I think that is about right. What a contrast with the amoral Johnson.
What have we done to deserve these two?
It encapsulates the choice very clearly - and also makes it very easy.
Would you rather have an amoral leader along the lines of Nixon or Kennedy or an absolutist leader along the lines of Khrushchev or Mao?
Remember this is not theoretical. John McDonnell quoted admiringly from the writings of one of the 20th centuries' greatest mass murderers in Parliament only a few years ago.
What choice? Corbyn's chances of leading the next Government are vanishingly small.
The best hope for someone like me is that a Hung Parliament leads to the removal of both leaders and other desireable outcomes like stopping Brexit.
It is a slim hope but I'll vote for it anyway.
If its a Hung Parliament either Johnson or Corbyn will be PM afterwards just as May ended in Downing Street still in 2017 and Corbyn claimed victory in 2017.
Corbyn essentially claimed victory even when May returned to Downing Street. If there's enough MPs to get a Labour-led coalition against the odds rather than a Tory victory then Corbyn will 100% definitely claim victory and go to Downing Street. Are you prepared to vote for that?
The Tories have left some of us, who have voted Tory in the past, no choice.
I suspect not a lot. It is why we don't really see people becoming more Tory with age like previous generations did.
Wrong current polls show the Tories leading with 40s to 50s, 40 being the age most people now own a home
But Foxys argument seems to be that becoming older =/= becoming more likely to vote Tory, rather that the current crop of older people are more likely to vote Tory. So is the average 25-30 year old now, in 20 years, going to be likely to vote Tory at the same rate as current 45-50 year olds (as Foxy suggested would have been the case in the past), or has that trend broken? I was thinking about this during the PB Tory panic over some of the polling, but the Tory party have failed to win a lasting governing majority since Major, with the small blip of Cameron's majority not lasting and being overtaken by the Europe question. Did Thatcher break this age drift? Has something else happened that is making it near impossible for Tories to win a majority? I wonder if the Anyone But Conservative alliance is just too strong and that, as we see now, even unpopular parties with the voters will gain enough tactical votes once an election is called to keep Tories out of power. Is the base of each party enough that, if either side decides to vote tactically, we are now in an era of weak governments and the only response would be electoral reform and a more conciliatory approach to politics, with more emphasis on coalitions and common ground. With Labour losing Scotland they can't find a majority anywhere, and enough of the Wets seem happy voting for the LDs. The working class is shifting more Tory than the past, but I bet that will have a racial tinge to it, and therefore the working class that does still vote Labour will be more concentrated and therefore more efficient, whereas the white working class vote that the Tories get will be more spread thin, possibly just bolstering them in safe seats rather than winning Lab / LD seats...
Housing affordability is important.
The young will not become more Conservative as they age if they don't own their own home.
It has risen but by 34 over 50% own their own home, coincidentally 35 is the age voters now stop voting Labour with Tories leading with 35 to 54s
I think that is about right. What a contrast with the amoral Johnson.
What have we done to deserve these two?
"we" voted for populism, if the electorate at large = "we". Brexit, Johnson and Corbyn are all the product of this stupidity.
I agree but think on top of that, we have surrendered our parties to idiots. "Normal" people (hate that phrase but cant think of better...) prefer to go out for dinner with friends, watch the football or go to a theatre or concert, than engage in party politics in their free time. We have left it to the extremists, who in turn make engaging in party politics even more soul destroying, creating a negative loop pushing our parties to the extreme. Perhaps it is time to admit many of us, myself definitely included, dont put enough time into civic society.
One of the reasons for this is, at least on the labour side, is the reduction in union membership in the manual trades. It is a great pity in my opinion.
C'mon, the BJers haven't even properly masticated the worst political interview in the history of the world evah. I predict no negative effect whatsoever on Project Corbyn.
That's an interesting consistent rise on the red line (and consistent fall on yellow) that doesn't seem to be mirrored in all other polls.
We discussed this same poll at length yesterday. It’s not new.
I know that. I was responding to the graph - none of the polls are new on that graph but its the first time I've seen the graphics, yesterday we had the numbers but the graph puts it in an interesting context.
Corbyn just trying to move the focus back to the NHS which is one of Labour's stronger areas tbh. Their supporters will ignore the fact they're lieing toerags and just scream and scream and scream about the TORAH the TORAH, I mean the TORIES.
All Boris has to do is say if the NHS is not protected hell walk away from a trade deal
Does "based on the age of household reference persons, individuals within a household who act as a reference person for all individuals in the household" mean a 30 year old living with his homeowner parents counts as a homeowner themself?
Scrapping the married couples allowance seems an own goal for Labour. It dilutes their no-one under 80k red line and for a small amount of money raised.
Scrapping the married couples allowance seems an own goal for Labour. It dilutes their no-one under 80k red line and for a small amount of money raised.
Yes. It is a fairness issue. Unmarried couples don't get it. It would have been better politics if Corbyn had extended it to unmarried couples but I guess it's open to abuse.
Then if they've not made their mind up they can delay voting until General Election day as I do. What's the issue?
There will be many apolitical floater types who do their postal vote straightaway just to get the thing dealt with. OK, fine. But then Boris appears on Neil and absolutely IMPLODES. Too late. Those Con postals are (quite literally) in the bag.
Scrapping the married couples allowance seems an own goal for Labour. It dilutes their no-one under 80k red line and for a small amount of money raised.
Haven't they U turned on this? It was on the 9am news on BBC Radio.
But Foxys argument seems to be that becoming older =/= becoming more likely to vote Tory, rather that the current crop of older people are more likely to vote Tory. So is the average 25-30 year old now, in 20 years, going to be likely to vote Tory at the same rate as current 45-50 year olds (as Foxy suggested would have been the case in the past), or has that trend broken? I was thinking about this during the PB Tory panic over some of the polling, but the Tory party have failed to win a lasting governing majority since Major, with the small blip of Cameron's majority not lasting and being overtaken by the Europe question. Did Thatcher break this age drift? Has something else happened that is making it near impossible for Tories to win a majority? I wonder if the Anyone But Conservative alliance is just too strong and that, as we see now, even unpopular parties with the voters will gain enough tactical votes once an election is called to keep Tories out of power. Is the base of each party enough that, if either side decides to vote tactically, we are now in an era of weak governments and the only response would be electoral reform and a more conciliatory approach to politics, with more emphasis on coalitions and common ground. With Labour losing Scotland they can't find a majority anywhere, and enough of the Wets seem happy voting for the LDs. The working class is shifting more Tory than the past, but I bet that will have a racial tinge to it, and therefore the working class that does still vote Labour will be more concentrated and therefore more efficient, whereas the white working class vote that the Tories get will be more spread thin, possibly just bolstering them in safe seats rather than winning Lab / LD seats...
Housing affordability is important.
The young will not become more Conservative as they age if they don't own their own home.
It has risen but by 34 over 50% own their own home, coincidentally 35 is the age voters now stop voting Labour with Tories leading with 35 to 54s
That's interesting, suggests that the polarisation is recent, and looks more like the coalition government was the start rather than Corbyn or Brexit, either of which were obvious fuel to the fire.
Does "based on the age of household reference persons, individuals within a household who act as a reference person for all individuals in the household" mean a 30 year old living with his homeowner parents counts as a homeowner themself?
But Foxys argument seems to be that becoming older =/= becoming more likely to vote Tory, rather that the current crop of older people are more likely to vote Tory. So is the average 25-30 year old now, in 20 years, going to be likely to vote Tory at the same rate as current 45-50 year olds (as Foxy suggested would have been the case in the past), or has that trend broken? I was thinking about this during the PB Tory panic over some of the polling, but the Tory party have failed to win a lasting governing majority since Major, with the small blip of Cameron's majority not lasting and being overtaken by the Europe question. Did Thatcher break this age drift? Has something else happened that is making it near impossible for Tories to win a majority? I wonder if the Anyone But Conservative alliance is just too strong and that, as we see now, even unpopular parties with the voters will gain enough tactical votes once an election is called to keep Tories out of power. Is the base of each party enough that, if either side decides to vote tactically, we are now in an era of weak governments and the only response would be electoral reform and a more conciliatory approach to politics, with more emphasis on coalitions and common ground. With Labour losing Scotland they can't find a majority anywhere, and enough of the Wets seem happy voting for the LDs. The working class is shifting more Tory than the past, but I bet that will have a racial tinge to it, and therefore the working class that does still vote Labour will be more concentrated and therefore more efficient, whereas the white working class vote that the Tories get will be more spread thin, possibly just bolstering them in safe seats rather than winning Lab / LD seats...
Housing affordability is important.
The young will not become more Conservative as they age if they don't own their own home.
It has risen but by 34 over 50% own their own home, coincidentally 35 is the age voters now stop voting Labour with Tories leading with 35 to 54s
That's interesting, suggests that the polarisation is recent, and looks more like the coalition government was the start rather than Corbyn or Brexit, either of which were obvious fuel to the fire.
QE is the obvious trigger, dividing the country by asset owners supported by the govt against wage earners paying the bill.
Scrapping the married couples allowance seems an own goal for Labour. It dilutes their no-one under 80k red line and for a small amount of money raised.
Yes. It is a fairness issue. Unmarried couples don't get it. It would have been better politics if Corbyn had extended it to unmarried couples but I guess it's open to abuse.
Agreed. Scrapping is the right thing to do, but politically very naïve.
The more Ms Sturgeon and Mr Corbyn flirt with one another, the easier it is for the Tories to motivate their target voters. Each time the first minister mentions independence, plenty of No voters are reminded that some things are more important than even Brexit and every time Labour is asked about a second referendum on independence, a Tory angel gains its wings.
Again, anecdote alert, but this may be the case for some who are tempted to vote Tory anyway, but amongst middle class remainery types the idea of Sturgeon as a moderating force on Corbyn's Labour is rife amongst my friends and family. For some they use it as a get out clause, "Labour can't win a majority, and will be moderated by SNP / LD, so I can vote tactically and it not be an issue", for others they think unionism is an issue for Scotland and Scotland alone, and probably are small u unionists...
So whilst the press will try and dissect the reality of this statement from Labour, most people will just get the trickle: NHS, Tories, USA. It will bump against their priors: privatisation, US healthcare is awful, Trump. Even if the reality isn't as bad as Labour are making out, it will move the needle.
I doubt it will cut through at all
It will be the big issue in the final week. Trump is here. His ego require him to be the big issue of the day whether it is helpful or not, and his mouth normally ensures he is.
I don't thinkTrump is foolish enough to help Corbyn into number 10. Boris will avoid any joint press conferences with Trump if he has one ounce of sense.
Considering the extended timeframe of these documents to 2017, around the time Theresa May's rhetoric pivoted to encompass the possibility of no-deal, these are potentially some of the most revealing data of the last few years.
So whilst the press will try and dissect the reality of this statement from Labour, most people will just get the trickle: NHS, Tories, USA. It will bump against their priors: privatisation, US healthcare is awful, Trump. Even if the reality isn't as bad as Labour are making out, it will move the needle.
I doubt it will cut through at all
It will be the big issue in the final week. Trump is here. His ego require him to be the big issue of the day whether it is helpful or not, and his mouth normally ensures he is.
I don't thinkTrump is foolish enough to help Corbyn into number 10. Boris will avoid any joint press conferences with Trump if he has one ounce of sense.
So whilst the press will try and dissect the reality of this statement from Labour, most people will just get the trickle: NHS, Tories, USA. It will bump against their priors: privatisation, US healthcare is awful, Trump. Even if the reality isn't as bad as Labour are making out, it will move the needle.
I doubt it will cut through at all
It will be the big issue in the final week. Trump is here. His ego require him to be the big issue of the day whether it is helpful or not, and his mouth normally ensures he is.
I don't thinkTrump is foolish enough to help Corbyn into number 10. Boris will avoid any joint press conferences with Trump if he has one ounce of sense.
Foolish is a better fit for Trump and Johnson than sense.
Then if they've not made their mind up they can delay voting until General Election day as I do. What's the issue?
There will be many apolitical floater types who do their postal vote straightaway just to get the thing dealt with. OK, fine. But then Boris appears on Neil and absolutely IMPLODES. Too late. Those Con postals are (quite literally) in the bag.
So what? Those voters made their choice, nobody made them vote early.
You could say the same about anyone. Something could make Corbyn implode but his early voters have already voted.
Unless there's fraud all votes cast are done at the time and for the candidate that the voter chose to do. That's the voters choice.
Were I one of the civil servants named in these documents I’d be furious about having my name revealed without my permission and having my work being used/misused for party political reasons. It puts them at risk internally (leak inquiries/disciplinaries/messes up relationships with colleagues) and potentially externally. Very bad move by Labour.
Even though it might be all horseshit, Tories in big trouble here.
One thing you have to say about Labour's campaign is, it might full of unafforable promises and lies, but they have something new every day and scattergunning a wide range of people who at very least would consider voting Labour.
Where as the Tories seem to have nothing to say most days.
This NHS stuff has the potential to be dangerous for Boris. Trump is the wild card here. Remember, he's been weened on Fox News and the views of people like Farage and Hannan. I can imagine him saying, 'Sure we're gonna buy the NHS off the British - they're all dying over there and it would be great if they had American healthcare instead' thinking he was helping Boris.
And if there is a hung parliament? Tories a few short of a majority cant get anyone to support them. Corbyn toxic and his numbers are a bit worse so needs DUP? I think there is now more chance of no deal Jan 31 than there ever was for Mar 31.
So whilst the press will try and dissect the reality of this statement from Labour, most people will just get the trickle: NHS, Tories, USA. It will bump against their priors: privatisation, US healthcare is awful, Trump. Even if the reality isn't as bad as Labour are making out, it will move the needle.
I doubt it will cut through at all
It will be the big issue in the final week. Trump is here. His ego require him to be the big issue of the day whether it is helpful or not, and his mouth normally ensures he is.
I don't thinkTrump is foolish enough to help Corbyn into number 10. Boris will avoid any joint press conferences with Trump if he has one ounce of sense.
I think that is about right. What a contrast with the amoral Johnson.
What have we done to deserve these two?
It encapsulates the choice very clearly - and also makes it very easy.
Would you rather have an amoral leader along the lines of Nixon or Kennedy or an absolutist leader along the lines of Khrushchev or Mao?
Remember this is not theoretical. John McDonnell quoted admiringly from the writings of one of the 20th centuries' greatest mass murderers in Parliament only a few years ago.
What choice? Corbyn's chances of leading the next Government are vanishingly small.
The best hope for someone like me is that a Hung Parliament leads to the removal of both leaders and other desireable outcomes like stopping Brexit.
It is a slim hope but I'll vote for it anyway.
If its a Hung Parliament either Johnson or Corbyn will be PM afterwards just as May ended in Downing Street still in 2017 and Corbyn claimed victory in 2017.
Corbyn essentially claimed victory even when May returned to Downing Street. If there's enough MPs to get a Labour-led coalition against the odds rather than a Tory victory then Corbyn will 100% definitely claim victory and go to Downing Street. Are you prepared to vote for that?
They are as bad as each other both dangerous in different ways. It’s all classic lab/con you can’t vote for anyone else because it might let lab/con in. The game that has been played by both side since the 1930’s. It’s your support for the the totally undemocratic voting system that ensures nothing will ever change because that’s what suits you and others who support the two so called big parties.
Considering the extended timeframe of these documents to 2017, around the time Theresa May's rhetoric pivoted to encompass the possibility of no-deal, these are potentially some of the most revealing data of the last few years.
Or possibly the underlined bit is a statement of the bleeding obvious. The position changes dramatically where the situation changes from Deal to No Deal.
Why would 'an Australian style, points-based immigration system' protect the NHS?
We get the immigrants we need based on their skills not on their right to free movement. Takes the pressure off in terms of numbers & subsequent strains on social services.
I think that is about right. What a contrast with the amoral Johnson.
What have we done to deserve these two?
It encapsulates the choice very clearly - and also makes it very easy.
Would you rather have an amoral leader along the lines of Nixon or Kennedy or an absolutist leader along the lines of Khrushchev or Mao?
Remember this is not theoretical. John McDonnell quoted admiringly from the writings of one of the 20th centuries' greatest mass murderers in Parliament only a few years ago.
What choice? Corbyn's chances of leading the next Government are vanishingly small.
The best hope for someone like me is that a Hung Parliament leads to the removal of both leaders and other desireable outcomes like stopping Brexit.
It is a slim hope but I'll vote for it anyway.
If its a Hung Parliament either Johnson or Corbyn will be PM afterwards just as May ended in Downing Street still in 2017 and Corbyn claimed victory in 2017.
Corbyn essentially claimed victory even when May returned to Downing Street. If there's enough MPs to get a Labour-led coalition against the odds rather than a Tory victory then Corbyn will 100% definitely claim victory and go to Downing Street. Are you prepared to vote for that?
I'm prepared to vote for what I want, Richard, a stop to Brexit. What are you doing?
To return to my point of last night.. I'd like to know if @NickPalmer agrees with this that Corbyn said: "Well, first of all for nationalisation you don’t borrow. What you do is change share ownership for government bonds and it becomes an investment." He is clearly saying that government bonds are not borrowing. From the dictionary: "When a government or company issues a bond, it borrows money from investors." https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bond First line of the wiki page: "In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_(finance) So Dr Nick, is your man thick and/or dishonest?
Even though it might be all horseshit, Tories in big trouble here.
One thing you have to say about Labour's campaign is, it might full of unafforable promises and lies, but they have something new every day and scattergunning a wide range of people who at very least would consider voting Labour.
Where as the Tories seem to have nothing to say most days.
The Tory lead will widen again on Saturday night. Mark my words.
To return to my point of last night.. I'd like to know if @NickPalmer agrees with this that Corbyn said: "Well, first of all for nationalisation you don’t borrow. What you do is change share ownership for government bonds and it becomes an investment." He is clearly saying that government bonds are not borrowing. From the dictionary: "When a government or company issues a bond, it borrows money from investors." https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bond First line of the wiki page: "In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_(finance) So Dr Nick, is your man thick and/or dishonest?
I agree but think on top of that, we have surrendered our parties to idiots. "Normal" people (hate that phrase but cant think of better...) prefer to go out for dinner with friends, watch the football or go to a theatre or concert, than engage in party politics in their free time. We have left it to the extremists, who in turn make engaging in party politics even more soul destroying, creating a negative loop pushing our parties to the extreme. Perhaps it is time to admit many of us, myself definitely included, dont put enough time into civic society.
We all generalise from our personal experience, but I really don't recognise this picture of a bunch of obsessives in any of the parties (except myself - I spend an hour a day or so on politics, on average). When I was the Broxtowe MP we had 700 members, but I could only usually rely on a handful to turn up to meetings or canvassing or anything else, explicitly because everyone had lots of other interests. It's much the same in SW Surrey - we have 500 members, I've been organising trips to Portsmouth to help there, and the maximum number to date is 3 people. But any number of apologies - daughter's engagement, aunt's illness, house being redecorated, etc etc.
What is closer to the mark is that the people who still join parties are more committed to ideas than they used to be, because it's seen as a nerdy and eccentric thing to do - nobody joins partly in the hope of enriching their social lives, as some used to. So it's not that the parties are full of obsessives, but more that if they're called upon to vote for a leader or the like, they vote for someone close to the ideas that made them join. And of course people with less attachment tend to resign as soon as something happens that they don't like, whereas the ideologically-keen people just sigh and plug on. As a Corbynista, my advice to centrists is to be persistent, don't just walk out every time something annoys you. In the end you'll win some of the arguments, but not if you just give up.
Even though it might be all horseshit, Tories in big trouble here.
One thing you have to say about Labour's campaign is, it might full of unafforable promises and lies, but they have something new every day and scattergunning a wide range of people who at very least would consider voting Labour.
Where as the Tories seem to have nothing to say most days.
The Tory lead will widen again on Saturday night. Mark my words.
Because? The Tories offer other being the only party to implement Brexit is very weak.
I think that is about right. What a contrast with the amoral Johnson.
What have we done to deserve these two?
It encapsulates the choice very clearly - and also makes it very easy.
Would you rather have an amoral leader along the lines of Nixon or Kennedy or an absolutist leader along the lines of Khrushchev or Mao?
Remember this is not theoretical. John McDonnell quoted admiringly from the writings of one of the 20th centuries' greatest mass murderers in Parliament only a few years ago.
What choice? Corbyn's chances of leading the next Government are vanishingly small.
The best hope for someone like me is that a Hung Parliament leads to the removal of both leaders and other desireable outcomes like stopping Brexit.
It is a slim hope but I'll vote for it anyway.
If its a Hung Parliament either Johnson or Corbyn will be PM afterwards just as May ended in Downing Street still in 2017 and Corbyn claimed victory in 2017.
Corbyn essentially claimed victory even when May returned to Downing Street. If there's enough MPs to get a Labour-led coalition against the odds rather than a Tory victory then Corbyn will 100% definitely claim victory and go to Downing Street. Are you prepared to vote for that?
They are as bad as each other both dangerous in different ways. It’s all classic lab/con you can’t vote for anyone else because it might let lab/con in. The game that has been played by both side since the 1930’s. It’s your support for the the totally undemocratic voting system that ensures nothing will ever change because that’s what suits you and others who support the two so called big parties.
It's what we have. It is reality at this point. Moaning about how it is all so unfair won't change anything in this particular contest. The choice is Corbyn or Johnson. Any other decision is simply that same choice by proxy.
I think what it shows is that a uk without confined to the eu would make it easier to structure a more wide ranging trade deal. This is an obvious point but also extremely significant. The EU is a protectionist organisation that restricts trade. The US would obviously prefer more open market access.
Next is to start work on the actual deal. The FTA with Europe and (related) with the US. The difficult stuff. The stuff that really matters. This is known by the cognescenti as "Getting Brexit Done". It'll take ages.
And if there is a hung parliament? Tories a few short of a majority cant get anyone to support them. Corbyn toxic and his numbers are a bit worse so needs DUP? I think there is now more chance of no deal Jan 31 than there ever was for Mar 31.
So the logic of what you are suggesting seems to be if you want to avoid the risk of no deal you should vote Tory to ensure there is a majority government that can implement a deal?
The largest probability of "No deal" is if the Tories get ~ 319 seats.
That's second ref territory, no?
No Deal comes about after a year of faffing about trying unsuccessfully to negotiate Treaties. Happens 31st Dec 2020.
On a Conservative Majority Government, this is quite a likely outcome.
Which PM is going to be appointed to get a 2nd referendum with Tories on 319 seats? Johnson will want his deal, Corbyn wont have the votes. Either Labour leavers accept Johnson and his WA or its no deal imo.
It doesn't matter if it is truth or not, it will keep the Tories on the defence and the media running around and not talking about Jezza, the Jews and last nights car crash including his admission he can't pay for his pensioner bung and that it isn't just the rich that will be paying more tax.
Were I one of the civil servants named in these documents I’d be furious about having my name revealed without my permission and having my work being used/misused for party political reasons. It puts them at risk internally (leak inquiries/disciplinaries/messes up relationships with colleagues) and potentially externally. Very bad move by Labour.
Why do you think Labour gives a damn about whether civil servants are furious. The key is in the word “servant”. The expectation is, I would think, servility.
How dare somebody question the great leader...yet again...just wait until he is PM and he has his well funded (by government bungs) "alternative" media organizations.
I think what it shows is that a uk without confined to the eu would make it easier to structure a more wide ranging trade deal. This is an obvious point but also extremely significant. The EU is a protectionist organisation that restricts trade. The US would obviously prefer more open market access.
The real shock is that there were talks ongoing in the background when all the critics said nothing was happening. The CS was actually working, and it might show TMay administration in a more competent light than we were led to believe.
And if there is a hung parliament? Tories a few short of a majority cant get anyone to support them. Corbyn toxic and his numbers are a bit worse so needs DUP? I think there is now more chance of no deal Jan 31 than there ever was for Mar 31.
So the logic of what you are suggesting seems to be if you want to avoid the risk of no deal you should vote Tory to ensure there is a majority government that can implement a deal?
Yes, voting Tory would be the best way to stop a 31 Jan no deal. On the flip side it would increase the chance of a later crash-out at the FTA stage.
No. We have a transition deal agreed. It is temporary. The real Deal has to be negotiated between January and July 2020 or else we No Deal on 1st Jan 2021. Since no one has ever completed a comprehensive Trade Deal in 6 months in the entire history of the world ever since the beginning of time.... well, you get the idea. No Deal beckons in 12 months (ish)
So what? Those voters made their choice, nobody made them vote early. You could say the same about anyone. Something could make Corbyn implode but his early voters have already voted. Unless there's fraud all votes cast are done at the time and for the candidate that the voter chose to do. That's the voters choice.
You are SO dogged! I'm not saying it invalidates the election. Somebody asked what might the advantage be to Johnson of his Neil grilling - and the associated potential for a meltdown on air - being so late in the day. My answer was postal votes. Many will have already been cast. It's a valid observation, yes? Just say Yes. C'mon, you can do it.
This is just another shout out of the same story. What has change the polls is the give away, not this horseshit.
Also, anyone else seen Gary Badiner berating Beth Rigby?
This might be the case, but the vast majority of the public don't really listen to the nuance. What we gain from the likes of Ashcroft's focus groups are people just hear the outline, especially if it plays to their preconcieved ideas. So lots of older working class Northerners they will keep hearing Tories want to sell off the NHS.
e.g from the Daily Rant....that is what people will see in their lunchtime.
Labour SCOLDS reporters for trying to ask about anti-Semitism and Jeremy Corbyn AGAIN refuses to apologise at NHS stunt featuring a theatrical 'reveal' of year-old 'secret' documents claiming Tories will 'sell out' health service to US
I agree but think on top of that, we have surrendered our parties to idiots. "Normal" people (hate that phrase but cant think of better...) prefer to go out for dinner with friends, watch the football or go to a theatre or concert, than engage in party politics in their free time. We have left it to the extremists, who in turn make engaging in party politics even more soul destroying, creating a negative loop pushing our parties to the extreme. Perhaps it is time to admit many of us, myself definitely included, dont put enough time into civic society.
We all generalise from our personal experience, but I really don't recognise this picture of a bunch of obsessives in any of the parties (except myself - I spend an hour a day or so on politics, on average). When I was the Broxtowe MP we had 700 members, but I could only usually rely on a handful to turn up to meetings or canvassing or anything else, explicitly because everyone had lots of other interests. It's much the same in SW Surrey - we have 500 members, I've been organising trips to Portsmouth to help there, and the maximum number to date is 3 people. But any number of apologies - daughter's engagement, aunt's illness, house being redecorated, etc etc.
What is closer to the mark is that the people who still join parties are more committed to ideas than they used to be, because it's seen as a nerdy and eccentric thing to do - nobody joins partly in the hope of enriching their social lives, as some used to. So it's not that the parties are full of obsessives, but more that if they're called upon to vote for a leader or the like, they vote for someone close to the ideas that made them join. And of course people with less attachment tend to resign as soon as something happens that they don't like, whereas the ideologically-keen people just sigh and plug on. As a Corbynista, my advice to centrists is to be persistent, don't just walk out every time something annoys you. In the end you'll win some of the arguments, but not if you just give up.
I think the active members - who are the ones that (as you say) do all the work, and make all the decisions - do tend that way. Of course part of that activity is signing up committed but less obsessive people in their patch as members, and they are the armchair folk who if you are lucky continue to pay their subs every year, and if you are very lucky might deliver leaflets to their road at election time, but you’ll never see them at a meeting or “engaging in party politics” in the sense that the OP describes.
Even though it might be all horseshit, Tories in big trouble here.
One thing you have to say about Labour's campaign is, it might full of unafforable promises and lies, but they have something new every day and scattergunning a wide range of people who at very least would consider voting Labour.
Where as the Tories seem to have nothing to say most days.
What was on the Tory grid for today? They're having a pop at Corbyn over the interview last night on social media. Is that it? Where is the famed Johnson energy? Why isn't he setting the pace of the campaign? Also I'm not seeing other members of the cabinet that much. I know Rees-Mogg has been deliberately hidden, but there has been very little from Javid/Patel, and I can't recall anything from whoever is Health or Education secretaries. It's very different to 2015. Cameron and his cabinet were a lot more active.
What on earth is the problem with the US wanting to sell more drugs to the NHS? As long as the price is reasonable and the drugs are safe I couldn't care less whether drugs are from America, Germany, Japan and Timbuktu.
Jezza comes across as very old fashioned over of this IMO.
Yesterday afternoon extracts from the Corbyn interview were being used by the BBC in advance of the broadcast. I am guessing it is recorded lunchtime or very early afternoon? So we may soon know who is filling this evening’s slot in the schedule?
This is just another shout out of the same story. What has change the polls is the give away, not this horseshit.
Also, anyone else seen Gary Badiner berating Beth Rigby?
This might be the case, but the vast majority of the public don't really listen to the nuance. What we gain from the likes of Ashcroft's focus groups are people just hear the outline, especially if it plays to their preconcieved ideas. So lots of older working class Northerners they will keep hearing Tories want to sell off the NHS.
I think the NHS could be improved by lots of changes in the we access it, the way it is structured and no doubt in lots of other ways. Selling it isn't on the list of essential moves.
Comments
I now think it will be lunchtime.
And without a trade deal with the US why are we leaving the other big market we are a member of?
AN: Well, let’s look for some. Let me ask you this. Is it anti-Semitic to say Rothschild’s Zionists run Israel and world governments?
JC: In the Chakrabarti Report we asked that people did not use comparisons about conspiracies, not use –
AN: Is that anti-Semitic?
JC: – because in the belief of Shami, and I support her on this in that report, that can be constructed as being an anti-Semitic statement and therefore – and therefore should not be –
AN: Right, but let’s just get it clear. I asked you – I gave you a specific quote. Are the words ‘Rothschild’s Zionists run Israel and world government’. Is that anti-Semitic?
JC: It should not be used and it is.
AN: But you can’t say it’s anti-Semitic?
JC: Look, I just said that it should not be used.
AN: That’s different from being – there’s lots of things shouldn’t be used but that’s not the same as anti-Semitic. Is it, or isn’t it anti-Semitic?
JC: Andrew, it is an anti-Semitic trope that has been used and that was – if you’d let me finish before, I made that very clear in the Chakrabarti Report which we did very early on – very early on during my –
AN: So we’re agreed it’s anti-Semitic? Right, that’s all I wanted to establish.
JC: – very early on during my leadership.
Corbyn essentially claimed victory even when May returned to Downing Street. If there's enough MPs to get a Labour-led coalition against the odds rather than a Tory victory then Corbyn will 100% definitely claim victory and go to Downing Street. Are you prepared to vote for that?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a4e3d210-0fa3-11ea-96fb-8041210fa214
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1199371152025632768?s=09
I predict no negative effect whatsoever on Project Corbyn.
What a bore you are.
Why have you spent the last hour talking about nothing else?
It dilutes their no-one under 80k red line and for a small amount of money raised.
So this is just Liam Fox and has nothing to do with Johnson.
Sure?
You could say the same about anyone. Something could make Corbyn implode but his early voters have already voted.
Unless there's fraud all votes cast are done at the time and for the candidate that the voter chose to do. That's the voters choice.
It's like the attacks on Corbyn for supporting the IRA, the land on it is so churned up it cannot be effective attack ground.
The huge freebies are where Labour are doing well, as shown by the recent poll changes.
One thing you have to say about Labour's campaign is, it might full of unafforable promises and lies, but they have something new every day and scattergunning a wide range of people who at very least would consider voting Labour.
Where as the Tories seem to have nothing to say most days.
I think there is now more chance of no deal Jan 31 than there ever was for Mar 31.
The position changes dramatically where the situation changes from Deal to No Deal.
"Well, first of all for nationalisation you don’t borrow. What you do is change share ownership for government bonds and it becomes an investment."
He is clearly saying that government bonds are not borrowing.
From the dictionary: "When a government or company issues a bond, it borrows money from investors." https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bond
First line of the wiki page: "In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_(finance)
So Dr Nick, is your man thick and/or dishonest?
Mark my words.
What is closer to the mark is that the people who still join parties are more committed to ideas than they used to be, because it's seen as a nerdy and eccentric thing to do - nobody joins partly in the hope of enriching their social lives, as some used to. So it's not that the parties are full of obsessives, but more that if they're called upon to vote for a leader or the like, they vote for someone close to the ideas that made them join. And of course people with less attachment tend to resign as soon as something happens that they don't like, whereas the ideologically-keen people just sigh and plug on. As a Corbynista, my advice to centrists is to be persistent, don't just walk out every time something annoys you. In the end you'll win some of the arguments, but not if you just give up.
No Deal comes about after a year of faffing about trying unsuccessfully to negotiate Treaties. Happens 31st Dec 2020.
On a Conservative Majority Government, this is quite a likely outcome.
This is known by the cognescenti as "Getting Brexit Done".
It'll take ages.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1199637326911213568?s=20
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1199636569386340352?s=20
Whether that is wise is a different question.
Three days ago: THE TORIES WANT TO SELL THE NHS
Today: THE TORIES WANT TO SELL THE NHS
This is just another shout out of the same story. What has change the polls is the give away, not this horseshit.
Also, anyone else seen Gary Badiner berating Beth Rigby?
The CS was actually working, and it might show TMay administration in a more competent light than we were led to believe.
We have a transition deal agreed. It is temporary. The real Deal has to be negotiated between January and July 2020 or else we No Deal on 1st Jan 2021.
Since no one has ever completed a comprehensive Trade Deal in 6 months in the entire history of the world ever since the beginning of time.... well, you get the idea.
No Deal beckons in 12 months (ish)
There is literally no situation that he cannot make worse. Only Burgon can beat him on that front.
Just say Yes. C'mon, you can do it.
e.g from the Daily Rant....that is what people will see in their lunchtime.
Labour SCOLDS reporters for trying to ask about anti-Semitism and Jeremy Corbyn AGAIN refuses to apologise at NHS stunt featuring a theatrical 'reveal' of year-old 'secret' documents claiming Tories will 'sell out' health service to US
They're having a pop at Corbyn over the interview last night on social media. Is that it? Where is the famed Johnson energy? Why isn't he setting the pace of the campaign?
Also I'm not seeing other members of the cabinet that much. I know Rees-Mogg has been deliberately hidden, but there has been very little from Javid/Patel, and I can't recall anything from whoever is Health or Education secretaries. It's very different to 2015. Cameron and his cabinet were a lot more active.
Jezza comes across as very old fashioned over of this IMO.
Selling it isn't on the list of essential moves.
Drip drip drip.