1. The race has definitely tightened, but the Tory lead has only shrunk to about where it was at the time of the dissolution of Parliament. So far anyway. 2. The Liberal Democrat numbers for 24-30 November are remarkably consistent: out of ten surveys, one gives them 15%, one gives them 14%, and all the other eight show 13%. This may prove critical: if the Lib Dems have begun to flatline then Labour could struggle to make further progress - unless the ex-Labour voters who have deserted to the Tories over Corbyn and Brexit have an attack of the wobbles between now and polling day, which is by no means impossible.
1. Due to the Farage surrender there is a systematic reason why a Tory lead of x% now is worth less than x% at the start of November, as there will be a lot of extra Tory votes in safe seats that were previously Brexit Party votes. 2. My reading of last night's polls was that this had happened a bit, and Labour Leavers were coming home. No idea whether they will continue, but if it's happened a little bit that makes it seem more likely than if it hadn't.
I disagree. What we seem to be seeing, according to Yougov, is a significant reduction of the Tory vote in the south and London but generally in seats where it is going to make very little difference and a much bigger swing to the Tories in areas like the midlands and the NW where it can make a lot of difference as there are a lot of marginal seats. At the moment I am expecting the Tory vote to be a lot more efficient than it was in 2017. These models showing very small majorities on leads of 9% are, IMO, simply wrong.
Surely the BXP standing aside affects the efficiency of the tory vote?
The narrative for the GE has shifted following the London Bridge terrorist incident and now the NATO conference due this week
This shift has come at the worst time for Corbyn whose history is not one that gives the public confidence he can keep us safe
I expect Boris will take advantage of this development but the one caveat is how he deals with the toxic Trump
Johnson is lying in the Mail on Sunday today, but Corbyn gives him a free pass. You can only observe Johnson’s mendacity and despair, once more, at the selfish stupidity of Labour members. Thanks to them a lying charlatan will have five years to wreak havoc on our courts, constitution and country, while unleashing bigotry and inflicting significant harm on millions. Shame on them forever.
I hope you are wrong about Boris but the one thing we and many must despair about is Corbyn being the labour leader. He is responsible for the mess we are in and a big defeat for Corbyn is a necessary to allow the labour party come back from the abyss over the coming years
Seriously, you are blaming Corbyn for the mess the country is in, rather than the people who have actually been in charge for the last decade?
Yes. Corbyn should have come out for remain from day one and brexit would not happen
What a ridiculous thing to say Big G
No it is not. Labour being 100% remain would have achieved a remain majority
Sorry i am an Accountant that is incorrect perhaps you should try
“Are you going to be interviewed by Andrew Neil” “I’m perfectly happy to be...” [interrupts] “are you meeting Donald Trump this week?” “Of course I’m meeting the...” [interrupt] “I’m sorry we’re out of time” I don’t think this approach enlightens anyone
You hear about these "car crash" interviews. Its rare where the interviewee suffers the car crash, is in the driving seat, and having crashed backs his own car up to run over himself time and time again
Because its true! Johnson - hospitals are terrible. Schools are terrible. Justice system is terrible. Economy is terrible. Not my fault. Only been in office 100 days. But his PARTY has been in office for TEN YEARS. And is directly responsible for everything he doesn't like.
Even Boris's 20,000 more police is an exact response to 20,000 police cut by Theresa May under David Cameron.
Ex senior copper on BBC earlier today pointing out that it wasn't just actual police that were cut, it was the support staff and facilities and there's no suggestion of any improvement there.
“Are you going to be interviewed by Andrew Neil” “I’m perfectly happy to be...” [interrupts] “are you meeting Donald Trump this week?” “Of course I’m meeting the...” [interrupt] “I’m sorry we’re out of time” I don’t think this approach enlightens anyone
Letting him answer is more harmful to Johnson than not, so they should just do so.
@Foxy have you got any prediction for today's game? I imagine your beloved Foxes will do very well - I can't see the Toffees having either the ability to do well away, nor will they ever do LFC a favour.
We often hear from those trying to excuse Boris Johnson's cowardice in avoiding scrutiny that he shouldn't have to go to the leaders debates or do interviews because it's not a presidential election, we vote for a party. Well the Tory Party has been in power for 9 years now, so what does it matter whether that Johnson only just arrived as PM. He leads a party responsible for doing nothing on this terrorist issue, and his party are solely blame. It's a complete fabrication to suggest that we can vote for his party to keep us safe from terror.
Speaking as someone who hasn’t seen the interview but has heard what’s been clipped for the news on the radio, it seem to me Boris for his message out.
1. The race has definitely tightened, but the Tory lead has only shrunk to about where it was at the time of the dissolution of Parliament. So far anyway. 2. The Liberal Democrat numbers for 24-30 November are remarkably consistent: out of ten surveys, one gives them 15%, one gives them 14%, and all the other eight show 13%. This may prove critical: if the Lib Dems have begun to flatline then Labour could struggle to make further progress - unless the ex-Labour voters who have deserted to the Tories over Corbyn and Brexit have an attack of the wobbles between now and polling day, which is by no means impossible.
1. Due to the Farage surrender there is a systematic reason why a Tory lead of x% now is worth less than x% at the start of November, as there will be a lot of extra Tory votes in safe seats that were previously Brexit Party votes. 2. My reading of last night's polls was that this had happened a bit, and Labour Leavers were coming home. No idea whether they will continue, but if it's happened a little bit that makes it seem more likely than if it hadn't.
Everything keeps coming back to those Labour Leavers, doesn't it? If they vote Tory then Johnson wins, but if they all run back home then the Conservatives will probably go backwards and we'll end up with a Labour minority Government.
What we could really do with from the next clutch of constituency polls is a few from the tight Labour defences in the West Midlands and the North. If those stack up with the MRP the way last night's did then there would be further evidence that the model is working and the Tory majority will come to pass.
Besides, if UNS does not apply in this election and there are outsized Lab-to-Con swings taking place in the Labour Leave seats then the Tories could survive some wobblers going back home, so long as they don't all do it.
After 2017 I remain highly sceptical that the Labour Leavers won't all turn back into automatons in the polling booth, but given the relative success of the MRP in 2017 and the measure of corroboration offered to its findings by this weekend's polling evidence, I'm a little more open than I was to the possibility that the Tories might pull this one off.
Second to the need for constituency polls in the Midlands and North. Like you I thibknlabour leavers will stay at home or return home to labour, at least enough to see the tories get close but fall short in many seats, and a local view would help.
So the Boris interview sounds like Spurs last 10 seconds yesterday, a thrashing and flailing of confusion and uncertainty in defence, entirely painful viewing but no decisive goal conceded versus a supposedly easy opponent....
All these people who are voting Lib Dem because Johnson is a liar and untrustworthy. How do they square away Swinson's signing the pledge not to vote to raise tuition fees in 2010? Yeah, I know "it's different" and she has quite young at the time. But she'd served a full term as an MP by then. There's cast iron evidence that her word is meaningless to her.
There is a difference between lying, over-promising, and making a u-turn.
I think Swinson very likely believed that party policy would be not to raise tuition fees. The policy was then u-turned well above her pay grade. That is different to someone outright lying, as Johnson just did on NI checks just now as one of many examples.
I get that, I really do. It was a rotten position for Clegg to put his MPs into: forced to choose between honouring their word and supporting their party when it was at a major crossroads. But seriously: if you're standing for election as an MP, you have to have the moral courage to do what's right. She signed her name to that pledge (as did all the others) and it's legitimate to ask why she, as nearly all the others, failed to follow through. There's a huge difference between that pledge and an ordinary manifesto commitment, to my mind. This is especially relevant given that her current position is not to put Corbyn in power, and that she had explicitly laid out different paths on Brexit for a Lib Dem majority government vs a hung parliament. Why should anyone believe she won't ultimately find a reason to support Corbyn as PM to help stop Brexit?
1. Due to the Farage surrender there is a systematic reason why a Tory lead of x% now is worth less than x% at the start of November, as there will be a lot of extra Tory votes in safe seats that were previously Brexit Party votes. 2. My reading of last night's polls was that this had happened a bit, and Labour Leavers were coming home. No idea whether they will continue, but if it's happened a little bit that makes it seem more likely than if it hadn't.
I think the Tories have a potentially winning lead, but it's important that punters understand point 1 in the technical sense. Most pollsters are now giving respondents their actual local choice, and in more than half the seats there is no Brexit candidate. It seems safe to assume that BXP voters will go Tory in these seats, and none of those votes will make any difference unless someone hopes to gain a Tory seat.
If the BXP vote in Tory seats is, say, 4-5%, then you need to reduce the overall Tory lead *for the purposes of gaining seats* by 2-3%. This doesn't allow for all the other factors in both directions - BXP supporters voting tactically Tory even where the party is standing, incumbency bonus for the anti-Tory, tactical voting, other local factors. But it does mean that if the national lead is shown as (say) 10%, then the lead for the purposes of the Tories winning seats is probably around 7-8%.
No it doesn't because there are more moving parts. if the Lib Dems or even a remain supporting Labour candidate is doing much better in such seats than the opposition did in 2017 then the Tory vote is more efficient, not less, and there are more Tory votes available for marginal seats. That is what the detailed Yougov polling showed which is why they were showing such a large majority. It might change but right now the Tories are on track for a 50+ majority.
If the only issue with Johnson was that he is a liar, i wouldn't have a (massive) problem. However unfortunately he is also profoundly lazy, has no real underlying philosophy or world view to underpin his actions, no discernable leadership qualities or ability to bring people together, intellectual shallowness and lack of appreciation of the necessity for understanding (or at least acknowledgement of) detail...
Maybe he could get his majority and the Tories ditch him immediately? We can but hope...
We often hear from those trying to excuse Boris Johnson's cowardice in avoiding scrutiny that he shouldn't have to go to the leaders debates or do interviews because it's not a presidential election, we vote for a party. Well the Tory Party has been in power for 9 years now, so what does it matter whether that Johnson only just arrived as PM. He leads a party responsible for doing nothing on this terrorist issue, and his party are solely blame. It's a complete fabrication to suggest that we can vote for his party to keep us safe from terror.
'Well the Tory Party has been in power for 9 years now, so what does it matter whether that Johnson only just arrived as PM. ' That is obviously, from the interview, not how Boris sees it. He, and those around him, had nothing to do with what happened then,
All we took away from that was Marr's utter contempt for Boris.
Contempt for a liars and cowards is perfectly natural.
Not when it is his job to conduct forensic political examination. It is for the viewers to decide whether Boris is a liar and a coward - on the basis of his answers to questions put to him. Not for Marr to have that as his start and end point. Marr's hatred oozing from every pore was not the BBC at its best.
He is right they have been meddling and invading all these countries for many years with their pals from the US and created most of the chaos and terrorism.
So the ideology which animates them has nothing to do with the terrorism, does it?
British forces have been on constant combat operations in the Middle East for 28 years - killing almost exclusively muslims. How long do think they'll have to keep doing it before we're "safe"?
It is possible to think such military interventions largely pointless (and often counter-productive) and also realise that Islamist terror is animated by an ideology and not just a response to Western actions. Those who focus on the latter and ignore the former - like Corbyn - do so because to admit the existence of an ideology with very different views about law, democracy, the role of religion in public life, free thought etc would raise difficult questions for those who think that those believing in the ideology are only ever victims and not also responsible for some pretty gruesome behaviour themselves.
Well said. We can be awfully infantilising about the middle east and while interventions are of great importance it's not everything, especially when some of the tensions go back a lot lot longer. Its usually peddled by people with their own simplistic narrative to comfort an ideology they hold.
Labour voter (talking about class war so presumably to the left of the party) Undecided / former Labour Chair of a Lib Dem campaign group Undecided Undecided / former conservative
The narrative for the GE has shifted following the London Bridge terrorist incident and now the NATO conference due this week
This shift has come at the worst time for Corbyn whose history is not one that gives the public confidence he can keep us safe
I expect Boris will take advantage of this development but the one caveat is how he deals with the toxic Trump
Johnson is lying in the Mail on Sunday today, but Corbyn gives him a free pass. You can only observe Johnson’s mendacity and despair, once more, at the selfish stupidity of Labour members. Thanks to them a lying charlatan will have five years to wreak havoc on our courts, constitution and country, while unleashing bigotry and inflicting significant harm on millions. Shame on them forever.
I hope you are wrong about Boris but the one thing we and many must despair about is Corbyn being the labour leader. He is responsible for the mess we are in and a big defeat for Corbyn is a necessary to allow the labour party come back from the abyss over the coming years
There is a straight and demonstrable lie in Johnson’s MoS article. So I am not wrong, unfortunately. If he is happy to lie about terrorism he will lie about anything.
I cannot comment on the MOS as I have not read it.
It will be interesting to see how Johnson rows back from his promise to be interviewed by Neil.
I don’t think he now needs to. It’s been built up so much he can only surprise on the upside (to those of us who even care in the first place). Boris rarely gives up any “gotcha” moments in these things. He wibbles around and creates something that can’t be clipped, except the one or two phrases he wants to get out there. He’s not stupid.
“Are you going to be interviewed by Andrew Neil” “I’m perfectly happy to be...” [interrupts] “are you meeting Donald Trump this week?” “Of course I’m meeting the...” [interrupt] “I’m sorry we’re out of time” I don’t think this approach enlightens anyone
Raising Trump out of the blue was a gaffe by Marr, who had clearly intended to finish by probing ChickenBoris about hiding from Neil. That the PM will meet Trump at the summit is already known and when Bozo admitted it, Marr had no followup. Noticeable was that Bozo started by ignoring the question as per his playbook, then a light went off in his head that if he talked about the summit he wouldn’t be talking about hiding from Neil. And so they ran out of time
Neil himself would never have gone off on his own tangent like that.
We often hear from those trying to excuse Boris Johnson's cowardice in avoiding scrutiny that he shouldn't have to go to the leaders debates or do interviews because it's not a presidential election, we vote for a party. Well the Tory Party has been in power for 9 years now, so what does it matter whether that Johnson only just arrived as PM. He leads a party responsible for doing nothing on this terrorist issue, and his party are solely blame. It's a complete fabrication to suggest that we can vote for his party to keep us safe from terror.
'Well the Tory Party has been in power for 9 years now, so what does it matter whether that Johnson only just arrived as PM. ' That is obviously, from the interview, not how Boris sees it. He, and those around him, had nothing to do with what happened then,
Not that i had a problem with it, but didn't he send Gove to speak for the government on climate change because of his considerable experience of delivering Conservative policy as Environment minister (under the May Government...)?
1. Due to the Farage surrender there is a systematic reason why a Tory lead of x% now is worth less than x% at the start of November, as there will be a lot of extra Tory votes in safe seats that were previously Brexit Party votes. 2. My reading of last night's polls was that this had happened a bit, and Labour Leavers were coming home. No idea whether they will continue, but if it's happened a little bit that makes it seem more likely than if it hadn't.
I think the Tories have a potentially winning lead, but it's important that punters understand point 1 in the technical sense. Most pollsters are now giving respondents their actual local choice, and in more than half the seats there is no Brexit candidate. It seems safe to assume that BXP voters will go Tory in these seats, and none of those votes will make any difference unless someone hopes to gain a Tory seat.
If the BXP vote in Tory seats is, say, 4-5%, then you need to reduce the overall Tory lead *for the purposes of gaining seats* by 2-3%. This doesn't allow for all the other factors in both directions - BXP supporters voting tactically Tory even where the party is standing, incumbency bonus for the anti-Tory, tactical voting, other local factors. But it does mean that if the national lead is shown as (say) 10%, then the lead for the purposes of the Tories winning seats is probably around 7-8%.
No it doesn't because there are more moving parts. if the Lib Dems or even a remain supporting Labour candidate is doing much better in such seats than the opposition did in 2017 then the Tory vote is more efficient, not less, and there are more Tory votes available for marginal seats. That is what the detailed Yougov polling showed which is why they were showing such a large majority. It might change but right now the Tories are on track for a 50+ majority.
Swinson may grow to be a good leader; the LD's have not really had such since Charlie Kennedy sank into alcoholism and then defeat.
All we took away from that was Marr's utter contempt for Boris.
And who can blame him? Does anyone actually have any respect for the mendacious disingenuous racist buffoon who is masquerading as our PM?
Yes, millions do, sorry to break it to you. Millions respect Corbyn too even before a bump in support from those that don't and even assuming some dont respect them but will vote for them.
Boris seems to have won an election 100 days ago, the way he's talking on Marr. He isn't responsible for anything that happened before then. I must have missed it.
"For TEN YEARS you've done nothing about it". Marr smashing Shagger round the head with the basics that he can't credibly blame the last Labour government when the Tories have had 10 years to change the laws they don't like
Context: the Marr show averages about two million viewers. At a guess, about one million of them will be those very interested in politics and, therefore, already decided on how to vote, and the other million will have it on as background noise and not notice any of the content. Johnson can get away with a few awkward moments the same way as he can get away with turning down Andrew Neil and the Channel 4 invite. The great mass of the electorate doesn't watch these events (many of whom won't even have begun to engage with the election,) those who do will be the very interested and will therefore have largely settled opinions, and the "being frit" charge can be deflected because he has accepted the head-to-heads with Corbyn. The anger over the no-shows can thus be presented as broadcasters having a fit of pique and trying to make the election all about them. It's also helpful that Corbyn isn't doing all of these events either: he also sent a substitute to the BBC seven-way debate on Friday. The main aim of the whole interview and debate cycle is to minimise the numbers of appearances and, when they do happen, to generate as few viral video clip cock-ups for Labour to post on anti-social media as possible. It doesn't follow that it's the right thing to do from the point of view of submitting to public scrutiny, but it arguably is the right thing to do from a purely party political standpoint. The Tory PR operation has probably judged Johnson's media schedule correctly.
That’s well said. The media and politicians feed off each other, and right now they’re both terrible at engaging with the public in any meaningful way.
It will be interesting to see how Johnson rows back from his promise to be interviewed by Neil.
He will just say I have already been interviewed by an excellent BBC interviewer called Andrew, not to mention Sky, LBC and everyone else! Then bumble along about microwaves and get it done. And the public will vote for it!
Good campaigner, intelligent a wizard with words, oozing charisma etc etc where did fantasy of Johnson come from?
If he wins on the 12th it’ll be the retrospective narrative that he was a brilliant campaigner and ran rings around his critics. That happened in London when the campaigns looked pretty average from the outside. My sense is the media is keen to built up a “close race” narrative now so that by the end of the week they can switch to “comeback” and say it was the debate wot won it*. Makes it more about them. *Either way. If Corbyn wins they’ll say it was then that he sealed the deal.
Like every other side. All politicians lie all the time. They distort, choose selective stats and plain lie. It is their function. Our job as the electorate is to choose the best of a bad job. That seems to be Boris.
This sounds like sterile cynicism wearily adopted to justify something which in truth is impossible to justify.
All we took away from that was Marr's utter contempt for Boris.
Contempt for a liars and cowards is perfectly natural.
But it does not contribute to the debate when the interviewer is so hostile
Johnson handpicked Marr and could not handle the result. No wonder he runs away from Neil. His lightweight laziness is a gift to those he will be negotiating with over the next few years.
The issue over terrorism for both sides is that they are both terrible on it in different ways, Johnson talks big but has no real plan and Corbyn fundamentally hates the western mindset which is why he wants to get rid of Prevent.
I don't agree with that. The UK does a very good job of combatting terrorism. The vast majority of terrorist plots go nowhere, and most arrests for terrorism offences occur before an attack has taken place. So the success rate is very high, even if it is inevitably impossible to stop all attacks.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
It's not though. That's why he was reelected as mayor. Corbyn is an utter embarrassment to British politics. This before we get on to his racism and that of his supporters
Because its true! Johnson - hospitals are terrible. Schools are terrible. Justice system is terrible. Economy is terrible. Not my fault. Only been in office 100 days. But his PARTY has been in office for TEN YEARS. And is directly responsible for everything he doesn't like.
But none of those things are terrible. They are all creaking a little through capacity problems. But there’re not terrible. Almost a million new school places, millions more operations and go appointments. No negative economic growth for a decade, miniscule inflation and full employment.
All these people who are voting Lib Dem because Johnson is a liar and untrustworthy. How do they square away Swinson's signing the pledge not to vote to raise tuition fees in 2010? Yeah, I know "it's different" and she has quite young at the time. But she'd served a full term as an MP by then. There's cast iron evidence that her word is meaningless to her.
There is a difference between lying, over-promising, and making a u-turn.
I think Swinson very likely believed that party policy would be not to raise tuition fees. The policy was then u-turned well above her pay grade. That is different to someone outright lying, as Johnson just did on NI checks just now as one of many examples.
I get that, I really do. It was a rotten position for Clegg to put his MPs into: forced to choose between honouring their word and supporting their party when it was at a major crossroads. But seriously: if you're standing for election as an MP, you have to have the moral courage to do what's right. She signed her name to that pledge (as did all the others) and it's legitimate to ask why she, as nearly all the others, failed to follow through. There's a huge difference between that pledge and an ordinary manifesto commitment, to my mind. This is especially relevant given that her current position is not to put Corbyn in power, and that she had explicitly laid out different paths on Brexit for a Lib Dem majority government vs a hung parliament. Why should anyone believe she won't ultimately find a reason to support Corbyn as PM to help stop Brexit?
More importantly, Swinson can be castigated for making a political decision only. Boris has lied to his wives, his employer, his leader (Howard), his constituents (on Heathrow), the TV audience (almost everything he has said about the recent attack) etc. He is incapable of telling the truth and that makes him fundamentally different.
1. Due to the Farage surrender there is a systematic reason why a Tory lead of x% now is worth less than x% at the start of November, as there will be a lot of extra Tory votes in safe seats that were previously Brexit Party votes. 2. My reading of last night's polls was that this had happened a bit, and Labour Leavers were coming home. No idea whether they will continue, but if it's happened a little bit that makes it seem more likely than if it hadn't.
I think the Tories have a potentially winning lead, but it's important that punters understand point 1 in the technical sense. Most pollsters are now giving respondents their actual local choice, and in more than half the seats there is no Brexit candidate. It seems safe to assume that BXP voters will go Tory in these seats, and none of those votes will make any difference unless someone hopes to gain a Tory seat.
If the BXP vote in Tory seats is, say, 4-5%, then you need to reduce the overall Tory lead *for the purposes of gaining seats* by 2-3%. This doesn't allow for all the other factors in both directions - BXP supporters voting tactically Tory even where the party is standing, incumbency bonus for the anti-Tory, tactical voting, other local factors. But it does mean that if the national lead is shown as (say) 10%, then the lead for the purposes of the Tories winning seats is probably around 7-8%.
No it doesn't because there are more moving parts. if the Lib Dems or even a remain supporting Labour candidate is doing much better in such seats than the opposition did in 2017 then the Tory vote is more efficient, not less, and there are more Tory votes available for marginal seats. That is what the detailed Yougov polling showed which is why they were showing such a large majority. It might change but right now the Tories are on track for a 50+ majority.
Yes, i don't believe that Tories are rushing back to the Tories to keep Corbyn out in seats which are clearly Tory/Lib Dem contests. I expect the LibDem vote to be up massively in these seats, and most from Tory-LibDem converts. Which, if the Tories are still at 42-43% will indicate a big improvement in Tory voting efficiency. Remember, on a like for like basis Brexit will not reduce Tory vote efficiency - compared with 2017. They may be taking away potential Tory votes, but these will largely be potential Tory votes who voted Labour in 2017.
The more interesting places are some of the West London Tory-Lab battlegrounds where i also expect the LibDem vote to rise significantly. The question there is whether it will be from Tory defectors (who may well return 'home' in these seats) or a reversal of the pro-(Labour) remain tactical voting in 2017.
I didn’t watch Marr, I think we overstate the influence of these shows. What weirdos want to watch politics on a Sunday morning. However key to avoid any gotcha moments that a wider viewing public might see on the news and the internet for days after. Main takeaway from social media seems to be anti Boris crowd angry with Marr for doing a crap job of interrogating him.
Sounds like another hurdle negotiated by the PM, I also feel by doing Marr he now has a lot less pressure to do Neil.
He leads a party responsible for doing nothing on this terrorist issue, and his party are solely blame. It's a complete fabrication to suggest that we can vote for his party to keep us safe from terror.
Complete nonsense. The UK disrupts lots of terrorism plots every year, and many arrests and prosecutions take place.
Because its true! Johnson - hospitals are terrible. Schools are terrible. Justice system is terrible. Economy is terrible. Not my fault. Only been in office 100 days. But his PARTY has been in office for TEN YEARS. And is directly responsible for everything he doesn't like.
But none of those things are terrible. They are all creaking a little through capacity problems. But there’re not terrible. Almost a million new school places, millions more operations and go appointments. No negative economic growth for a decade, miniscule inflation and full employment.
That is a perfectly reasonable argument. Not what the PM is saying though, he is saying he has only been in office 100 days, and has magic wands to make them all super duper.
Chuka on script with the LibDem’s new pitch to be the Bozo majority stoppers.
As opposed to his script from two years ago that only Labour could beat the Tories, and LD was a wasted vote? Sounds like he’s just desperately pleading to win his own seat!
The reality is he is conceding that he isn't the best candidate for the seat. A candidate should stand on his own merits - yes with the support of his party of course. But when you start all this you should vote for me, A, because B can't defeat C and Voters for D are thick as shit etc etc you are just saying one of the others would actually be a better MP for this seat than me but if we gang up on him then we can defeat him.
To continue the perversity of it all it is the lack of votes for Chukka and his friends which is probably giving Tory candidates more sleepless nights at this election than anything else !
To think someone on PB once said that Bozo had gravitas!
I believe they said later theyd used the wrong word.
That was me and I accepted I meant charisma and not gravitas.
He does not have gravitas
I don't think he has that either
In that you are probably wrong though. I do not like Boris one bit, but I dont think his having charisma is disputable. Without it his rise is utterly inexplicable as he is not ideologically driven or pure, hes not morally upstanding, hes not as clever as he thinks he is, and hes not a diligent, hard working man. Other than charisma what else lies behind his political success? I think a lot of people do not like him therefore declare he is not charismatic, but that doesnt follow. Although people overdo the comparison Trump is charismatic and hes a hateful arsehole. Boris is able to fascinate, both in amusement and contempt, and like an actor having screen presence it's hard to explain or quantify. But he has it.
Like every other side. All politicians lie all the time. They distort, choose selective stats and plain lie. It is their function. Our job as the electorate is to choose the best of a bad job. That seems to be Boris.
This sounds like sterile cynicism wearily adopted to justify something which in truth is impossible to justify.
Not at all, it is the pragmatic choice that we face in the real world. Those who support politicians unequivocally and without qualification are truly deluded and doomed to disappointment. Such support is for football teams not governments. Politicians are human and tend to be a particularly flawed variety. But that does not excuse us from choosing.
Its a bit like Brexit. Both sides lied through their teeth. The argument that those who voted for either side bought or supported all of those lies is childish and absurd. But persistent, sadly.
Poor old Toenails Robinson, dumped by the left. And then there's "Tory Swinson" too as well hiding out as a Lib Dem leader? These lot get everywhere, blues under the bed next.
He is right they have been meddling and invading all these countries for many years with their pals from the US and created most of the chaos and terrorism.
So the ideology which animates them has nothing to do with the terrorism, does it?
British forces have been on constant combat operations in the Middle East for 28 years - killing almost exclusively muslims. How long do think they'll have to keep doing it before we're "safe"?
It is possible to think such military interventions largely pointless (and often counter-productive) and also realise that Islamist terror is animated by an ideology and not just a response to Western actions. Those who focus on the latter and ignore the former - like Corbyn - do so because to admit the existence of an ideology with very different views about law, democracy, the role of religion in public life, free thought etc would raise difficult questions for those who think that those believing in the ideology are only ever victims and not also responsible for some pretty gruesome behaviour themselves.
Well said. We can be awfully infantilising about the middle east and while interventions are of great importance it's not everything, especially when some of the tensions go back a lot lot longer. Its usually peddled by people with their own simplistic narrative to comfort an ideology they hold.
Corbyn's attack on Johnson (supposedly pandering to warmonger Trump) looks absurd when Trump is accelerating US withdrawal from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. What more could Corbyn ask for?
Boris intends to be interviewed by Neil but only after the Postal votes have safely been collected. Indeed, this is the entirety of the election strategy for the Tories.
I didn’t watch Marr, I think we overstate the influence of these shows. What weirdos want to watch politics on a Sunday morning. However key to avoid any gotcha moments that a wider viewing public might see on the news and the internet for days after. Main takeaway from social media seems to be anti Boris crowd angry with Marr for doing a crap job of interrogating him.
Sounds like another hurdle negotiated by the PM, I also feel by doing Marr he now has a lot less pressure to do Neil.
Except for the slight problem that in trying to be clever, he said that he was prepared to be interviewed by anyone named Andrew on the BBC.
Those who focus on the latter and ignore the former - like Corbyn - do so because to admit the existence of an ideology with very different views about law, democracy, the role of religion in public life, free thought etc would raise difficult questions for those who think that those believing in the ideology are only ever victims and not also responsible for some pretty gruesome behaviour themselves.
Rather ironic given that Corbyn and his Marxist cabal seem to have almost religious belief in their own ideology
Good campaigner, intelligent a wizard with words, oozing charisma etc etc where did fantasy of Johnson come from?
From the imagination of Tory supporters outside of London who assume that Boris must have done a hell of job to get elected twice, but forgetting that Boris was up against Ken Livingstone. I'd vote for a dead dog to be Mayor over Livingstone.
Greens in favour of legalisation and regulation of ALL drugs not just cannabis
Austerity should “never have started”
Is this their actual policy or is this just a nutty individual in London?
I agree with the first policy 100%. Prohibition has failed. I'd rather all drugs were dispensed via a well regulated pharmacist like Boots the Chemist than a dodgy drug dealer with zero regulations.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
Unfair. He succeeded in London in the same way as a top comedian - he made us laugh. From bendy buses which did not work to suggesting double decker trains that would not fit under bridges, to supporting bridges which were never getting built, and who can forget the airport in the sea? And all of that is without his habit of showing a grasp of numbers in the Diane Abbott category or of having a strange fascination with dangly things (no, not those, zip wires and cable cars).
I'm not going to comment on last night's national polling except to say that partisans will read into them what they want to see. This is one of Mike Smithson's Golden Rule issues. Certainly there's a poll for just about everyone.
It's too soon to write off a Conservative majority. However, I'm certain the country is not in landslide mood. I base that on things I'm picking up, including a fairly astonishing moment (to me) yesterday afternoon when a group of young professional men, with property investment, began laying into the Conservatives. I lived through the 1997 election and this is NOT 1997. For all the dislike of Corbyn there is also considerable antipathy towards Boris Johnson & chums.
All I will state is that the two most extraordinary polls last night were the constituency ones of Portsmouth South and Esher & Walton. Tactical Voting, including Remain anger, will be a significant feature in this General Election.
For this reason I continue to believe we will have a hung parliament and I am betting accordingly.
I think you are wrong.
The most interesting constituency poll was Berwick which showed a 7.5% Lab to Con swing.
Every other of these constituency polls for the Guardian has been in London and the South-East.
Best result remains a 100 seat Conservative majority, Johnson loses his seat, and Labour grows some balls and either axes Corbyn or the decent MPs live up to that name and walk out.
Jess Phillips[sp] and the like blathering about how they oppose Corbyn whilst campaigning for him to be PM is just pathetic.
Boris intends to be interviewed by Neil but only after the Postal votes have safely been collected. Indeed, this is the entirety of the election strategy for the Tories.
I said that over a week ago -in reality he can't avoid it but he can and will minimise the impact.
Comments
If you have 3 apples......
“Are you going to be interviewed by Andrew Neil”
“I’m perfectly happy to be...”
[interrupts] “are you meeting Donald Trump this week?”
“Of course I’m meeting the...”
[interrupt] “I’m sorry we’re out of time”
I don’t think this approach enlightens anyone
Does anyone actually have any respect for the mendacious disingenuous racist buffoon who is masquerading as our PM?
This is especially relevant given that her current position is not to put Corbyn in power, and that she had explicitly laid out different paths on Brexit for a Lib Dem majority government vs a hung parliament. Why should anyone believe she won't ultimately find a reason to support Corbyn as PM to help stop Brexit?
what a bleak choice.
Maybe he could get his majority and the Tories ditch him immediately? We can but hope...
He does not have gravitas
That is obviously, from the interview, not how Boris sees it. He, and those around him, had nothing to do with what happened then,
Will you face a proper interviewer instead of a spacko like me PM?
Marr's hatred oozing from every pore was not the BBC at its best.
LOL
(Focus group)
Labour voter (talking about class war so presumably to the left of the party)
Undecided / former Labour
Chair of a Lib Dem campaign group
Undecided
Undecided / former conservative
Doesn’t seem very balanced to me
Corbyn makes jam.
As are @BBCLAURAK, Nick Robinson and Neil
The latter is a professional though
Neil himself would never have gone off on his own tangent like that.
Austerity should “never have started”
Is this their actual policy or is this just a nutty individual in London?
My sense is the media is keen to built up a “close race” narrative now so that by the end of the week they can switch to “comeback” and say it was the debate wot won it*. Makes it more about them.
*Either way. If Corbyn wins they’ll say it was then that he sealed the deal.
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1200830820958851073?s=20
Corbyn is an utter embarrassment to British politics. This before we get on to his racism and that of his supporters
And ditto. Someone else suggested "bottom" at the time.
Jezza gone in 12 days in the meantime people like yourself not holding your nose and voting Lab.
Leads to the most right wing Govt in my lifetime in 11 days time
The more interesting places are some of the West London Tory-Lab battlegrounds where i also expect the LibDem vote to rise significantly. The question there is whether it will be from Tory defectors (who may well return 'home' in these seats) or a reversal of the pro-(Labour) remain tactical voting in 2017.
Sounds like another hurdle negotiated by the PM, I also feel by doing Marr he now has a lot less pressure to do Neil.
To continue the perversity of it all it is the lack of votes for Chukka and his friends which is probably giving Tory candidates more sleepless nights at this election than anything else !
Other than charisma what else lies behind his political success?
I think a lot of people do not like him therefore declare he is not charismatic, but that doesnt follow. Although people overdo the comparison Trump is charismatic and hes a hateful arsehole. Boris is able to fascinate, both in amusement and contempt, and like an actor having screen presence it's hard to explain or quantify. But he has it.
Its a bit like Brexit. Both sides lied through their teeth. The argument that those who voted for either side bought or supported all of those lies is childish and absurd. But persistent, sadly.
Prohibition has failed. I'd rather all drugs were dispensed via a well regulated pharmacist like Boots the Chemist than a dodgy drug dealer with zero regulations.
The most interesting constituency poll was Berwick which showed a 7.5% Lab to Con swing.
Every other of these constituency polls for the Guardian has been in London and the South-East.
Jess Phillips[sp] and the like blathering about how they oppose Corbyn whilst campaigning for him to be PM is just pathetic.
On all the other measures its higher.