This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Quite shocked by OGH's polling expert advice to voters in Battersea (where I come from). Almost as shocked by stupid Webb's kid-glove treatment of McDonnell.
What advice are you referring to? I have money on Labour in that constituency.
Might you really briefly explain the pensions issue for me please, Foxy?
This applies to all pensioners, but is particularly acute for senior NHS staff, and I was hit in tax year 17-18. The problem can be quite technical, but is due to the intersection of the NHS pension schemes (there are 3: the 1995, 2008 and 2015 schemes with different accrual rates) and the withdrawal of the annual tax free pensions allowance. As well as salary, and any private income, pension growth counts as income for calculating income for pensions allowance. Above £110 000 (inc pension growth) the pensions allowance is tapered until only £10 000 remains. As the 1995 scheme is final salary, pensions growth can be quite lumpy, and that is what stung me in 17-18. The outcome is that when the pensions taper hits, the marginal tax rate is close to 100%, and can be greater than that. There is a particular problem with the tax bill being on pension growth so paying tax on money that cannot be accessed. Several colleagues have had to remortgage to pay. There are two more tax cycles to go through before anything can be done. As a result, Consultants are refusing extra overtime (particularly a problem with extra operating lists and covering rota gaps in ITU and Emergency Dept) when this is not a part of contract. Also there is a powerful incentive to retire early, and to drop non clinical sessions such as management roles, and no one applies for CEA awards any more. I am well paid for what I do in a shortage speciality, but am not willing or able to pay 100% tax, so have stopped taking income from private sources for example, and leaving it to accumulate in my company, and stopped doing additional locums to cover gaps or waiting list initiatives 2 years ago.
Great stuff, thank you Foxy. Was more detailed than expected and I can certainly see how it puts pressures on the NHS if doctors are actively discouraged from taking on more work or not retiring. Unintended consequence of something else, I guess, but could have been resolved by now. There are parallels with B2C microbusinesses turning down work to keep their turnover under £85k. Going that extra mile, getting their their turnover up to £100k lands them with a delightful £17k bill from HMRC and they find that the extra effort netted them £-2k. Again, thanks for the detail.
He’s certainly a more fluent liar than Corbyn. And far better at it than Boris. The best of the 3 I’d say. And the most dangerous in consequence.
Yes. Corbyn lies because he's not very bright, Boris lies because he's not remotely on top of his brief. There is an air of clear calculation to McDonnell's lies, which as you write makes him by far the most dangerous.
Every GE people moan at Mike for such things. MRP is not magically accurate, so long as he explains why he thinks differently it's no biggie.
Its one thing being a partisan where the Lib Dems are very tight. Some of the seats he's done this are absurd this year though which makes me wonder how or why its been done.
I'm extremely curious about Warrington South. Conservative-held between 2010-2017 there has been a letter sent out to voters in Warrington South saying a vote for the Conservatives is a wasted vote, which is a bit strange given that the Tories are odds-on favourites for the seat and the Lib Dems are 66/1.
He’s certainly a more fluent liar than Corbyn. And far better at it than Boris. The best of the 3 I’d say. And the most dangerous in consequence.
Yes. Corbyn lies because he's not very bright, Boris lies because he's not remotely on top of his brief. There is an air of clear calculation to McDonnell's lies, which as you write makes him by far the most dangerous.
He’s certainly a more fluent liar than Corbyn. And far better at it than Boris. The best of the 3 I’d say. And the most dangerous in consequence.
There's something about his tone of voice that really makes my skin crawl.
He has the faux matiness of the experienced confidence trickster. The people who would be taken in by McDonnell overlap with those who would send their bank account details to a Nigerian Prince they met on the internet....
I’ve said it before but here goes. McDonnell is like one of those corrupt 1970’s Met detectives: all affable charm on the surface but utterly untrustworthy and very willing to countenance the use of violence to get his own way.
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
TBF equal to Trump, Trump has threatened to review CNNs license quite a few times, and I think he axed a proposed merger that would have benefited their parent company. So... yeah
Every GE people moan at Mike for such things. MRP is not magically accurate, so long as he explains why he thinks differently it's no biggie.
Its one thing being a partisan where the Lib Dems are very tight. Some of the seats he's done this are absurd this year though which makes me wonder how or why its been done.
I'm extremely curious about Warrington South. Conservative-held between 2010-2017 there has been a letter sent out to voters in Warrington South saying a vote for the Conservatives is a wasted vote, which is a bit strange given that the Tories are odds-on favourites for the seat and the Lib Dems are 66/1.
Every GE people moan at Mike for such things. MRP is not magically accurate, so long as he explains why he thinks differently it's no biggie.
Its one thing being a partisan where the Lib Dems are very tight. Some of the seats he's done this are absurd this year though which makes me wonder how or why its been done.
I'm extremely curious about Warrington South. Conservative-held between 2010-2017 there has been a letter sent out to voters in Warrington South saying a vote for the Conservatives is a wasted vote, which is a bit strange given that the Tories are odds-on favourites for the seat and the Lib Dems are 66/1.
Why Battersea - Mike`s Bedford isn`t he?
The letter signed by Mike Smithson begins "The election in Battersea is between the Labour and the Liberal Democrats."
Every GE people moan at Mike for such things. MRP is not magically accurate, so long as he explains why he thinks differently it's no biggie.
He did it last election..so no surprise
Sad to see him so misrepresenting the polls though. The MRP shows completely the opposite of what he is claiming. It is worth viewing some of his recent headers on here as well in that light.
Every GE people moan at Mike for such things. MRP is not magically accurate, so long as he explains why he thinks differently it's no biggie.
I didn't link the tweet as a criticism but I am surprised.
Notwithstanding the MRP, the 2017 result for Battersea was:
Labour 25,292 Conservative 22,876 Liberal Democrats 4,401
It's depressing that anyone is arguing that Smithson's letter is anything other than a grotesque misrepresentation.
I don`t understand. LibDems are 20/1 in that seat. They have no chance. Unless I`m missing something, Mike seems to be acting for the benefit of the Labour Party, not the LDs.
Unnoticed, Elizabeth Warren's price for the Democratic nomination is sinking like a stone. She was last matched at 6.6.
Appalling news.
Pete Buttigieg is apparently inexorably heading for the favourite slot.
I only went and laid him off 2 weeks ago.
Probably a good time to top up on Warren in all honesty. And definitely lay Bloomberg.
Please, why lay Bloomberg when Clinton is right there to lay?
That's a silly question. If you lay several improbable candidates at the same time, you improve the odds for yourself, at no additional cost if you do it right. Rating whether Bloomberg is a bit less improbable than Clinton (or not) doesn't make all that much of a difference.
Morning all and on thread, yes he is a growing personality within the Tory party and increasingly seen on the TV. He has the advantage of the fact that barring bizarre future boundary changes e.g. taking in large unfavourable chunks of neighbouring Sedgefield, he should never have to worry about holding his seat.
Been playing with Baxter this morning and the suggestion he makes is that at 28 Tory and 38 SNP (i.e. basically the same as 2017) we see the 1st change in seats between the parties with either the Tories taking Perth or Lanark or the SNP taking Stirling. If the SCons come within 10 of the SNP and Labour and Liberal languish in the low teens then SCons start heading towards 15 and SNP below 40 (because they have taken all SLAB bar Iain Murray). If lead starts heading towards 15 then SCons head for 10 and SNP for 45. My hunch right now is SNP will gain and lose and end up around 40 and the SCons will be between 10 and 15, right now nearer 15.
Looks about right, in sorry to say. The SNP campaign to date has not been one of our Top Ten performances. Not in Bottom Ten either. Just mediocre. Too late to polling day to change much now, barring horrific gaffes, which are (slightly) more likely to happen to the Unionist parties.
What really concerns me is that the hoped-for tactical unwind SCon to SLD just does not seem to have materialised, and that really hinders my party. We were banking on that!
Also, Ruth Davidson’s departure has, as I suspected, actually strengthened SCon support, not damaged it. She was a deadweight round your necks, as all can see now. Told ya so!!
All we need to really put a dampener on events is a SLab recovery, and I consider that a very real possibility.
Not a particularly happy bunny.
(Word of warning from a former Baxter addict: consume with caution!)
Looks a decent tip. Patel available at 49/1. Now admittedly home office means there's a decent chance she screws up. But that's still very good odds.
Those odds are good for Patel. On the other hand, Priti Patel is one of the few politicians I fear more than Jeremy Corbyn.
Not the slightest chance of Patel becoming PM. She may be adored by the Far Right but she's as loathed as she is loathsome for the majority.
1000 x worse than Jeremy Corbyn, which is saying something.
I am going to a dinner with Priti Patel tonight, sold out, the members like her
Lots of jackboots being polished I bet
Dinner! During an election campaign! Unless it’s fish and chips in the constituency office whilst stuffing envelopes etc then it’s complacency gone mad. They can’t be short of cash so very strange.
Every GE people moan at Mike for such things. MRP is not magically accurate, so long as he explains why he thinks differently it's no biggie.
He did it last election..so no surprise
I thought he did it last election in marginal seats where the Lib Dems were actually in the running? Not in seats where the Lib Dems are a distant nowhere.
Telling voters in a seat where the Tories are odds on to vote Lib Dem is bizarre at the very least don't you think? I'm curious what Mike thought about Warrington South to make him think that Conservative voters should vote Lib Dem does that make Political Betting sense?
Do these look like the odds of a seat where Conservatives should tactically vote Liberal Democrat?
Every GE people moan at Mike for such things. MRP is not magically accurate, so long as he explains why he thinks differently it's no biggie.
He did it last election..so no surprise
Sad to see him so misrepresenting the polls though. The MRP shows completely the opposite of what he is claiming. It is worth viewing some of his recent headers on here as well in that light.
It would be interesting to see a header explaining what exactly the point of it is. It's not going to achieve Lib Dem victory in those constituencies. I can't imagine it's going to make a profit for him on the betting markets. Why do it?
My feeling at the momo is there are 4 elections going on 1) in a line south of the wash/bristol channel a rerun of 2017 with limited changes except for.. 2) london which is seeing a fracturing of labour dominance (that may well not translate into much seat wise this time around but will make the first post GE mayor polls interesting) 3) scotland which is becoming an SNP vs Tory slugfest with the SNP well ahead on points but the Tories possibly entrenching a few seats as safe Scottish havens. Lds just trying to save Jo and tread water, and possibly failing, labour gone gone gone and 4) the Midlands and north where my feeling is labour are overstated and are in for an absolute horror show. This is where the usual non voters/only voted fir Brexit I'll do it one more time votes are and are imo under the polling radar. There will be some eye watering swings Morning all by the way
One last comment. When Dom Cummings blogged that we're heading for a Hung Parliament, I don't think it was mind games.
I think he genuinely thinks it and I think he's right.
My opinion for what it is worth is that little will change now and Boris should win a modest majority. The canvassing reports and other anecdotes indicate the conservative vote is hardening and the report from Buzzfeed this morning at the utter despair of labour activists in northern seats seeing Corbyn pouring all his resources into beating IDS and Boris and virtually abandoning them.
I expect history will show labour made a terrible mistake when they put Corbyn in office and he, more than anyone, enabled brexit by not standing firm in the remain camp so evident in the party. Had he rejected brexit from day 1 we would not be on the verge of leaving in little less than 9 weeks
Corbyn lost all credibility when he abandoned his life long opposition to the EU and capitulated to urban graduate Labour. Had he come out in favour of leave he would have become prime minister in the wake of Cameron's departure.
Every GE people moan at Mike for such things. MRP is not magically accurate, so long as he explains why he thinks differently it's no biggie.
Its one thing being a partisan where the Lib Dems are very tight. Some of the seats he's done this are absurd this year though which makes me wonder how or why its been done.
I'm extremely curious about Warrington South. Conservative-held between 2010-2017 there has been a letter sent out to voters in Warrington South saying a vote for the Conservatives is a wasted vote, which is a bit strange given that the Tories are odds-on favourites for the seat and the Lib Dems are 66/1.
Why Battersea - Mike`s Bedford isn`t he?
The letter signed by Mike Smithson begins "The election in Battersea is between the Labour and the Liberal Democrats."
It's deliberately misleading. I'm surprised it's not illegal and, unless it's being done without his consent, seriously undermining his brand.
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning.
And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
Johnson went on LBC this morning to prove once more why he seeks to avoid detailed scrutiny. Even in the arms of a soft-soap Tory inquisitor like Nick Ferrari he has absolutely no idea. When you stand back and think about it the decision by the Labour Party membership to gift him power becomes ever-more extraordinary.
Every GE people moan at Mike for such things. MRP is not magically accurate, so long as he explains why he thinks differently it's no biggie.
Its one thing being a partisan where the Lib Dems are very tight. Some of the seats he's done this are absurd this year though which makes me wonder how or why its been done.
I'm extremely curious about Warrington South. Conservative-held between 2010-2017 there has been a letter sent out to voters in Warrington South saying a vote for the Conservatives is a wasted vote, which is a bit strange given that the Tories are odds-on favourites for the seat and the Lib Dems are 66/1.
Why Battersea - Mike`s Bedford isn`t he?
Those letters have been sent by "Mike Smithson political and polling expert" to voters in many, many seats it seems. Saying that Mike has looked at that seat and essentially advising people to vote Liberal Democrat. Battersea is one of the seats the letter has been sent to, Warrington South is another, there are more too.
Sad to see him so misrepresenting the polls though. The MRP shows completely the opposite of what he is claiming. It is worth viewing some of his recent headers on here as well in that light.
He could have made a case along the lines of: if you want Remain and don't want Corbyn etc. That might cut some ice in Battersea. But to make the claim for the LibDems in terms of polling is bizarre and wrong.
One last comment. When Dom Cummings blogged that we're heading for a Hung Parliament, I don't think it was mind games. I think he genuinely thinks it and I think he's right.
I am off too, but I think that you are right about Cummings. He is too full of himself for mind games. I don't think that he is as clever as he thinks he is though.
“ I don't think that he is as clever as he thinks he is though.”
Pot calling kettle.
Quite. And the suggestion he doesn't play mind games is pretty staggering. That's his whole shtick.
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage. The BBC have let 4 parties send non leaders, which is up to them. As for Johnson's words this morning, apologies if I think even the chilling effect of the briefing against CH4 is more important than the words of known liar and untrustworthy bastard, Johnson.
He’s certainly a more fluent liar than Corbyn. And far better at it than Boris. The best of the 3 I’d say. And the most dangerous in consequence.
There's something about his tone of voice that really makes my skin crawl.
He has the faux matiness of the experienced confidence trickster. The people who would be taken in by McDonnell overlap with those who would send their bank account details to a Nigerian Prince they met on the internet....
Says someone who has being totally taken in by the biggest conman of them all! The irony
Johnson went on LBC this morning to prove once more why he seeks to avoid detailed scrutiny. Even in the arms of a soft-soap Tory inquisitor like Nick Ferrari he has absolutely no idea. When you stand back and think about it the decision by the Labour Party membership to gift him power becomes ever-more extraordinary.
SO, this is just silly - if you wanted to influence the decision, you shouldn't have left, and anyway it was made long before Johnson was chosen. There's a limit to how much one should game leadership choices by thinking "If the other sides pick X and Y then we might win most votes with Z" - in the end one should vote for the leader one wants, and then try to get them elected. It's not as though one of the other candidates was polling as clearly more popular.
Johnson went on LBC this morning to prove once more why he seeks to avoid detailed scrutiny. Even in the arms of a soft-soap Tory inquisitor like Nick Ferrari he has absolutely no idea. When you stand back and think about it the decision by the Labour Party membership to gift him power becomes ever-more extraordinary.
SO, this is just silly - if you wanted to influence the decision, you shouldn't have left, and anyway it was made long before Johnson was chosen. There's a limit to how much one should game leadership choices by thinking "If the other sides pick X and Y then we might win most votes with Z" - in the end one should vote for the leader one wants, and then try to get them elected. It's not as though one of the other candidates was polling as clearly more popular.
Nick, you are being equally silly. You picked an even worse duffer than Johnson.
Every GE people moan at Mike for such things. MRP is not magically accurate, so long as he explains why he thinks differently it's no biggie.
He did it last election..so no surprise
I thought he did it last election in marginal seats where the Lib Dems were actually in the running? Not in seats where the Lib Dems are a distant nowhere.
Telling voters in a seat where the Tories are odds on to vote Lib Dem is bizarre at the very least don't you think? I'm curious what Mike thought about Warrington South to make him think that Conservative voters should vote Lib Dem does that make Political Betting sense?
Do these look like the odds of a seat where Conservatives should tactically vote Liberal Democrat?
No - perhaps LibDems should tactically vote Tory to help keep Corbyn out!
Looks a decent tip. Patel available at 49/1. Now admittedly home office means there's a decent chance she screws up. But that's still very good odds.
Those odds are good for Patel. On the other hand, Priti Patel is one of the few politicians I fear more than Jeremy Corbyn.
Not the slightest chance of Patel becoming PM. She may be adored by the Far Right but she's as loathed as she is loathsome for the majority.
1000 x worse than Jeremy Corbyn, which is saying something.
I am going to a dinner with Priti Patel tonight, sold out, the members like her
Lots of jackboots being polished I bet
Dinner! During an election campaign! Unless it’s fish and chips in the constituency office whilst stuffing envelopes etc then it’s complacency gone mad. They can’t be short of cash so very strange.
Yep. I remember in 2005 that Regional Office told us to cancel all canvassing on the Saturday before the election so that we could welcome a junior Minister coming to give us a morale-boosting talk. We told them, and him, to go forth and multiply.
He’s certainly a more fluent liar than Corbyn. And far better at it than Boris. The best of the 3 I’d say. And the most dangerous in consequence.
Yes. Corbyn lies because he's not very bright, Boris lies because he's not remotely on top of his brief. There is an air of clear calculation to McDonnell's lies, which as you write makes him by far the most dangerous.
Johnson is a congenital liar. He just cannot help himself. He is incapable of telling the truth. McDonnell is, indeed, much more calculated. He lies specifically and forensically for the cause. And he is very good at it. You'd want him on your side in wartime, though you'd never be quite sure he was on your side.
Anecdote alert. One of my colleagues hails from Stirling. His parents are by inclination Lib Dems. They voted Conservative in 2017 to keep out the SNP. They are now concerned about Boris Johnson getting an overall majority and are probably going to vote Lib Dem.
Fux sake. They’ll let the SNP in.
Muppets.
I understand they’re well aware of that. Unlike you, they see Boris Johnson with an overall majority as an equal danger.
Committed Conservatives don’t seem to understand the antipathy he produces in a very large section of the population. The question is how far they will go to stop him.
No, I think Boris is a twat and I’m very far from committed to him. I understand the antipathy very well.
But, you’d think they’d care more about protecting Scotland’s place in the Union.
Reread your own last two paragraphs then reread my previous last paragraph. You don’t understand just how loathed he is.
No, I do. And I’ve read your posts and understood them. One man you hate or the future of your country. Not a difficult choice.
The future of the Union looks bleak under Johnson. I can’t see a justification for voting for either Corbyn or Johnson.
"We hate you and despise you, you treacherous quislings, now vote for us" was always going to be a tricky sell for the Conservatives. It's remarkable how the penny still hasn't dropped that they might need to compromise with the electorate.
The penny seems to have dropped at least a couple of inches with the SCons that the electorate also seem to hate and despise them.
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage. The BBC have let 4 parties send non leaders, which is up to them. As for Johnson's words this morning, apologies if I think even the chilling effect of the briefing against CH4 is more important than the words of known liar and untrustworthy bastard, Johnson.
Actually they can't make their own rules. Rules are set by Ofcom and Ofcom says parties not leaders. BBC didn't stop Rudd from replacing May, the idea that Gove was unsuitable for a climate debate when he is the one setting the parties climate policies is absurd. As for Ch4 it is state owned and it should be sold off next Parliament. Not sure how much the government can make from privatising it but its long overdue privatisation. That has nothing to do with last night, the state has no business in the 2020s owning TV Channels.
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage. The BBC have let 4 parties send non leaders, which is up to them. As for Johnson's words this morning, apologies if I think even the chilling effect of the briefing against CH4 is more important than the words of known liar and untrustworthy bastard, Johnson.
They didn’t just empty chair him, though, did they?
They also pulled a provocative partisan stunt on it too to highlight it, which they advertised on their twitter.
If they’d just said, “sadly, the leaders of the Cons and BXP have declined to attend but we’ll be going ahead anyway” there wouldn’t have been such a fuss.
It's almost as if skills need to be taught to humans and if they haven't they can't do things. Like how nobody in my office 35yo+ seems to be able to just google things they don't know how to do on excel or whatever. It's like we're tool using animals that learn through usage and repetition. The horror.
He’s certainly a more fluent liar than Corbyn. And far better at it than Boris. The best of the 3 I’d say. And the most dangerous in consequence.
Yes. Corbyn lies because he's not very bright, Boris lies because he's not remotely on top of his brief. There is an air of clear calculation to McDonnell's lies, which as you write makes him by far the most dangerous.
He did come across well on this morning's radio.
I still enjoy his joke, which is just sufficiently true to be really funny: "Jeremy is teaching me to be a nicer person, but I'm only halfway through the course."
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage.
In addition, the other leaders apparently would have not taken part had Gove been allowed in. As you say, it was set up as a leaders debate, and Johnson declined the opportunity. He's entirely entitled to have done so, but not to complain about the consequences of his decision. "Subversion of democracy" LOL.
Morning all and on thread, yes he is a growing personality within the Tory party and increasingly seen on the TV. He has the advantage of the fact that barring bizarre future boundary changes e.g. taking in large unfavourable chunks of neighbouring Sedgefield, he should never have to worry about holding his seat.
Been playing with Baxter this morning and the suggestion he makes is that at 28 Tory and 38 SNP (i.e. basically the same as 2017) we see the 1st change in seats between the parties with either the Tories taking Perth or Lanark or the SNP taking Stirling. If the SCons come within 10 of the SNP and Labour and Liberal languish in the low teens then SCons start heading towards 15 and SNP below 40 (because they have taken all SLAB bar Iain Murray). If lead starts heading towards 15 then SCons head for 10 and SNP for 45. My hunch right now is SNP will gain and lose and end up around 40 and the SCons will be between 10 and 15, right now nearer 15.
Looks about right, in sorry to say. The SNP campaign to date has not been one of our Top Ten performances. Not in Bottom Ten either. Just mediocre. Too late to polling day to change much now, barring horrific gaffes, which are (slightly) more likely to happen to the Unionist parties.
What really concerns me is that the hoped-for tactical unwind SCon to SLD just does not seem to have materialised, and that really hinders my party. We were banking on that!
Also, Ruth Davidson’s departure has, as I suspected, actually strengthened SCon support, not damaged it. She was a deadweight round your necks, as all can see now. Told ya so!!
All we need to really put a dampener on events is a SLab recovery, and I consider that a very real possibility.
Not a particularly happy bunny.
(Word of warning from a former Baxter addict: consume with caution!)
Thanks for the honest report of the situation in Scotland.
I thought he did it last election in marginal seats where the Lib Dems were actually in the running? Not in seats where the Lib Dems are a distant nowhere.
Afaik he only did it in Jo Swinson's seat in 2017, however perhaps the great man can confirm?
He’s certainly a more fluent liar than Corbyn. And far better at it than Boris. The best of the 3 I’d say. And the most dangerous in consequence.
Yes. Corbyn lies because he's not very bright, Boris lies because he's not remotely on top of his brief. There is an air of clear calculation to McDonnell's lies, which as you write makes him by far the most dangerous.
Johnson is a congenital liar. He just cannot help himself. He is incapable of telling the truth. McDonnell is, indeed, much more calculated. He lies specifically and forensically for the cause. And he is very good at it. You'd want him on your side in wartime, though you'd never be quite sure he was on your side.
They are both a disgrace.
The difference is that Johnson is lazy and isn’t ideological and only lies to further his career and his own personal interests, which makes him less dangerous.
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage.
In addition, the other leaders apparently would have not taken part had Gove been allowed in. As you say, it was set up as a leaders debate, and Johnson declined the opportunity. He's entirely entitled to have done so, but not to complain about the consequences of his decision. "Subversion of democracy" LOL.
It was billed as a Climate debate. The name for it was Climate Debate and they were using the hashtag #ClimateDebate. Seems to me that having a senior Cabinet Minister who set the parties Climate policies would be eminently appropriate. Ofcom rules say representation must be given to parties, not leaders. Gove is entirely suited to represent the party. Had this been a debate on the economy would you have been approving of denying the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity to take part in that?
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage. The BBC have let 4 parties send non leaders, which is up to them. As for Johnson's words this morning, apologies if I think even the chilling effect of the briefing against CH4 is more important than the words of known liar and untrustworthy bastard, Johnson.
They didn’t just empty chair him, though, did they? They also pulled a provocative partisan stunt on it too to highlight it, which they advertised on their twitter. If they’d just said, “sadly, the leaders of the Cons and BXP have declined to attend but we’ll be going ahead anyway” there wouldn’t have been such a fuss.
I mean, empty chairing, by it's nature, should be an attempt to highlight non attendance. Hence the ice sculptures. Non attendance is a statement and should be freely commented on. If they did the same to Corbyn, I don't think you'd be complaining, whereas if Corbyn threatened to take away their broadcasting license, I would still think it is bad.
Sad to see him so misrepresenting the polls though. The MRP shows completely the opposite of what he is claiming. It is worth viewing some of his recent headers on here as well in that light.
He could have made a case along the lines of: if you want Remain and don't want Corbyn etc. That might cut some ice in Battersea. But to make the claim for the LibDems in terms of polling is bizarre and wrong.
I think his case is rather that in a constituency which voted so solidly remain, the Conservatives have no chance at all this time - and the Lib Dems perhaps a slim chance.
He’s certainly a more fluent liar than Corbyn. And far better at it than Boris. The best of the 3 I’d say. And the most dangerous in consequence.
Yes. Corbyn lies because he's not very bright, Boris lies because he's not remotely on top of his brief. There is an air of clear calculation to McDonnell's lies, which as you write makes him by far the most dangerous.
Johnson is a congenital liar. He just cannot help himself. He is incapable of telling the truth. McDonnell is, indeed, much more calculated. He lies specifically and forensically for the cause. And he is very good at it. You'd want him on your side in wartime, though you'd never be quite sure he was on your side.
They are both a disgrace.
The difference is that Johnson is lazy and isn’t ideological and only lies to further his career and his own personal interests, which makes him less dangerous.
I thought he did it last election in marginal seats where the Lib Dems were actually in the running? Not in seats where the Lib Dems are a distant nowhere.
Afaik he only did it in Jo Swinson's seat in 2017, however perhaps the great man can confirm?
I got a letter in St Albans from him in the last election.
I thought he did it last election in marginal seats where the Lib Dems were actually in the running? Not in seats where the Lib Dems are a distant nowhere.
Afaik he only did it in Jo Swinson's seat in 2017, however perhaps the great man can confirm?
In Jo Swinson's seat in 2017 it was suitable. That was a seat the Lib Dems were the primary contender for as the result and evidence showed. Some of these seats though it is entirely unsuitable. If the Our Genial Host seriously thinks the Liberal Democrats are in the running to win Warrington South then I'm curious the logic and given the odds of 66/1 available I wonder how much he's got riding on that? Similar for the other seats that both the polls and odds show the Lib Dems are nowhere near.
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage. The BBC have let 4 parties send non leaders, which is up to them. As for Johnson's words this morning, apologies if I think even the chilling effect of the briefing against CH4 is more important than the words of known liar and untrustworthy bastard, Johnson.
They didn’t just empty chair him, though, did they? They also pulled a provocative partisan stunt on it too to highlight it, which they advertised on their twitter. If they’d just said, “sadly, the leaders of the Cons and BXP have declined to attend but we’ll be going ahead anyway” there wouldn’t have been such a fuss.
I mean, empty chairing, by it's nature, should be an attempt to highlight non attendance. Hence the ice sculptures. Non attendance is a statement and should be freely commented on. If they did the same to Corbyn, I don't think you'd be complaining, whereas if Corbyn threatened to take away their broadcasting license, I would still think it is bad.
Highlighting in the way they did it is a partisan act.
Johnson went on LBC this morning to prove once more why he seeks to avoid detailed scrutiny. Even in the arms of a soft-soap Tory inquisitor like Nick Ferrari he has absolutely no idea. When you stand back and think about it the decision by the Labour Party membership to gift him power becomes ever-more extraordinary.
SO, this is just silly - if you wanted to influence the decision, you shouldn't have left, and anyway it was made long before Johnson was chosen. There's a limit to how much one should game leadership choices by thinking "If the other sides pick X and Y then we might win most votes with Z" - in the end one should vote for the leader one wants, and then try to get them elected. It's not as though one of the other candidates was polling as clearly more popular.
I only left last year after voting against Corbyn in 2016 and realising that the far left which used to oppose Labour now controls the party and will do so well into the future because people like you are happy for that to be the case and have convinced yourselves that you are not aiding and abetting anti-Semites who profoundly dislike the UK and the west in general. You and I have the luxury of being able to live through a Johnson government with ease. Many millions of others do not. Over an extended period of time the electorate has made clear to the Labour membership that Jeremy Corbyn is not someone that it could ever put into power. Voters will always choose the alternative, no matter how incapable. You and others chose to ignore that unequivocal message. So we end up with a lying clown leading a right wing, English nationalist government that will harm all those you say you care about. That's not my responsibiliuty. It is yours.
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny.
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage. The BBC have let 4 parties send non leaders, which is up to them. As for Johnson's words this morning, apologies if I think even the chilling effect of the briefing against CH4 is more important than the words of known liar and untrustworthy bastard, Johnson.
They didn’t just empty chair him, though, did they? They also pulled a provocative partisan stunt on it too to highlight it, which they advertised on their twitter. If they’d just said, “sadly, the leaders of the Cons and BXP have declined to attend but we’ll be going ahead anyway” there wouldn’t have been such a fuss.
I mean, empty chairing, by it's nature, should be an attempt to highlight non attendance. Hence the ice sculptures. Non attendance is a statement and should be freely commented on. If they did the same to Corbyn, I don't think you'd be complaining, whereas if Corbyn threatened to take away their broadcasting license, I would still think it is bad.
Highlighting in the way they did it is a partisan act.
Not attending was a political act. Talking about that political act is news. Highlighting political acts of the PM is their job. This is what you sound like: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids
I mean, empty chairing, by it's nature, should be an attempt to highlight non attendance. Hence the ice sculptures. Non attendance is a statement and should be freely commented on. If they did the same to Corbyn, I don't think you'd be complaining, whereas if Corbyn threatened to take away their broadcasting license, I would still think it is bad.
Except the Conservatives didn't avoid attendance. Ofcom says representation must be offered to the Parties and the Party sent a representative. Channel 4 made a partisan act rejecting the Conservatives representative then put a sculpture up instead when there was a Conservative Cabinet Minister who set the policies for the issues being debated there in the building. That was pathetic of Channel 4. Other broadcasters have always accepted whoever the party sends instead of the leader if that is done because that is what the rules say. There is nothing in Ofcom rules to say representation can only be offered to Party Leaders, especially on a specialised subject debate where the subject specialist goes instead.
The figures for those no longer voting are not so explicit, so a couple of first order approximations have been made (1) that 2019 electoral roll is of similar size to 2017 - roll size hasn't changed by much judging by end of year stats, so 1% of 2017 electorate is approx 1% of 2019 el
2019 no longer eligibles (died or
Interesting because few normal polls are quite so explicit on voter changeover, so the standard common knowledge of demographic assumptions, that things will trend leftwards, is rarely challenged in numbers .
Not attending was a political act. Talking about that political act is news. Highlighting political acts of the PM is their job. This is what you sound like: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids
A Conservative did attend. Parties are entitled to choose who they send to the media, not the other way around. There is no precedence or Ofcom rule for what Channel 4 did.
He’s certainly a more fluent liar than Corbyn. And far better at it than Boris. The best of the 3 I’d say. And the most dangerous in consequence.
Yes. Corbyn lies because he's not very bright, Boris lies because he's not remotely on top of his brief. There is an air of clear calculation to McDonnell's lies, which as you write makes him by far the most dangerous.
Johnson is a congenital liar. He just cannot help himself. He is incapable of telling the truth. McDonnell is, indeed, much more calculated. He lies specifically and forensically for the cause. And he is very good at it. You'd want him on your side in wartime, though you'd never be quite sure he was on your side.
They are both a disgrace.
The difference is that Johnson is lazy and isn’t ideological and only lies to further his career and his own personal interests, which makes him less dangerous.
I agree with that in theory, except that given Johnson is driven entirely by self-interest he will agree anything with anyone to stay in power, and do whatever he feels it will take to secure his aims - see closing down Parliament and threatening to shut down Channel 4, for example, as well as - of course - taking us out of the EU. And as he will be PM, and McDonnell will never be, that makes him more dangerous in reality.
Johnson has just received a kicking from Nick Ferrari.
He will get kickings now from everyone, and rightly so, for his cowardice. This will snowball and lead to people believing he can’t be trusted with a majority if he keeps dodging scrutiny.
I thought he did it last election in marginal seats where the Lib Dems were actually in the running? Not in seats where the Lib Dems are a distant nowhere.
Afaik he only did it in Jo Swinson's seat in 2017, however perhaps the great man can confirm?
In Jo Swinson's seat in 2017 it was suitable. That was a seat the Lib Dems were the primary contender for as the result and evidence showed. Some of these seats though it is entirely unsuitable. If the Our Genial Host seriously thinks the Liberal Democrats are in the running to win Warrington South then I'm curious the logic and given the odds of 66/1 available I wonder how much he's got riding on that? Similar for the other seats that both the polls and odds show the Lib Dems are nowhere near.
Sounds like he's fighting the good fight to keep Jezza out to me - more power to him.
He’s certainly a more fluent liar than Corbyn. And far better at it than Boris. The best of the 3 I’d say. And the most dangerous in consequence.
Yes. Corbyn lies because he's not very bright, Boris lies because he's not remotely on top of his brief. There is an air of clear calculation to McDonnell's lies, which as you write makes him by far the most dangerous.
Johnson is a congenital liar. He just cannot help himself. He is incapable of telling the truth. McDonnell is, indeed, much more calculated. He lies specifically and forensically for the cause. And he is very good at it. You'd want him on your side in wartime, though you'd never be quite sure he was on your side.
They are both a disgrace.
The difference is that Johnson is lazy and isn’t ideological and only lies to further his career and his own personal interests, which makes him less dangerous.
Johnson's laziness and lack of beliefs makes him supremely dangerous because it means he is the perfect figurehead for a far right Thatcherite cabal determined to use the economic shock of Brexit to push us closer to the US and their economic model. While we all coo over his fucking dog and try to figure out how many kids he has, they work behind the scenes to rewire the economy in a way that will be very hard to unwind. Johnson won't know or care what they are up to as long as he gets to be World King.
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage.
In addition, the other leaders apparently would have not taken part had Gove been allowed in. As you say, it was set up as a leaders debate, and Johnson declined the opportunity. He's entirely entitled to have done so, but not to complain about the consequences of his decision. "Subversion of democracy" LOL.
It was billed as a Climate debate. The name for it was Climate Debate and they were using the hashtag #ClimateDebate. Seems to me that having a senior Cabinet Minister who set the parties Climate policies would be eminently appropriate. Ofcom rules say representation must be given to parties, not leaders. Gove is entirely suited to represent the party. Had this been a debate on the economy would you have been approving of denying the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity to take part in that?
As the other party leaders would have walked out, he was being denied nothing. The Tories made their bed with their attitude to the Corbyn/Johnson debate. And their evidently frit leader.
I thought he did it last election in marginal seats where the Lib Dems were actually in the running? Not in seats where the Lib Dems are a distant nowhere.
Afaik he only did it in Jo Swinson's seat in 2017, however perhaps the great man can confirm?
Maybe he agreed to it before Swinson so comprehensively ballsed up the LD campaign and at the time it seemed less hatstand?
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
I wouldn't have expected that the Northwest and Midlands would be the regions most fired up by climate change, or that 63% of Leave voters would think it an important issue. The subject has penetrated further that some of us have assumed.
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
Not attending was a political act. Talking about that political act is news. Highlighting political acts of the PM is their job. This is what you sound like: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids
A Conservative did attend. Parties are entitled to choose who they send to the media, not the other way around. There is no precedence or Ofcom rule for what Channel 4 did.
Ch4 wanted a leaders debate on climate. Tories refused to send their leader, as did the BXP. Both were treated the same, with an ice sculpture in their place. Any commentary beforehand about the PM not being there being disproportionate to Farage not being there is pretty justifiable because the PM is magnitudes more important than Farage. Ch4 is free to pick the debate rules it wants and enforce them, that is up to them. If Johnson and the Tories refuse to accept those rules, the consequences are down to them. The media is not here to kowtow to the whims of politicians, it is there to hold them to account, and if they refuse to be held account on an equal footing, that is news. Therefore the news media should talk about it. So they did.
Boris Johnson cannot play the "context" argument when his entire attack line on Corbyn has been precisely that. The media is broken.
Off topic: interesting that NE Hampshire and East Hampshire are 2 of 41 seats where the Tory share is projected to go down more than the Labour share according MRP YouGov study.
Anecdote alert. One of my colleagues hails from Stirling. His parents are by inclination Lib Dems. They voted Conservative in 2017 to keep out the SNP. They are now concerned about Boris Johnson getting an overall majority and are probably going to vote Lib Dem.
Fux sake. They’ll let the SNP in.
Muppets.
I understand they’re well aware of that. Unlike you, they see Boris Johnson with an overall majority as an equal danger.
Committed Conservatives don’t seem to understand the antipathy he produces in a very large section of the population. The question is how far they will go to stop him.
No, I think Boris is a twat and I’m very far from committed to him. I understand the antipathy very well. But, you’d think they’d care more about protecting Scotland’s place in the Union.
Speaking as a voter in Scotland who has come round to being pro-Union I think the immediacy of the danger is a factor. Even if the SNP repeat 2015 they will still need to win a referendum to achieve independence. Whereas there is no such constraint on a Johnson government. It's hard then to view SNP MPs as the greatest risk. Holyrood elections maybe a bit different, since some of the SNP ultras are advocating a Holyrood majority as a mandate for Independence - but then the voting system makes tactical voting less important too.
Hard to believe , it is only a matter of time now, the unionists are stuffed. Once you get below age 50 it is all independence. Unionists are like Tories , old Codgers and LOL only
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage.
In addition, the other leaders apparently would have not taken part had Gove been allowed in. As you say, it was set up as a leaders debate, and Johnson declined the opportunity. He's entirely entitled to have done so, but not to complain about the consequences of his decision. "Subversion of democracy" LOL.
It was billed as a Climate debate. The name for it was Climate Debate and they were using the hashtag #ClimateDebate. Seems to me that having a senior Cabinet Minister who set the parties Climate policies would be eminently appropriate. Ofcom rules say representation must be given to parties, not leaders. Gove is entirely suited to represent the party. Had this been a debate on the economy would you have been approving of denying the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity to take part in that?
As the other party leaders would have walked out, he was being denied nothing. The Tories made their bed with their attitude to the Corbyn/Johnson debate. And their evidently frit leader.
If the other party leaders walk out then they can be empty chaired. That would be their decision.
It's almost as if skills need to be taught to humans and if they haven't they can't do things. Like how nobody in my office 35yo+ seems to be able to just google things they don't know how to do on excel or whatever. It's like we're tool using animals that learn through usage and repetition. The horror.
I think you are low balling that 35 age. 45 yes. I’m early 40s and that problem certain isn’t there in my age group who are hyper interested in technology though haven’t had it from birth.
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
And you seem quite annoyed by it. I wonder why.
Because the Tories don't get treated the same as other parties, because in most cases the media do what they tell them to. As is evident by their threat to Channel 4
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
And you seem quite annoyed by it. I wonder why.
Amusing to see the veneer of interested engagement degenerate in to angry name calling over the last week. Hard to work out if its as they're excited they now have a chance, or they know they don't.
It's almost as if skills need to be taught to humans and if they haven't they can't do things. Like how nobody in my office 35yo+ seems to be able to just google things they don't know how to do on excel or whatever. It's like we're tool using animals that learn through usage and repetition. The horror.
I think you are low balling that 35 age. 45 yes. I’m early 40s and that problem certain isn’t there in my age group who are hyper interested in technology though haven’t had it from birth.
Being totally dependent on search engines is not a good thing in my opinion.
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage. The BBC have let 4 parties send non leaders, which is up to them. As for Johnson's words this morning, apologies if I think even the chilling effect of the briefing against CH4 is more important than the words of known liar and untrustworthy bastard, Johnson.
They didn’t just empty chair him, though, did they? They also pulled a provocative partisan stunt on it too to highlight it, which they advertised on their twitter. If they’d just said, “sadly, the leaders of the Cons and BXP have declined to attend but we’ll be going ahead anyway” there wouldn’t have been such a fuss.
I mean, empty chairing, by it's nature, should be an attempt to highlight non attendance. Hence the ice sculptures. Non attendance is a statement and should be freely commented on. If they did the same to Corbyn, I don't think you'd be complaining, whereas if Corbyn threatened to take away their broadcasting license, I would still think it is bad.
Highlighting in the way they did it is a partisan act.
The figures for those no longer voting are not so explicit, so a couple of first order approximations have been made (1) that 2019 electoral roll is of similar size to 2017 - roll size hasn't changed by much judging by end of year stats, so 1% of 2017 electorate is approx 1% of 2019 el
2019 no longer eligibles (died or
Interesting because few normal polls are quite so explicit on voter changeover, so the standard common knowledge of demographic assumptions, that things will trend leftwards, is rarely challenged in numbers .
Boris Johnson cannot play the "context" argument when his entire attack line on Corbyn has been precisely that. The media is broken.
Off topic: interesting that NE Hampshire and East Hampshire are 2 of 41 seats where the Tory share is projected to go down more than the Labour share according MRP YouGov study.
Presumably due to large swing to the Lib Dems?
Apart from last election when Labour came second, Lib Dems have always done well here. Hinds had a majority of something like 7000 at one point, which isn't that large bearing in mind it's 30,000 now.
I don't think he'll lose his seat - but his majority is going to be cut down a lot. And he might lose it next time.
If his majority gets cut in half say, the Tories are in deep trouble in the South.
Not attending was a political act. Talking about that political act is news. Highlighting political acts of the PM is their job. This is what you sound like: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids
A Conservative did attend. Parties are entitled to choose who they send to the media, not the other way around. There is no precedence or Ofcom rule for what Channel 4 did.
Ch4 wanted a leaders debate on climate. Tories refused to send their leader, as did the BXP. Both were treated the same, with an ice sculpture in their place. Any commentary beforehand about the PM not being there being disproportionate to Farage not being there is pretty justifiable because the PM is magnitudes more important than Farage. Ch4 is free to pick the debate rules it wants and enforce them, that is up to them. If Johnson and the Tories refuse to accept those rules, the consequences are down to them. The media is not here to kowtow to the whims of politicians, it is there to hold them to account, and if they refuse to be held account on an equal footing, that is news. Therefore the news media should talk about it. So they did.
It doesn't matter what Channel 4 wanted. Ofcom rules are that representation must be offered to parties. Gove was sent as a representative of the party. We do not have a Presidential Election we have a Parliamentary one and Gove is a representative of the party just as much as Johnson is. Channel 4 is not permitted to create its own media rules. Ofcom creates the rules.
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage. The BBC have let 4 parties send non leaders, which is up to them. As for Johnson's words this morning, apologies if I think even the chilling effect of the briefing against CH4 is more important than the words of known liar and untrustworthy bastard, Johnson.
They didn’t just empty chair him, though, did they? They also pulled a provocative partisan stunt on it too to highlight it, which they advertised on their twitter. If they’d just said, “sadly, the leaders of the Cons and BXP have declined to attend but we’ll be going ahead anyway” there wouldn’t have been such a fuss.
I mean, empty chairing, by it's nature, should be an attempt to highlight non attendance. Hence the ice sculptures. Non attendance is a statement and should be freely commented on. If they did the same to Corbyn, I don't think you'd be complaining, whereas if Corbyn threatened to take away their broadcasting license, I would still think it is bad.
Highlighting in the way they did it is a partisan act.
Not attending was a political act. Talking about that political act is news. Highlighting political acts of the PM is their job. This is what you sound like: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids
This seems to be much worse than anything Corbyn has threatened to do: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate Threatening to revoke the broadcasting license of Ch4 because he was empty chaired is nothing short of authoritarian bullying. You may not believe in renationalisation, but that at least puts these decisions in the hands of elected officials; Johnson is now threatening news sources doing things a way he doesn't personally like or benefit from. Does this explain the BBCs moral cowardice towards all things Tory at the moment?
Worse than Trump.
""I want a free, fair, exuberant, unbridled media - that's what I want. I think a free press is one of the glories of our country. I want to protect it." Johnson this morning. And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
CH4 can make their own rules, they said leaders and meant leaders, so empty chaired Johnson and Farage.
In addition, the other leaders apparently would have not taken part had Gove been allowed in. As you say, it was set up as a leaders debate, and Johnson declined the opportunity. He's entirely entitled to have done so, but not to complain about the consequences of his decision. "Subversion of democracy" LOL.
It was billed as a Climate debate. The name for it was Climate Debate and they were using the hashtag #ClimateDebate. Seems to me that having a senior Cabinet Minister who set the parties Climate policies would be eminently appropriate. Ofcom rules say representation must be given to parties, not leaders. Gove is entirely suited to represent the party. Had this been a debate on the economy would you have been approving of denying the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity to take part in that?
As the other party leaders would have walked out, he was being denied nothing. The Tories made their bed with their attitude to the Corbyn/Johnson debate. And their evidently frit leader.
If the other party leaders walk out then they can be empty chaired. That would be their decision.
My feeling at the momo is there are 4 elections going on 1) in a line south of the wash/bristol channel a rerun of 2017 with limited changes except for.. 2) london which is seeing a fracturing of labour dominance (that may well not translate into much seat wise this time around but will make the first post GE mayor polls interesting) 3) scotland which is becoming an SNP vs Tory slugfest with the SNP well ahead on points but the Tories possibly entrenching a few seats as safe Scottish havens. Lds just trying to save Jo and tread water, and possibly failing, labour gone gone gone and 4) the Midlands and north where my feeling is labour are overstated and are in for an absolute horror show. This is where the usual non voters/only voted fir Brexit I'll do it one more time votes are and are imo under the polling radar. There will be some eye watering swings Morning all by the way
Fwiw, while i'll wait a week to be confident, at the moment In this corner of the South it most certainly doesn't feel like 2017.
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
And you seem quite annoyed by it. I wonder why.
Because the Tories don't get treated the same as other parties, because in most cases the media do what they tell them to. As is evident by their threat to Channel 4
No - because your man wasn't clever enough.
And as for threats to the media - isn't it Corbyn wanting to "democratise" the media? There's a euphemism if I ever heard one.
Get over it and worry about defending your seats in blue-collar marginal constituencies where the majority of people do not give a monkeys uncle about this bubble tittle-tattle.
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
And you seem quite annoyed by it. I wonder why.
Because if Johnson thinks he deserves to lead this great country then he should submit himself to proper scrutiny. If he doesn't he is unworthy of the office, it's as simple as that. If you can't play the game fairly, you don't deserve to win. I thought that was one of the few useful things they taught at our great public schools.
We all know full well if Corbyn had ducked this debate the Tories here would be attacking him. Johnson is a coward and running scared, it's evidently obvious.
And you seem quite annoyed by it. I wonder why.
Amusing to see the veneer of interested engagement degenerate in to angry name calling over the last week. Hard to work out if its as they're excited they now have a chance, or they know they don't.
You can tell from labour politicians demeanor which it is. And that it's a lot worse than we suspect.
Comments
edit: @Gadfly 08:42
There are parallels with B2C microbusinesses turning down work to keep their turnover under £85k. Going that extra mile, getting their their turnover up to £100k lands them with a delightful £17k bill from HMRC and they find that the extra effort netted them £-2k.
Again, thanks for the detail.
I'm extremely curious about Warrington South. Conservative-held between 2010-2017 there has been a letter sent out to voters in Warrington South saying a vote for the Conservatives is a wasted vote, which is a bit strange given that the Tories are odds-on favourites for the seat and the Lib Dems are 66/1.
https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/1200351677892714496?s=20
Rating whether Bloomberg is a bit less improbable than Clinton (or not) doesn't make all that much of a difference.
What really concerns me is that the hoped-for tactical unwind SCon to SLD just does not seem to have materialised, and that really hinders my party. We were banking on that!
Also, Ruth Davidson’s departure has, as I suspected, actually strengthened SCon support, not damaged it. She was a deadweight round your necks, as all can see now. Told ya so!!
All we need to really put a dampener on events is a SLab recovery, and I consider that a very real possibility.
Not a particularly happy bunny.
(Word of warning from a former Baxter addict: consume with caution!)
Telling voters in a seat where the Tories are odds on to vote Lib Dem is bizarre at the very least don't you think? I'm curious what Mike thought about Warrington South to make him think that Conservative voters should vote Lib Dem does that make Political Betting sense?
Do these look like the odds of a seat where Conservatives should tactically vote Liberal Democrat?
If you want my vote you have to work for it.
1) in a line south of the wash/bristol channel a rerun of 2017 with limited changes except for..
2) london which is seeing a fracturing of labour dominance (that may well not translate into much seat wise this time around but will make the first post GE mayor polls interesting)
3) scotland which is becoming an SNP vs Tory slugfest with the SNP well ahead on points but the Tories possibly entrenching a few seats as safe Scottish havens. Lds just trying to save Jo and tread water, and possibly failing, labour gone gone gone and
4) the Midlands and north where my feeling is labour are overstated and are in for an absolute horror show. This is where the usual non voters/only voted fir Brexit I'll do it one more time votes are and are imo under the polling radar. There will be some eye watering swings
Morning all by the way
I'm surprised it's not illegal and, unless it's being done without his consent, seriously undermining his brand.
And if you can't work out from first principles how the matter should have been dealt with, the BBC and Corbyn have helpfully given you a masterclass. He is sending RLB to a leaders' debate in his place tonight, and everyone is fine with that. Which makes ch4's infantile subversion of democracy look even sillier than it did.
Can’t vote for someone for whom I have zero respect.
As for Johnson's words this morning, apologies if I think even the chilling effect of the briefing against CH4 is more important than the words of known liar and untrustworthy bastard, Johnson.
https://twitter.com/manny_ottawa/status/1200059221972279297
https://twitter.com/AnnieWellsMSP/status/1198184251264516096?s=20
As for Ch4 it is state owned and it should be sold off next Parliament. Not sure how much the government can make from privatising it but its long overdue privatisation. That has nothing to do with last night, the state has no business in the 2020s owning TV Channels.
They also pulled a provocative partisan stunt on it too to highlight it, which they advertised on their twitter.
If they’d just said, “sadly, the leaders of the Cons and BXP have declined to attend but we’ll be going ahead anyway” there wouldn’t have been such a fuss.
"Subversion of democracy" LOL.
The difference is that Johnson is lazy and isn’t ideological and only lies to further his career and his own personal interests, which makes him less dangerous.
Ofcom rules say representation must be given to parties, not leaders. Gove is entirely suited to represent the party.
Had this been a debate on the economy would you have been approving of denying the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity to take part in that?
The difference is that Johnson is lazy and isn’t ideological and only lies to further his career and his own personal interests, which makes him less dangerous.
Some of these seats though it is entirely unsuitable. If the Our Genial Host seriously thinks the Liberal Democrats are in the running to win Warrington South then I'm curious the logic and given the odds of 66/1 available I wonder how much he's got riding on that? Similar for the other seats that both the polls and odds show the Lib Dems are nowhere near.
Very very dangerous.
https://twitter.com/shaun_vids
To reciprocate. Yvette Cooper.
Other broadcasters have always accepted whoever the party sends instead of the leader if that is done because that is what the rules say.
There is nothing in Ofcom rules to say representation can only be offered to Party Leaders, especially on a specialised subject debate where the subject specialist goes instead.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K-ABf5qs4zTFzHv6koLY0mEJyGi2VGWF4sWswDmJquk/edit#gid=0
2019 newly eligibles (18-20 or naturalised) - 2.5% of 2019 electorate
Break 0.5% (of total electorate) Con, 1.2% Labour
2019 previous DNVs - 10.8% of 2019 electorate
Break 4.4% Con, 3.0% Lab
The figures for those no longer voting are not so explicit, so a couple of first order approximations have been made
(1) that 2019 electoral roll is of similar size to 2017 - roll size hasn't changed by much judging by end of year stats, so 1% of 2017 electorate is approx 1% of 2019 el
2019 no longer eligibles (died or
Interesting because few normal polls are quite so explicit on voter changeover, so the standard common knowledge of demographic assumptions, that things will trend leftwards, is rarely challenged in numbers .
https://twitter.com/Aiannucci/status/1200352921243787264?s=19
The Tories made their bed with their attitude to the Corbyn/Johnson debate. And their evidently frit leader.
https://labourlist.org/2019/11/labours-green-industrial-revolution-popular-in-red-wall-seats-poll-finds/
I wouldn't have expected that the Northwest and Midlands would be the regions most fired up by climate change, or that 63% of Leave voters would think it an important issue. The subject has penetrated further that some of us have assumed.
Apart from last election when Labour came second, Lib Dems have always done well here. Hinds had a majority of something like 7000 at one point, which isn't that large bearing in mind it's 30,000 now.
I don't think he'll lose his seat - but his majority is going to be cut down a lot. And he might lose it next time.
If his majority gets cut in half say, the Tories are in deep trouble in the South.
Channel 4 is not permitted to create its own media rules. Ofcom creates the rules.
Pull that confirmation bias finger out your arse.
And as for threats to the media - isn't it Corbyn wanting to "democratise" the media? There's a euphemism if I ever heard one.
Get over it and worry about defending your seats in blue-collar marginal constituencies where the majority of people do not give a monkeys uncle about this bubble tittle-tattle.
If you can't play the game fairly, you don't deserve to win. I thought that was one of the few useful things they taught at our great public schools.