Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
That attitude may have been right then - but I can tell you it's a very big issue to a lot of people. And this won't look good.
The climate debate won't involve the leaders, will be screened on C4 (which substantially reduces the audience for anything relative to what it would obtain on BBC or ITV,) and the large majority of those who do tune in are likely to be very enthusiastic about the issue anyway.
I suspect that the Venn diagram for people for whom the environment is the paramount concern in this election, and those who disapprove of the present form of consumer-driven capitalism, approximates to a circle. So there are hardly any votes there to be mined by the Tories to begin with, and they'd be up against the Labour commitment to spend £27 trillion filling the North Sea with wind farms so they wouldn't get them even if they tried.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
Maggie was one of the first leading politicians to take climate change seriously. This is her at the UN on the subject.
Can grown ups, especially supposedly serious journalists, stopping using f##king emojis.....At least he doesn't have them in his handle, now that really is the sign of a moron.
Just to be clear about the MRP poll: as I understand it, what it does is use a very large sample in order to get detailed polling on demographic subgroups. Thus, if young women with children are swinging more Labour and elderly working-class men are swinging more Tory, it will detect that. It then projects that onto detailed demographic data for each seat - so if a seat has a lot of elderly working-class men, on the above assumption the Tory swing will be higher.
What is does not do is poll by constituency. So no tactical voting is taken into account, nor are special circumstances, such as a well-known independent standing in the seat. It's therefore of limited benefit in seats like Broxtowe, which re a mess with half a dozen very different types of candidate.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
In what sense will the C4 be a debate? Only one opinion will be permitted.
If it's so easy why is Johnson skipping it then?
Nobody has said he IS skipping it. Only that it is not locked in the diary. Yet. Which is amateur hour from Labour. I expect he will do it.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
Maggie was one of the first leading politicians to take climate change seriously. This is her at the UN on the subject.
Barry Gardiner is good. Years of theological debate are perfect for these interviews. He has Andrew Neil agreeing that pharma prices are an inevitable part of a US trade deal!
That is simply not true. You are catching the Labour disease. Neil said that the US would raise it as part of the negotiations, not that it would definitely be part of any deal.
Neil now getting Buckland to agree that US Pharma pricing is an essential part of any deal.
I was assured today, by the Tory drones on here, that this was not the case
I was assured categorically that PB Tories were never wrong, and they always learn.
Only when the email arrives from CCHQ with today's attack lines...
H hasn’t had his yet but he will be out to play soon
One opinion being, the one based on facts? You seriously think we should debate climate change denial?
It’s pointless because what the UK does is a rounding error when it comes to global emissions. It is already on course to be Carbon neutral in a few decades, with emissions forecast to drop dramatically in the intervening period. For real action on climate change the developing economies need to do things, not the UK.
China & USA are responsible for 50% of global emissions. The UK a massive 1%.
One opinion being, the one based on facts? You seriously think we should debate climate change denial?
It’s pointless because what the UK does is a rounding error when it comes to global emissions. It is already on course to be Carbon neutral in a few decades, with emissions forecast to drop dramatically in the intervening period. For real action on climate change the developing economies need to do things, not the UK.
Then why doesn't Boris Johnson come on and say that?
Perhaps because that would be spun as not doing enough or some guff like that? What the UK does is frankly irrelevant.
You can't deny it's not a good look though, if Corbyn had done that people here would be shouting
One opinion being, the one based on facts? You seriously think we should debate climate change denial?
It’s pointless because what the UK does is a rounding error when it comes to global emissions. It is already on course to be Carbon neutral in a few decades, with emissions forecast to drop dramatically in the intervening period. For real action on climate change the developing economies need to do things, not the UK.
Then why doesn't Boris Johnson come on and say that?
Perhaps because that would be spun as not doing enough or some guff like that? What the UK does is frankly irrelevant.
You can't deny it's not a good look though, if Corbyn had done that people here would be shouting
If Corbyn hadn’t attended a debate on climate change? I doubt many would have cared.
Apparently the production of fast fashion garments is responsible for many multiples of emissions of flying. I hope when Jezza gets in he nationalizes H&M and Zara....Hemp products only allowed. Not sure how well that will go down with the yuff.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
That attitude may have been right then - but I can tell you it's a very big issue to a lot of people. And this won't look good.
I hate to be contrarian and sound dinosaur-ish, but I strongly doubt climate change will be a factor in anyone changing their votes. Those who are concerned about the environment enough to form an opinion on which way they will vote are unlikely to have their minds changed by politicians in a room talking about it. In the general population, I think there is a push to be greener but I highly doubt it will make someone who’s main motivation to vote is the economy, or Brexit, or the NHS, or jobs, shift allegiance.
It will motivate youngsters to vote though, and also to tactically vote for an environmentally attuned party. Conserving the ecosystem and landscape are very compatible with Conservatism, as Cameron believes.
Remeber how everyone said May locking herself away from the media was a terrible appalling mistake that no British political leader would ever do again.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
That attitude may have been right then - but I can tell you it's a very big issue to a lot of people. And this won't look good.
I hate to be contrarian and sound dinosaur-ish, but I strongly doubt climate change will be a factor in anyone changing their votes. Those who are concerned about the environment enough to form an opinion on which way they will vote are unlikely to have their minds changed by politicians in a room talking about it. In the general population, I think there is a push to be greener but I highly doubt it will make someone who’s main motivation to vote is the economy, or Brexit, or the NHS, or jobs, shift allegiance.
It will motivate youngsters to vote though, and also to tactically vote for an environmentally attuned party. Conserving the ecosystem and landscape are very compatible with Conservatism, as Cameron believes.
On that I don’t disagree, but I strongly believe that those who have decided to vote primarily on the issue of the environment will be doing so for a party they have already made their mind up to support. I don’t think people’s opinion on that kind of matter will be swayed by politicians in a general election campaign.
One opinion being, the one based on facts? You seriously think we should debate climate change denial?
It’s pointless because what the UK does is a rounding error when it comes to global emissions. It is already on course to be Carbon neutral in a few decades, with emissions forecast to drop dramatically in the intervening period. For real action on climate change the developing economies need to do things, not the UK.
Why is that different from saying - e.g. - I can't be arsed to vote as it makes no difference? Or it's OK for me to shoplift from supermarkets because what size dent is a tin of beans going to make in Tesco's profits? And if the developing economies need to do more we should probably tell them that, and we aren't going to sound very persuasive about how important it is if we can't be arsed to make a show of doing something ourselves.
If you believe Betfair, the Tories are only 1.3 to hold Uxbridge and 1.4 to win a majority, which suggests that Boris is rather unlikely to be the one leading a minority government.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
That attitude may have been right then - but I can tell you it's a very big issue to a lot of people. And this won't look good.
I hate to be contrarian and sound dinosaur-ish, but I strongly doubt climate change will be a factor in anyone changing their votes. Those who are concerned about the environment enough to form an opinion on which way they will vote are unlikely to have their minds changed by politicians in a room talking about it. In the general population, I think there is a push to be greener but I highly doubt it will make someone who’s main motivation to vote is the economy, or Brexit, or the NHS, or jobs, shift allegiance.
It will motivate youngsters to vote though, and also to tactically vote for an environmentally attuned party. Conserving the ecosystem and landscape are very compatible with Conservatism, as Cameron believes.
On that I don’t disagree, but I strongly believe that those who have decided to vote primarily on the issue of the environment will be doing so for a party they have already made their mind up to support. I don’t think people’s opinion on that kind of matter will be swayed by politicians in a general election campaign.
Do you believe any election campaign has ever changed the eventual result. It might do at the edges but unless corbyn are photographed in a compromising position, either with each other or some one else, the die is to some degree already cast. Labour sub 200 Tory 340 plus no idea what else will happen.
If I was Boris I would start out by saying he expects it to be a torrid half hour.
"Andrew, I welcome this opportunity to be eviscerated by you. As, in fairness, you have done to the other party leaders. But I accept that I cannot hope to be crowned as Prime Minister of the jungle without first having eaten of the proffered kangeroo anus of doom...."
Going to net Zero at any point in the near future will do more damage than any benefits accruing. To spend billions for no gain is economic suicide. I wish more PBers would tune into the likes of Paul Homewood and Tony Heller for a saner viewpoint.
On that I don’t disagree, but I strongly believe that those who have decided to vote primarily on the issue of the environment will be doing so for a party they have already made their mind up to support. I don’t think people’s opinion on that kind of matter will be swayed by politicians in a general election campaign.
I tihnk that's true between Tory and non-Tory, but I know a lot of Green-Labour floating votes, as per Monbiot's article yesterday.
Do you believe any election campaign has ever changed the eventual result. It might do at the edges but unless corbyn are photographed in a compromising position, either with each other or some one else, the die is to some degree already cast. Labour sub 200 Tory 340 plus no idea what else will happen.
I think it’s rare but it happens. 2017 most certainly. 1992 maybe.
Can grown ups, especially supposedly serious journalists, stopping using f##king emojis.....At least he doesn't have them in his handle, now that really is the sign of a moron.
Welcome to the modern world. They're great. Shakespeare would have used them.
Remember, English is there to serve us not the other way around. We adapt it.
Can grown ups, especially supposedly serious journalists, stopping using f##king emojis.....At least he doesn't have them in his handle, now that really is the sign of a moron.
May looking scared of setpiece events was one of the only things that cut through to people i know in 2017, Boris's advisers are utter idiots if they think they can take the hit with ease.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
Maggie was one of the first leading politicians to take climate change seriously. This is her at the UN on the subject.
Unaccustomed as I am to defending Margaret Thatcher, this is absolutely right. I remember it well and at the time it caused almost total astonishment. People were sent scrabbling through their dictionaries for definitions and scratching their heads about concepts that were almost totally alien to the ethos of the 1980's.
If I was Boris I would start out by saying he expects it to be a torrid half hour.
"Andrew, I welcome this opportunity to be eviscerated by you. As, in fairness, you have done to the other party leaders. But I accept that I cannot hope to be crowned as Prime Minister of the jungle without first having eaten of the proffered kangeroo anus of doom...."
"Fine. Here is your anus. How many new hospitals are to be built?"
Wow. This is pretty bad tempered. Both Gardiner and Neil accusing each other of lying.
Gardiner has a taste for blood having shouted at that Jewish journalist this morning
It never looks good when politicians get pissy and complain about not being asked about things they want to be asked about. No matter whether the journalist is asking something stupid or irrelevant, getting angry at them for doingt it is incredibly entitled and arrogant.
If you believe Betfair, the Tories are only 1.3 to hold Uxbridge and 1.4 to win a majority, which suggests that Boris is rather unlikely to be the one leading a minority government.
One opinion being, the one based on facts? You seriously think we should debate climate change denial?
It’s pointless because what the UK does is a rounding error when it comes to global emissions. It is already on course to be Carbon neutral in a few decades, with emissions forecast to drop dramatically in the intervening period. For real action on climate change the developing economies need to do things, not the UK.
Why is that different from saying - e.g. - I can't be arsed to vote as it makes no difference? Or it's OK for me to shoplift from supermarkets because what size dent is a tin of beans going to make in Tesco's profits? And if the developing economies need to do more we should probably tell them that, and we aren't going to sound very persuasive about how important it is if we can't be arsed to make a show of doing something ourselves.
True. But where we might all agree is that overseas aid to head off carbonisation of developing countries may often be money better spent in terms of climate change reduction than the same money spent on domestic action, because helping replace diesel power in Nigeria achieves a lot more than making lots of class E homes into class D in London. Not always, of course, but if we're genuinely just concerned about the climate, we should look globally for the biggest reduction potential.
Barry Gardiner is good. Years of theological debate are perfect for these interviews. He has Andrew Neil agreeing that pharma prices are an inevitable part of a US trade deal!
That is simply not true. You are catching the Labour disease. Neil said that the US would raise it as part of the negotiations, not that it would definitely be part of any deal.
Neil now getting Buckland to agree that US Pharma pricing is an essential part of any deal.
I was assured today, by the Tory drones on here, that this was not the case
I was assured categorically that PB Tories were never wrong, and they always learn.
Only when the email arrives from CCHQ with today's attack lines...
H hasn’t had his yet but he will be out to play soon
It pretty much is? Tory large-ish majority but the trajectory looks down from here. 10 point lead for 60 (?) seat majority doesn't give a lot of room to work with.
Anyone think there might be a bit of a LD upset in the South? I'm in true blue Tory Hampshire here and seeing LD posters all over the place. True Hinds has a 30,000 majority but I wonder if major inroads are made into it, whether that might indicate moves elsewhere? Lots of non voters perhaps?
It’s interesting that they keep pushing the leads. Either when the lead does slide they think it will wake up voters or they reckon if people know the Tories have large leads will make Labour attack lines look more desperate.
Or maybe Geordie Grieg just doesn’t want Boris to win.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
In what sense will the C4 be a debate? Only one opinion will be permitted.
If it's so easy why is Johnson skipping it then?
Nobody has said he IS skipping it. Only that it is not locked in the diary. Yet. Which is amateur hour from Labour. I expect he will do it.
Could be he is trying the Corbyn move from the debates in 2017 - not agree to do it until very late, so opponents are left flat footed (in 2017 because May could be defended on the basis Corbyn also skipped the debate, but then he didn't, this time because attacks on him being cowardly would look foolish when he does show up).
I think I recall that a month or perhaps more back you made a comment here to the effect that there was no way that in the light of Corbyn's conduct you were going to repeat your act of 2017 and back Corbyn's candidate in Bedford. Is your intention still unchanged from that?
Do you believe any election campaign has ever changed the eventual result. It might do at the edges but unless corbyn are photographed in a compromising position, either with each other or some one else, the die is to some degree already cast. Labour sub 200 Tory 340 plus no idea what else will happen.
I think it’s rare but it happens. 2017 most certainly. 1992 maybe.
I’d actually say 2015 because it took the lib dems by surprise as it seemed implausible. I have the same fear now that ‘we’ and I mean ‘we’ are making the same mistake as we did then. That was the low poll rating was fine because our 7% is in 50 seats as some are saying now that our 15% is in 50 seats. I looked this morning at lib dem overall share of the vote v seats won since 1979 and come to the conclusion that 20 is acceptable, 30 is good and anything above that we can only wait and see.
Reckon that Johnson can get away with a no-show for Andrew Neil. Most voters don't watch the debates let alone these interview shows, so they're unlikely to be swung one way or the other (even if we assume that, like 2017, this is an election where the campaign matters. My understanding is that more often than not in modern electoral history it hasn't made very much difference to the outcome.)
If he just turns up to the engagements already agreed to (I think that would just mean the second head-to-head with Corbyn the week before the election, but feel free to correct me if I'm missing anything else,) then that should suffice.
But he's skipping two debates, this and the climate change one. The former maybe doesn't matter but the latter is going to encourage a lot of people to come out and vote him out. Climate change is a big issue amongst younger voters.
A debate between a lot of politicians on climate change will, in every sense of the phrase, be a lot of hot air. Thatcher called it when she commented acidly that all politicians do is talk about such things.
Maggie was one of the first leading politicians to take climate change seriously. This is her at the UN on the subject.
Unaccustomed as I am to defending Margaret Thatcher, this is absolutely right. I remember it well and at the time it caused almost total astonishment. People were sent scrabbling through their dictionaries for definitions and scratching their heads about concepts that were almost totally alien to the ethos of the 1980's.
It really was a complete meme changer.
Totally different standard to the tripe of leaders we have today.
It pretty much is? Tory large-ish majority but the trajectory looks down from here. 10 point lead for 60 (?) seat majority doesn't give a lot of room to work with.
Anyone think there might be a bit of a LD upset in the South? I'm in true blue Tory Hampshire here and seeing LD posters all over the place. True Hinds has a 30,000 majority but I wonder if major inroads are made into it, whether that might indicate moves elsewhere? Lots of non voters perhaps?
Lots of libdems in Hampshire. No labour outside Portsmouth Southampton and Basingstoke really. It would be a good place for anti-Tory tactical voting
That is nonsense. Corbyn got a good spanking and Boris didn't. It doesn't matter how or why.
The reason it isn't nonsense is that almost no-one watched the interview but everyone will hear if Johnson ducks his one.
The Corbyn interview has already disappeared.
The Tories don't seem to understand that Labour has a bit of a monopoly over social media, him dodging a debate will go viral.
That NHS video has been viewed 6 million times, how much traction does the average Johnson video get?
Like I have said before, they're just gifting younger voters a reason to turn out. I am going to go out on a lim and say it's going to be high.
I love that when a Tory video gets a lot of views it is meaningless, but when a Labour one does traction online suddenly matters.
My point wasn't that it's meaningless, it's just that a media source heavily biased the wrong way (for the Tories) will encourage what they don't want.
I am saying, young voters, Labour Leavers, Tory Remainers are going to be what swings this election.
It pretty much is? Tory large-ish majority but the trajectory looks down from here. 10 point lead for 60 (?) seat majority doesn't give a lot of room to work with.
Anyone think there might be a bit of a LD upset in the South? I'm in true blue Tory Hampshire here and seeing LD posters all over the place. True Hinds has a 30,000 majority but I wonder if major inroads are made into it, whether that might indicate moves elsewhere? Lots of non voters perhaps?
There aren't that many posters around my way, but most of them are Lib Dem, as is the case round your way. I expect it's because they have enthusiastic local activists and are good at mobilising support. This locality leans Leave and the yellows have been making local government gains in recent years.
Doesn't mean that the sitting Tory MP won't win by about 20,000 votes though.
It pretty much is? Tory large-ish majority but the trajectory looks down from here. 10 point lead for 60 (?) seat majority doesn't give a lot of room to work with.
Anyone think there might be a bit of a LD upset in the South? I'm in true blue Tory Hampshire here and seeing LD posters all over the place. True Hinds has a 30,000 majority but I wonder if major inroads are made into it, whether that might indicate moves elsewhere? Lots of non voters perhaps?
Lots of libdems in Hampshire. No labour outside Portsmouth Southampton and Basingstoke really. It would be a good place for anti-Tory tactical voting
I think the LDs have a very good chance of winning my old stamping ground of Winchester. Labour supporters there know that only the Libs can beat the Tories.
I mean, just listen to that speech which I bet she had input on. Can you really imagine Johnson having that kind of intellect? It's staggering by comparison to the buffoonery and drivel he blusters forth.
Being articulate does not necessarily indicate great intellect. Indeed, people like Rees-Mogg fool people into thinking they are intelligent through their speech. That said, I am quite confident that Boris is nowhere near as intelligent as he thinks he is.
It pretty much is? Tory large-ish majority but the trajectory looks down from here. 10 point lead for 60 (?) seat majority doesn't give a lot of room to work with.
Anyone think there might be a bit of a LD upset in the South? I'm in true blue Tory Hampshire here and seeing LD posters all over the place. True Hinds has a 30,000 majority but I wonder if major inroads are made into it, whether that might indicate moves elsewhere? Lots of non voters perhaps?
There aren't that many posters around my way, but most of them are Lib Dem, as is the case round your way. I expect it's because they have enthusiastic local activists and are good at mobilising support. This locality leans Leave and the yellows have been making local government gains in recent years.
Doesn't mean that the sitting Tory MP won't win by about 20,000 votes though.
The only posters around here are yellow - he will not win this area
That is nonsense. Corbyn got a good spanking and Boris didn't. It doesn't matter how or why.
The reason it isn't nonsense is that almost no-one watched the interview but everyone will hear if Johnson ducks his one.
The Corbyn interview has already disappeared.
The Tories don't seem to understand that Labour has a bit of a monopoly over social media, him dodging a debate will go viral.
That NHS video has been viewed 6 million times, how much traction does the average Johnson video get?
Like I have said before, they're just gifting younger voters a reason to turn out. I am going to go out on a lim and say it's going to be high.
I love that when a Tory video gets a lot of views it is meaningless, but when a Labour one does traction online suddenly matters.
My point wasn't that it's meaningless, it's just that a media source heavily biased the wrong way (for the Tories) will encourage what they don't want. I am saying, young voters, Labour Leavers, Tory Remainers are going to be what swings this election.
I'm still seeing this as a convoluted way of saying that viral stuff for Labour is good, viral stuff for Tories bad.
It pretty much is? Tory large-ish majority but the trajectory looks down from here. 10 point lead for 60 (?) seat majority doesn't give a lot of room to work with.
Anyone think there might be a bit of a LD upset in the South? I'm in true blue Tory Hampshire here and seeing LD posters all over the place. True Hinds has a 30,000 majority but I wonder if major inroads are made into it, whether that might indicate moves elsewhere? Lots of non voters perhaps?
Lots of libdems in Hampshire. No labour outside Portsmouth Southampton and Basingstoke really. It would be a good place for anti-Tory tactical voting
I think the LDs have a very good chance of winning my old stamping ground of Winchester. Labour supporters there know that only the Libs can beat the Tories.
Winchester and Guildford might be worth a bet. Formally Lib Dem seats.
Labour came second in Hinds' seat last time - but I think that won't be repeated.
35,000 votes last time for him, 9411 for Labour, 8403 LD, 1760 Green.
2015 was a disaster for LDs but 2010 had LDs 13,000 behind, we could easily see it going back to a smaller but much less comfortable majority.
Any ideas whether that kind of swing would put more Surrey/Hants seats in play?
I mean, just listen to that speech which I bet she had input on. Can you really imagine Johnson having that kind of intellect? It's staggering by comparison to the buffoonery and drivel he blusters forth.
Being articulate does not necessarily indicate great intellect. Indeed, people like Rees-Mogg fool people into thinking they are intelligent through their speech. That said, I am quite confident that Boris is nowhere near as intelligent as he thinks he is.
You're right. But Maggie's speech isn't just articulate, it's outstanding. It's soaring in intellect and range.
Johnson has always felt affronted that he got a 2:1. Nothing at all wrong with a 2:1 (and many great thinkers get them & many have other things to focus on at Uni) but my point is that Johnson does NOT have a first class mind.
he key theme that emerges from the YouGov MRP seat-by-seat poll is the northern and midlands Labour leave voting constituencies, which in many places, now show comfortable Tory leads.
———————
This would explain why the Labour Party / Momentum has apparently (according to an activist friend in the constituency) abandoned canvassing in the Bassetlaw constituency.
Do you believe any election campaign has ever changed the eventual result. It might do at the edges but unless corbyn are photographed in a compromising position, either with each other or some one else, the die is to some degree already cast. Labour sub 200 Tory 340 plus no idea what else will happen.
Yes. 2017 and 1992.
I definitely believe that 2017 changed the eventual result from Tory majority [if not landslide] to NOM.
I see the BJorg are out defending their master's cowardice as simultaneously a masterstroke of low cunning and high principle.
Surprise level less than fuck all.
Not me. This is really bad from Boris, it will backfire badly. It will build a narrative like it did for May.
It’s not as bad as May clearly as it’s an interview compared to debates. It would be a calculated gamble, but I expect he will decide to do it. Makes sense to decide late though.
Comments
I suspect that the Venn diagram for people for whom the environment is the paramount concern in this election, and those who disapprove of the present form of consumer-driven capitalism, approximates to a circle. So there are hardly any votes there to be mined by the Tories to begin with, and they'd be up against the Labour commitment to spend £27 trillion filling the North Sea with wind farms so they wouldn't get them even if they tried.
https://youtu.be/VnAzoDtwCBg
Surprise level less than fuck all.
Only that it is not locked in the diary. Yet. Which is amateur hour from Labour.
I expect he will do it.
Conserving the ecosystem and landscape are very compatible with Conservatism, as Cameron believes.
Well, about that.
15th December will be absolutely fine for Boris to meet Andrew...
"Andrew, I welcome this opportunity to be eviscerated by you. As, in fairness, you have done to the other party leaders. But I accept that I cannot hope to be crowned as Prime Minister of the jungle without first having eaten of the proffered kangeroo anus of doom...."
Neil then took the baton and used his arguments against Buckland who was feeble.
Must be odds on he will then...
Remember, English is there to serve us not the other way around. We adapt it.
Boris: Errr...well... ummm.. ahhh...
The Tories don't seem to understand that Labour has a bit of a monopoly over social media, him dodging a debate will go viral.
That NHS video has been viewed 6 million times, how much traction does the average Johnson video get?
Like I have said before, they're just gifting younger voters a reason to turn out. I am going to go out on a lim and say it's going to be high.
It really was a complete meme changer.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7731463/New-poll-Boris-Johnson-Conservative-Party-win-366-seats-election.html
"Fine. Here is your anus. How many new hospitals are to be built?"
What a complete mess we're in now. Boris Johnson is a clown.
Can you really imagine Johnson having that kind of intellect? It's staggering by comparison to the buffoonery and drivel he blusters forth.
Anyone think there might be a bit of a LD upset in the South? I'm in true blue Tory Hampshire here and seeing LD posters all over the place. True Hinds has a 30,000 majority but I wonder if major inroads are made into it, whether that might indicate moves elsewhere? Lots of non voters perhaps?
Or maybe Geordie Grieg just doesn’t want Boris to win.
1.77
Don't agree with much of anything she did - but she knew what she wanted to do and she did it. As a person and especially a woman, she has my respect.
So the same would be true for Boris right?
Wish we had her now.
https://order-order.com/2019/11/27/did-yougov-mrp-leak-moves-markets/
I am saying, young voters, Labour Leavers, Tory Remainers are going to be what swings this election.
Doesn't mean that the sitting Tory MP won't win by about 20,000 votes though.
And now we move on to Boris can't do an interview because he's scared..
That said, I am quite confident that Boris is nowhere near as intelligent as he thinks he is.
CorrectHorseBattery said:
People who hate Corbyn will think it was terrible, those who don’t won’t. This will make zero difference.
Will that be your line to take once Boris, has been renamed a new one? I suspect not.
Flag Quote · Off Topic Like
Labour came second in Hinds' seat last time - but I think that won't be repeated.
35,000 votes last time for him, 9411 for Labour, 8403 LD, 1760 Green.
2015 was a disaster for LDs but 2010 had LDs 13,000 behind, we could easily see it going back to a smaller but much less comfortable majority.
Any ideas whether that kind of swing would put more Surrey/Hants seats in play?
Johnson has always felt affronted that he got a 2:1. Nothing at all wrong with a 2:1 (and many great thinkers get them & many have other things to focus on at Uni) but my point is that Johnson does NOT have a first class mind.
Don't pretend you're somehow less partisan than me, "Floater" lol nope
he key theme that emerges from the YouGov MRP seat-by-seat poll is the northern and midlands Labour leave voting constituencies, which in many places, now show comfortable Tory leads.
———————
This would explain why the Labour Party / Momentum has apparently (according to an activist friend in the constituency) abandoned canvassing in the Bassetlaw constituency.
Heart of gold too.
I definitely believe that 2017 changed the eventual result from Tory majority [if not landslide] to NOM.
It’s not as bad as May clearly as it’s an interview compared to debates. It would be a calculated gamble, but I expect he will decide to do it. Makes sense to decide late though.