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.
Since Phillips isn't (yet) in a position to mount a leadership coup, I fail to see what else she can do. She talks sense most of the time which clearly deeply offends some in Labour.
As the well-known Jewish actress Miriam Margolyes points out, Corbyn isn't anti-semitic and she'll still vote Labour. However, a very effective smear campaign has portrayed him as such and has probably swung the vote sufficiently to give the fat liar a full term of office.
I dont know if Corbyn is anti semitic or not but it was not a smear campaign, it was a result of Labours failure to deal quickly and clearly with anti semitism within the party.
The question of whether Corbyn is antisemitic ends up with people talking past each other because they mean different things and are setting the bar at different heights. For Corbyn's supporters - including Jewish ones - they set the bar at active deliberate antisemitism. Which is not something even many of Corbyn's critics think he is guilty of. However, for the majority of Jews and his critics, Corbyn has a subconscious prejudice against Jewish concerns because of his worldview and catastrophic failure to recognise that most outspoken 'anti-Zionism' and some of the crankier anti-capitalist thinking is antisemitic but tries to avoid the accusation by framing its anger as against Israel or a wealthy elites.
It's far from a smear to suggest Corbyn has throughout his long career totally failed to recognise antisemitism in his section of the left and has even promoted some dreadful offenders because they were on his 'side' and ignored the anger of Jews who complained about them. Does that make him guilty of antisemitic prejudice? Well it does if you take the left and liberal (which I think is correct) general post-Macpherson view of racism, which holds that you do not have to deliberately racist to be a racist - your subconscious prejudice can make you one if your actions have the result of discriminating against people due to their racial background.
That's why Jews call Corbyn an antisemite but his supporters act with incredulity at the suggestion.
On topic as well, this is correct. Punters and bookies often end up with egg on their face and overly influenced by last time.
I am no exception.
I think it's worth bearing in mind the large MoE in estimating seat totals - it's not a nice crisp pyramid, it's very flat at the top of the range. That's why you can (amusingly) get people who both say 400 votes different and it'd be a majority or Corbyn Government the other way but are also happy to stick their necks out on predicting exact seat numbers the next time.
I am 85-90% confident the Tories will fall into the 310-380 seat range, but no more than that.
As a consequence I'm only buying seat bands in chunks of 50, betting instead on voteshares in bands of 5% (far less liquid but more predictable) and going for value bets in constituencies.
Poverty is lower now than when labour was in office.
LOL, what planet are you on
Well, if you view eating turnips as a measure of poverty.....
Easy to say there is no poverty when you have plenty. I have plenty and so could not pontificate on poverty , however I cannot believe all the people writing/media on poverty are lying about it, food bank numbers rocketing etc. You would have to be a real Tory to imagine that poverty is not on the rise.
I dont think anyone is saying there is no poverty, because the word has been redfined to mean something not what people assume. But, it is a myth to say that poverty, or food poverty has got worse in the last decade.
A genuine criticism of the Conservative government is not that poverty has increased (it hasnt) but the the trend of continuing reductions has flattened out since the Conservative government.
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.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
Yes, but do you count that as "success"? A difference here across parties is between people who feel that their side winning is what really matters on the understandable basis that if you never win you never do anything), and people who feel there's little point in winning if your side is actually pretty bad and will do harm to the country and their party's reputation.
Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
I would agree with you if we were selecting from twenty candidates so were bound to get someone reasonable, but it doesnt apply in a two party FPTP scenario. If your opponent is very bad and you are merely a little bad, but one of you is going to get elected then winning should be the priority. Unfortunately in recent times very bad vs pretty bad is what we are being offered.
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.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
Yes, but do you count that as "success"? A difference here across parties is between people who feel that their side winning is what really matters on the understandable basis that if you never win you never do anything), and people who feel there's little point in winning if your side is actually pretty bad and will do harm to the country and their party's reputation.
Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
The murder rate reduced substantially during his tenure, at a time when police funding was under some pressure. It had been pretty flat under Livingstone, and has subsequently increased under Khan. I count that as "success".
I watched about 10 mins of Marr vs Bozza. Marr is such a shite interviewer, Bozza was weak on pretty much everything but still came through basically unscathed. A better interviewer would have given Bozza enough rope to hang himself but Marr is too obsessed with the sound of his own voice to let anyone he interviews actually answer the bloody question.
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.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
Yes, but do you count that as "success"? A difference here across parties is between people who feel that their side winning is what really matters on the understandable basis that if you never win you never do anything), and people who feel there's little point in winning if your side is actually pretty bad and will do harm to the country and their party's reputation.
Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
The murder rate reduced substantially during his tenure, at a time when police funding was under some pressure. It had been pretty flat under Livingstone, and has subsequently increased under Khan. I count that as "success".
It baffles me how much power people believe Mayors have over homicides.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Both Corbyn's quote and yours are why the Conservatives will be wise to push this message hard in the final 10 days of campaigning: the public doesn't share your carefree attitude towards their safety.
So getting rid of 20,000 police officers wasn’t a carefree attitude to public safety?
Well if he is shameless in taking good ideas or thoughts that's not so bad.
'Yaroo, that chap is saying all the shite I spouted may be lies and it sounds like he may know what he's talking about. If I nick his stuff everyone will quickly forget all the lying shite I spouted.'
I've learned something this morning. Miriam Margolyes is the sole arbiter of what constitutes anti semitism and who is an anti semite! Wow, powerful lady.
Poverty is lower now than when labour was in office.
LOL, what planet are you on
Well, if you view eating turnips as a measure of poverty.....
Easy to say there is no poverty when you have plenty. I have plenty and so could not pontificate on poverty , however I cannot believe all the people writing/media on poverty are lying about it, food bank numbers rocketing etc. You would have to be a real Tory to imagine that poverty is not on the rise.
I dont think anyone is saying there is no poverty, because the word has been redfined to mean something not what people assume. But, it is a myth to say that poverty, or food poverty has got worse in the last decade.
A genuine criticism of the Conservative government is not that poverty has increased (it hasnt) but the the trend of continuing reductions has flattened out since the Conservative government.
Rough sleeping is genuine poverty not relative poverty and has dramatically increased in the last decade. (Relative poverty is nonsensical, people can be simultaneously in UK poverty and in the richest 20% in the world).
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.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
Yes, but do you count that as "success"? A difference here across parties is between people who feel that their side winning is what really matters on the understandable basis that if you never win you never do anything), and people who feel there's little point in winning if your side is actually pretty bad and will do harm to the country and their party's reputation.
Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
The murder rate reduced substantially during his tenure, at a time when police funding was under some pressure. It had been pretty flat under Livingstone, and has subsequently increased under Khan. I count that as "success".
It baffles me how much power people believe Mayors have over homicides.
The mayor of London sets policing priorities. Khan definitely bears a significant amount of responsibility for the rise in the murder rate, he's taken police off the streets, limited stop and search and pushed policing resources into monitoring the internet for "islamophobic" comments and other such bullshit.
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.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
Yes, but do you count that as "success"? A difference here across parties is between people who feel that their side winning is what really matters on the understandable basis that if you never win you never do anything), and people who feel there's little point in winning if your side is actually pretty bad and will do harm to the country and their party's reputation. Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
The murder rate reduced substantially during his tenure, at a time when police funding was under some pressure. It had been pretty flat under Livingstone, and has subsequently increased under Khan. I count that as "success".
It baffles me how much power people believe Mayors have over homicides.
The Mayor is in charge of the police force. It’s up to them if the police should prioritise gangland violence or Twitter transgenderism.
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.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
Yes, but do you count that as "success"? A difference here across parties is between people who feel that their side winning is what really matters on the understandable basis that if you never win you never do anything), and people who feel there's little point in winning if your side is actually pretty bad and will do harm to the country and their party's reputation.
Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
The murder rate reduced substantially during his tenure, at a time when police funding was under some pressure. It had been pretty flat under Livingstone, and has subsequently increased under Khan. I count that as "success".
It baffles me how much power people believe Mayors have over homicides.
They also fail to realise that the murder rate started increasing again whilst Johnson was still in office. The trend has continued under Khan but it started under Johnson. Johnson got lucky.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Both Corbyn's quote and yours are why the Conservatives will be wise to push this message hard in the final 10 days of campaigning: the public doesn't share your carefree attitude towards their safety.
So getting rid of 20,000 police officers wasn’t a carefree attitude to public safety?
Then you'll be relieved to know that one of Boris' first commitments was to hire 20,000 more police officers! Big difference with Theresa May.
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.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
Yes, but do you count that as "success"? A difference here across parties is between people who feel that their side winning is what really matters on the understandable basis that if you never win you never do anything), and people who feel there's little point in winning if your side is actually pretty bad and will do harm to the country and their party's reputation.
Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
The murder rate reduced substantially during his tenure, at a time when police funding was under some pressure. It had been pretty flat under Livingstone, and has subsequently increased under Khan. I count that as "success".
It baffles me how much power people believe Mayors have over homicides.
The mayor of London sets policing priorities. Khan definitely bears a significant amount of responsibility for the rise in the murder rate, he's taken police off the streets, limited stop and search and pushed policing resources into monitoring the internet for "islamophobic" comments and other such bullshit.
But the murder rate started increasing again whilst Johnson was in office
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.
I’m completely amazed that no-one from the largest two parties has mentioned drugs during the campaign. Other countries (such as Portugal) have made huge reforms that have worked out well, it would have made sense to at least review in detail what’s happened there, with a view to exploring change if feasible. The crap middle way on drugs has demonstrably failed, you either need to go down the authoritarian (Singapore, Dubai, Thailand) or libertarian (Portugal, increasingly US states) route.
There's two non-partisan[ish] reasons why I'm hoping for a healthy majority.
The first is so that the opposition can sort itself out. The second is so that the government can take a considered rather than precarious view on controversial issues: Drugs, Tuition Fees etc
These instable governments which are constantly on the brink of potentially collapsing leading to another election leads to a situation where issues are just not being tackled properly.
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Should convicted terrorists serve their full sentence?
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.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
Yes, but do you count that as "success"? A difference here across parties is between people who feel that their side winning is what really matters on the understandable basis that if you never win you never do anything), and people who feel there's little point in winning if your side is actually pretty bad and will do harm to the country and their party's reputation.
Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
The murder rate reduced substantially during his tenure, at a time when police funding was under some pressure. It had been pretty flat under Livingstone, and has subsequently increased under Khan. I count that as "success".
It baffles me how much power people believe Mayors have over homicides.
The mayor of London sets policing priorities. Khan definitely bears a significant amount of responsibility for the rise in the murder rate, he's taken police off the streets, limited stop and search and pushed policing resources into monitoring the internet for "islamophobic" comments and other such bullshit.
But the murder rate started increasing again whilst Johnson was in office
And then he left office, and Khan became responsible for what happened under his own watch. That's pretty indisputable.
I've learned something this morning. Miriam Margolyes is the sole arbiter of what constitutes anti semitism and who is an anti semite! Wow, powerful lady.
Should we go with you instead?
I'd go with the evidence and the EHRC investigation and results that come from it. Not one luvvies opinion. The BNP made a big play in 2010 of a black guy on the BBC out canvassing for them. I didn't take his endorsement of Griffin as a sign the BNP were egalitarian heroes.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Would you apply that to Thomas Mair and people like him?
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Should convicted terrorists serve their full sentence?
Average lead of, what, 6, in 2017 at the end, reduced to 2 in the actual vote. Corbyn's future will depend on outperforming even the narrowing polls (eg if the average lead is 8, he really needs the vote to be 4-5 at worst).
The problem with the EC graph is it overlooks THE crucial fact. May could produce a government on a 2.5% popular vote lead over Labour because there was a party prepared to go into semi-coalition with her. No-one will partner with Johnson.
Add to that the current likelihood that third parties will have more than the 70 seats they had in June 2017. And the fact that Corbyn won't be the only alternative to the Tories, if Labour's 250-270 MPs face a choice between decapitating him and 5 more years of Tory misrule.
Corbyn merely 5 or so behind Johnson probably won't be PM. But neither will Johnson. A Tory plurality merely 5 points ahead of Labour means a civilised grownup will be asked to form a government.
A surprising number of such people will be on their way to Westminster next Friday morning. And one of them will be PM by the New Year.
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
Even rarer when the interviewer does it as in this case.
Marr's agenda was clearly to give Boris the Neil interview he'd skived, complete with the reeling off of damning statistics. Because he isn't Neil, he failed and came off angry and aggressive. For Boris' part, it wasn't a good interview - going full on political was clearly a strategic choice, but I think he should have slowed the pace of the answers more clearly to make his point. However, he did manage to get his lines in, and with the main takeaway being Marr's belligerence, I'd call it a win on points for Boris.
Poverty is lower now than when labour was in office.
LOL, what planet are you on
Well, if you view eating turnips as a measure of poverty.....
Easy to say there is no poverty when you have plenty. I have plenty and so could not pontificate on poverty , however I cannot believe all the people writing/media on poverty are lying about it, food bank numbers rocketing etc. You would have to be a real Tory to imagine that poverty is not on the rise.
I dont think anyone is saying there is no poverty, because the word has been redfined to mean something not what people assume. But, it is a myth to say that poverty, or food poverty has got worse in the last decade.
A genuine criticism of the Conservative government is not that poverty has increased (it hasnt) but the the trend of continuing reductions has flattened out since the Conservative government.
Rough sleeping is genuine poverty not relative poverty and has dramatically increased in the last decade. (Relative poverty is nonsensical, people can be simultaneously in UK poverty and in the richest 20% in the world).
Rough sleeping isnt a sign of poverty, the bulk of growth have come from foreign nationals and growth (and change) in drug use. However it is a particular problem in larger urban areas. The solutions are not easy, and not as simple as "give them a house". I know in my sleepy area of the country the rough sleepers have been offered support and accommodation which is often refused because they cant drink or take drugs in the hostels. At one point a blind eye used to be turned to this kind of thing but a court case made the local authority responsible following a death.
In my area we have very few rough sleepers but we do have quite a few beggars with sleeping bags who leave when the customer base leaves. But that might not be the case in large urban areas.
I've learned something this morning. Miriam Margolyes is the sole arbiter of what constitutes anti semitism and who is an anti semite! Wow, powerful lady.
Should we go with you instead?
I'd go with the evidence and the EHRC investigation and results that come from it. Not one luvvies opinion. The BNP made a big play in 2010 of a black guy on the BBC out canvassing for them. I didn't take his endorsement of Griffin as a sign the BNP were egalitarian heroes.
Labour and the BNP - the only two parties ever to be investigated by the EHRC for systemic, institutional racism. Labour Party officials have been widely reported to fear bankruptcy as a result of the upcoming findings.
How Labour show their faces in public is beyond me.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Both Corbyn's quote and yours are why the Conservatives will be wise to push this message hard in the final 10 days of campaigning: the public doesn't share your carefree attitude towards their safety.
I suspect that Tory law & order advert will be rather effective.
Their strategists will be trying to pull the campaign onto that and away from the NHS next week.
Certainly there are a LOT of people awaiting and expecting a rerun of 2017, and interpreting every fractional uptick in Labour’s rating as the beginning of the surge. What people are forgetting is that last time Labour actually ran a good campaign, tapping into the mood of the moment and with lots of activity, energy and excitement. There’s been little of that this time - they’re trying to go through the same motions but it doesn’t feel the same at all. The common factor is that the Tory campaign is once again poor, if not plumbing the depths of self-destructiveness that Mrs M managed to achieve. The reason there’s a feeling that the Tories won’t win by much is that a lot of people don’t really want to vote for them, don’t like Bozo, are nervous about Brexit, but haven’t been inspired by any of the opposition parties to vote for anyone else.
This is very true. But the Tories need to gain seats and the more that BXP falls by the wayside (not to mention TIG - the who?) they've got to do it partly by winning votes from Labour in the North and Midlands, and all they've got is Brexit and "Labour is scary". Which essentially means in those constituencies that all they've got is Brexit. The bottom is falling out of "Get Brexit done" given that "getting Brexit done" is precisely what the Tories have been so famously unable to do. While they themselves might like to blame other people for their own failings that doesn't mean other people are going to swarm to blame other people. Which means all they've got left is immigration, which is why Leave won all those years ago anyway.
National campaigning from both sides has been boring for a week or so and there hasn't been a dementia tax yet for either side but the mist of boringness is bound to dispel. Tuition fees are still here and it's Labour who has the positive message for the young - a good position to be in if they can get it across. I can't see the Labour vote undershooting current polling unless there's a Zinoviev letter rerun and given who the Tory leader is any Zinoviev shoe is likely to be on the other foot.
The biggest question mark might be a technical one - of samples weighted by past recall that are overweighting left leaning folk by making up for a shortfall in people who remember voting Labour by adding more to the sample that do.
It's the biggest potential (explainable) polling error this time, and the pollsters with this approach typically have lower Tory leads
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
Poverty is lower now than when labour was in office.
LOL, what planet are you on
Well, if you view eating turnips as a measure of poverty.....
Easy to say there is no poverty when you have plenty. I have plenty and so could not pontificate on poverty , however I cannot believe all the people writing/media on poverty are lying about it, food bank numbers rocketing etc. You would have to be a real Tory to imagine that poverty is not on the rise.
Between the ages of two, when my mother left my serial adulterer father, to the age of nine, when she met my step-father, I was brought up in real poverty. I know poverty when I see it.
I think most people have experienced a time in their lives when they've been hard up.
Poverty is lower now than when labour was in office.
LOL, what planet are you on
Well, if you view eating turnips as a measure of poverty.....
Easy to say there is no poverty when you have plenty. I have plenty and so could not pontificate on poverty , however I cannot believe all the people writing/media on poverty are lying about it, food bank numbers rocketing etc. You would have to be a real Tory to imagine that poverty is not on the rise.
I dont think anyone is saying there is no poverty, because the word has been redfined to mean something not what people assume. But, it is a myth to say that poverty, or food poverty has got worse in the last decade.
A genuine criticism of the Conservative government is not that poverty has increased (it hasnt) but the the trend of continuing reductions has flattened out since the Conservative government.
Rough sleeping is genuine poverty not relative poverty and has dramatically increased in the last decade. (Relative poverty is nonsensical, people can be simultaneously in UK poverty and in the richest 20% in the world).
Wasn't there 3,000 rough sleepers in the borough of Brent alone a decade ago ?
Being serious I would say there were more rough sleepers now but they are only a tiny proportion of the population and I suspect many are so doing primarily from other causes rather than poverty.
It would also been useful to know how many rough sleepers are immigrants.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Both Corbyn's quote and yours are why the Conservatives will be wise to push this message hard in the final 10 days of campaigning: the public doesn't share your carefree attitude towards their safety.
I suspect that Tory law & order advert will be rather effective.
Their strategists will be trying to pull the campaign onto that and away from the NHS next week.
If all the Tory messaging is as focused and effective as this, then they should do all right.
If the Tories wanted to be brutal, they could have Boris replicate Corbyn's NHS dossier stunt, just with a dossier of all the extremist groups with whom Corbyn has knowingly associated over the decades...
Average lead of, what, 6, in 2017 at the end, reduced to 2 in the actual vote. Corbyn's future will depend on outperforming even the narrowing polls (eg if the average lead is 8, he really needs the vote to be 4-5 at worst).
The problem with the EC graph is it overlooks THE crucial fact. May could produce a government on a 2.5% popular vote lead over Labour because there was a party prepared to go into semi-coalition with her. No-one will partner with Johnson.
Add to that the current likelihood that third parties will have more than the 70 seats they had in June 2017. And the fact that Corbyn won't be the only alternative to the Tories, if Labour's 250-270 MPs face a choice between decapitating him and 5 more years of Tory misrule.
Corbyn merely 5 or so behind Johnson probably won't be PM. But neither will Johnson. A Tory plurality merely 5 points ahead of Labour means a civilised grownup will be asked to form a government.
A surprising number of such people will be on their way to Westminster next Friday morning. And one of them will be PM by the New Year.
To me the crucial fact appears to be that one line is going down and the other isn't. Not by much, anyway.
I've learned something this morning. Miriam Margolyes is the sole arbiter of what constitutes anti semitism and who is an anti semite! Wow, powerful lady.
Should we go with you instead?
I'd go with the evidence and the EHRC investigation and results that come from it. Not one luvvies opinion. The BNP made a big play in 2010 of a black guy on the BBC out canvassing for them. I didn't take his endorsement of Griffin as a sign the BNP were egalitarian heroes.
Labour and the BNP - the only two parties ever to be investigated by the EHRC for systemic, institutional racism. Labour Party officials have been widely reported to fear bankruptcy as a result of the upcoming findings.
How Labour show their faces in public is beyond me.
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of the Labour party.
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
Certainly there are a LOT of people awaiting and expecting a rerun of 2017, and interpreting every fractional uptick in Labour’s rating as the beginning of the surge. What people are forgetting is that last time Labour actually ran a good campaign, tapping into the mood of the moment and with lots of activity, energy and excitement. There’s been little of that this time - they’re trying to go through the same motions but it doesn’t feel the same at all. The common factor is that the Tory campaign is once again poor, if not plumbing the depths of self-destructiveness that Mrs M managed to achieve. The reason there’s a feeling that the Tories won’t win by much is that a lot of people don’t really want to vote for them, don’t like Bozo, are nervous about Brexit, but haven’t been inspired by any of the opposition parties to vote for anyone else.
This is very true. But the Tories need to gain seats and the more that BXP falls by the wayside (not to mention TIG - the who?) they've got to do it partly by winning votes from Labour in the North and Midlands, and all they've got is Brexit and "Labour is scary". Which essentially means in those constituencies that all they've got is Brexit. The bottom is falling out of "Get Brexit done" given that "getting Brexit done" is precisely what the Tories have been so famously unable to do. While they themselves might like to blame other people for their own failings that doesn't mean other people are going to swarm to blame other people. Which means all they've got left is immigration, which is why Leave won all those years ago anyway.
National campaigning from both sides has been boring for a week or so and there hasn't been a dementia tax yet for either side but the mist of boringness is bound to dispel. Tuition fees are still here and it's Labour who has the positive message for the young - a good position to be in if they can get it across. I can't see the Labour vote undershooting current polling unless there's a Zinoviev letter rerun and given who the Tory leader is any Zinoviev shoe is likely to be on the other foot.
The biggest question mark might be a technical one - of samples weighted by past recall that are overweighting left leaning folk by making up for a shortfall in people who remember voting Labour by adding more to the sample that do.
It's the biggest potential (explainable) polling error this time, and the pollsters with this approach typically have lower Tory leads
Very interesting indeed. If that were the case, then those polls showing a lower lead are exaggerating Labour strength, and thus motivating higher Tory turnout as a result of the fear they inspire...
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
I think Boris is both running against the previous Labour administration and the previous Tory adminstration - he wants to be the change and fresh start candidate so voters look at him afresh, particularly oop north.
In other words, he's trying a not dissimilar thing to what Theresa May did - just more shamelessly, with more charisma and a bit more money.
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
Certainly there are a LOT of people awaiting and expecting a rerun of 2017, and interpreting every fractional uptick in Labour’s rating as the beginning of the surge. What people are forgetting is that last time Labour actually ran a good campaign, tapping into the mood of the moment and with lots of activity, energy and excitement. There’s been little of that this time - they’re trying to go through the same motions but it doesn’t feel the same at all. The common factor is that the Tory campaign is once again poor, if not plumbing the depths of self-destructiveness that Mrs M managed to achieve. The reason there’s a feeling that the Tories won’t win by much is that a lot of people don’t really want to vote for them, don’t like Bozo, are nervous about Brexit, but haven’t been inspired by any of the opposition parties to vote for anyone else.
This is very true. But the Tories need to gain seats and the more that BXP falls by the wayside (not to mention TIG - the who?) they've got to do it partly by winning votes from Labour in the North and Midlands, and all they've got is Brexit and "Labour is scary". Which essentially means in those constituencies that all they've got is Brexit. The bottom is falling out of "Get Brexit done" given that "getting Brexit done" is precisely what the Tories have been so famously unable to do. While they themselves might like to blame other people for their own failings that doesn't mean other people are going to swarm to blame other people. Which means all they've got left is immigration, which is why Leave won all those years ago anyway.
National campaigning from both sides has been boring for a week or so and there hasn't been a dementia tax yet for either side but the mist of boringness is bound to dispel. Tuition fees are still here and it's Labour who has the positive message for the young - a good position to be in if they can get it across. I can't see the Labour vote undershooting current polling unless there's a Zinoviev letter rerun and given who the Tory leader is any Zinoviev shoe is likely to be on the other foot.
The biggest question mark might be a technical one - of samples weighted by past recall that are overweighting left leaning folk by making up for a shortfall in people who remember voting Labour by adding more to the sample that do.
It's the biggest potential (explainable) polling error this time, and the pollsters with this approach typically have lower Tory leads
Very interesting indeed. If that were the case, then those polls showing a lower lead are exaggerating Labour strength, and thus motivating higher Tory turnout as a result of the fear they inspire...
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
I think Boris is both running against the previous Labour administration and the previous Tory adminstration - he wants to be the change and fresh start candidate so voters look at him afresh, particularly oop north.
In other words, he's trying a not dissimilar thing to what Theresa May did - just more shamelessly, with more charisma and a bit more money.
As Foreign Secretary in the last government and as leading Tory before that, he cannot run against the Tory record.
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.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
Yes, but do you count that as "success"? A difference here across parties is between people who feel that their side winning is what really matters on the understandable basis that if you never win you never do anything), and people who feel there's little point in winning if your side is actually pretty bad and will do harm to the country and their party's reputation.
Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
The murder rate reduced substantially during his tenure, at a time when police funding was under some pressure. It had been pretty flat under Livingstone, and has subsequently increased under Khan. I count that as "success".
Johnson's record
-Murder rate cut by 50%
-Road traffic fatalities cut by 50%
-Out built Labour with 100,000 affordable homes
-In 2008 4 of 6 poorest boroughs in England were in London,after two terms none were in the bottom 20.
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
Poverty is lower now than when labour was in office.
LOL, what planet are you on
Well, if you view eating turnips as a measure of poverty.....
Easy to say there is no poverty when you have plenty. I have plenty and so could not pontificate on poverty , however I cannot believe all the people writing/media on poverty are lying about it, food bank numbers rocketing etc. You would have to be a real Tory to imagine that poverty is not on the rise.
I dont think anyone is saying there is no poverty, because the word has been redfined to mean something not what people assume. But, it is a myth to say that poverty, or food poverty has got worse in the last decade.
A genuine criticism of the Conservative government is not that poverty has increased (it hasnt) but the the trend of continuing reductions has flattened out since the Conservative government.
Rough sleeping is genuine poverty not relative poverty and has dramatically increased in the last decade. (Relative poverty is nonsensical, people can be simultaneously in UK poverty and in the richest 20% in the world).
Wasn't there 3,000 rough sleepers in the borough of Brent alone a decade ago ?
Being serious I would say there were more rough sleepers now but they are only a tiny proportion of the population and I suspect many are so doing primarily from other causes rather than poverty.
It would also been useful to know how many rough sleepers are immigrants.
36% are not UK nationals, and that's 66% for London.
I think Boris is both running against the previous Labour administration and the previous Tory adminstration - he wants to be the change and fresh start candidate so voters look at him afresh, particularly oop north.
In other words, he's trying a not dissimilar thing to what Theresa May did - just more shamelessly, with more charisma and a bit more money.
As Foreign Secretary in the last government and as leading Tory before that, he cannot run against the Tory record.
I think Boris is both running against the previous Labour administration and the previous Tory adminstration - he wants to be the change and fresh start candidate so voters look at him afresh, particularly oop north.
In other words, he's trying a not dissimilar thing to what Theresa May did - just more shamelessly, with more charisma and a bit more money.
As Foreign Secretary in the last government and as leading Tory before that, he cannot run against the Tory record.
Yeah, he can. Its up to the electorate if they let him
I think Boris is both running against the previous Labour administration and the previous Tory adminstration - he wants to be the change and fresh start candidate so voters look at him afresh, particularly oop north.
In other words, he's trying a not dissimilar thing to what Theresa May did - just more shamelessly, with more charisma and a bit more money.
As Foreign Secretary in the last government and as leading Tory before that, he cannot run against the Tory record.
Yeah, he can. Its up to the electorate if they let him
He looks silly. It's also an error. He should have been prime ministerial today.
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
I think Boris is both running against the previous Labour administration and the previous Tory adminstration - he wants to be the change and fresh start candidate so voters look at him afresh, particularly oop north.
In other words, he's trying a not dissimilar thing to what Theresa May did - just more shamelessly, with more charisma and a bit more money.
As Foreign Secretary in the last government and as leading Tory before that, he cannot run against the Tory record.
Yeah, he can. Its up to the electorate if they let him
He looks silly. It's also an error. He should have been prime ministerial today.
Again, its over to the electorate for judgement via the gift of franchise
I think Boris is both running against the previous Labour administration and the previous Tory adminstration - he wants to be the change and fresh start candidate so voters look at him afresh, particularly oop north.
In other words, he's trying a not dissimilar thing to what Theresa May did - just more shamelessly, with more charisma and a bit more money.
As Foreign Secretary in the last government and as leading Tory before that, he cannot run against the Tory record.
I think Boris is both running against the previous Labour administration and the previous Tory adminstration - he wants to be the change and fresh start candidate so voters look at him afresh, particularly oop north.
In other words, he's trying a not dissimilar thing to what Theresa May did - just more shamelessly, with more charisma and a bit more money.
As Foreign Secretary in the last government and as leading Tory before that, he cannot run against the Tory record.
Of course he can - he is a congenital liar. He gets away with it because of the alternative. It is that simple.
My sweetest personal memory is of the 2010 general election. In truth, I have relatively few insights and all of the really good ones have seemed blindingly obvious at the time. In 2010, at a time when the opinion polls showed a statistical dead heat between the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems with three weeks to go to the election date, you could get odds against a hung Parliament. The betting markets had simply been too slow to catch up with the new reality.
I think I must personally have helped moved the odds with the amount of money I bet on this, putting the maximum I was allowed on with every single bookie that offered odds on the proposition. To this day, it remains one of my top three most successful betting positions ever.
If only the odds in 2019 were so clearly wrong. Annoyingly, the odds on the Conservatives getting an overall majority of roughly 1/2 on Betfair look about right given the information we currently have.
The outcome will seem obvious in retrospect, I'm sure.
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
I think Boris is both running against the previous Labour administration and the previous Tory adminstration - he wants to be the change and fresh start candidate so voters look at him afresh, particularly oop north.
In other words, he's trying a not dissimilar thing to what Theresa May did - just more shamelessly, with more charisma and a bit more money.
As Foreign Secretary in the last government and as leading Tory before that, he cannot run against the Tory record.
Yeah, he can. Its up to the electorate if they let him
He looks silly. It's also an error. He should have been prime ministerial today.
Theresa May was prime ministerial all day long and it did her little electoral good. Running a campaign that takes on both the far left opposition and the errors of previous Tory leaders is intelligent because it allows the crucial mantle of change to be worn by someone who on strict logic might not merit it.
But breaking strict logic is precisely what Boris is good at
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.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
Yes, but do you count that as "success"? A difference here across parties is between people who feel that their side winning is what really matters on the understandable basis that if you never win you never do anything), and people who feel there's little point in winning if your side is actually pretty bad and will do harm to the country and their party's reputation.
Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
The murder rate reduced substantially during his tenure, at a time when police funding was under some pressure. It had been pretty flat under Livingstone, and has subsequently increased under Khan. I count that as "success".
It baffles me how much power people believe Mayors have over homicides.
The mayor of London sets policing priorities. Khan definitely bears a significant amount of responsibility for the rise in the murder rate, he's taken police off the streets, limited stop and search and pushed policing resources into monitoring the internet for "islamophobic" comments and other such bullshit.
Clearly Mayors have an impact. But if I was designing a model to predict homicides in cities though, who is mayor would be a long way down on my list with longer term societal trends, the national murder rate, the economy and inequality all higher up. Of the impact Mayors do have some of it will impact beyond their time, what happened in 2014 impacts 2018 so we shouldnt just look at their time in office. Most of their impact is in appointing effective people to the right roles, which is also something of a lottery. Id be surprised if Mayors can make more than a 10% change in a cities murder over a 4 year term through their own actions, most of the changes are down to factors outside their control. (For the statistically challenged showing a reduction bigger than 10% doesnt prove that it was down to a particular Mayor).
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Both Corbyn's quote and yours are why the Conservatives will be wise to push this message hard in the final 10 days of campaigning: the public doesn't share your carefree attitude towards their safety.
So getting rid of 20,000 police officers wasn’t a carefree attitude to public safety?
Then you'll be relieved to know that one of Boris' first commitments was to hire 20,000 more police officers! Big difference with Theresa May.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Both Corbyn's quote and yours are why the Conservatives will be wise to push this message hard in the final 10 days of campaigning: the public doesn't share your carefree attitude towards their safety.
So getting rid of 20,000 police officers wasn’t a carefree attitude to public safety?
Then you'll be relieved to know that one of Boris' first commitments was to hire 20,000 more police officers! Big difference with Theresa May.
The number has a familiar ring about it, though?
its only 11k,9k are due to retire.. its a political promise..
Certainly there are a LOT of people awaiting and expecting a rerun of 2017, and interpreting every fractional uptick in Labour’s rating as the beginning of the surge. What people are forgetting is that last time Labour actually ran a good campaign, tapping into the mood of the moment and with lots of activity, energy and excitement. There’s been little of that this time - they’re trying to go through the same motions but it doesn’t feel the same at all. The common factor is that the Tory campaign is once again poor, if not plumbing the depths of self-destructiveness that Mrs M managed to achieve. The reason there’s a feeling that the Tories won’t win by much is that a lot of people don’t really want to vote for them, don’t like Bozo, are nervous about Brexit, but haven’t been inspired by any of the opposition parties to vote for anyone else.
This is very true. But the Tories need to gain seats and the more that BXP falls by the wayside (not to mention TIG - the who?) they've got to do it partly by winning votes from Labour in the North and Midlands, and all they've got is Brexit and "Labour is scary". Which essentially means in those constituencies that all they've got is Brexit. The bottom is falling out of "Get Brexit done" given that "getting Brexit done" is precisely what the Tories have been so famously unable to do. While they themselves might like to blame other people for their own failings that doesn't mean other people are going to swarm to blame other people. Which means all they've got left is immigration, which is why Leave won all those years ago anyway.
The biggest question mark might be a technical one - of samples weighted by past recall that are overweighting left leaning folk by making up for a shortfall in people who remember voting Labour by adding more to the sample that do.
It's the biggest potential (explainable) polling error this time, and the pollsters with this approach typically have lower Tory leads
Very interesting indeed. If that were the case, then those polls showing a lower lead are exaggerating Labour strength, and thus motivating higher Tory turnout as a result of the fear they inspire...
Lots of good analysis here from Henrietta (New poster? Welcome!), Ian and Bluerblue. Do we have solid reason to think that people who voted Labour in 2017 are more likely than others not to remember it, yet still likely to vote Labour now? The alternative explanation is simply that they are harder for pollsters to reach (e.g. because they're students and rarely at home), in which case the pollsters adjusting as Bluerblue describes may actually be correct. I don't see how we can actually tell - the alternative seems to me more likely, but quite possibly that's wishful thinking.
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
BJ: 'The terrorist on London Bridge was sentenced 11 years ago' BBC: 'Khan was known to the authorities, having been convicted for terrorism offences in 2012' Which is true and which is a lie d'ye think?
Moving the news onto getting tough on terrorism is a good place for the Tories (Now they're restoring the police numbers). I'm sure there'd be no real difference in practice with a Corbyn Gov't, but like the NHS for the Tories Labour just aren't overly trusted on this. None of it's fair but that's politics.
How can the come on a TV Program and not be willing to answer questions and just boorish spout corbyn is a communist get brexit done.
He is so out of his depth and he will be running the country for the next five years thanks to the Labour membership.
Thanks for your views I never knew you felt that!!
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
Yep - by insisting on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, pro-Brexit, Bennite dinosaur Labour members have successfully managed to alienate millions of voters and deliver power to a right-wing, English nationalist party led by a lightweight, lying charlatan. Congratulations.
So strange to obsessively pigeon hole people, and yourself, into little pre defined boxes like that. It must make life incredibly difficult.
My sweetest personal memory is of the 2010 general election. In truth, I have relatively few insights and all of the really good ones have seemed blindingly obvious at the time. In 2010, at a time when the opinion polls showed a statistical dead heat between the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems with three weeks to go to the election date, you could get odds against a hung Parliament. The betting markets had simply been too slow to catch up with the new reality.
I think I must personally have helped moved the odds with the amount of money I bet on this, putting the maximum I was allowed on with every single bookie that offered odds on the proposition. To this day, it remains one of my top three most successful betting positions ever.
If only the odds in 2019 were so clearly wrong. Annoyingly, the odds on the Conservatives getting an overall majority of roughly 1/2 on Betfair look about right given the information we currently have.
The outcome will seem obvious in retrospect, I'm sure.
Everybody’s an expert when looking in the rear view mirror.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Both Corbyn's quote and yours are why the Conservatives will be wise to push this message hard in the final 10 days of campaigning: the public doesn't share your carefree attitude towards their safety.
So getting rid of 20,000 police officers wasn’t a carefree attitude to public safety?
Then you'll be relieved to know that one of Boris' first commitments was to hire 20,000 more police officers! Big difference with Theresa May.
The number has a familiar ring about it, though?
Has anyone asked if the 20,000 includes retention of existing staff?
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
BJ: 'The terrorist on London Bridge was sentenced 11 years ago' BBC: 'Khan was known to the authorities, having been convicted for terrorism offences in 2012' Which is true and which is a lie d'ye think?
BJ has made it clear on his twitter that he was sentenced under legislation from 11 years ago.
Clearly Mayors have an impact. But if I was designing a model to predict homicides in cities though, who is mayor would be a long way down on my list with longer term societal trends, the national murder rate, the economy and inequality all higher up. Of the impact Mayors do have some of it will impact beyond their time, what happened in 2014 impacts 2018 so we shouldnt just look at their time in office. Most of their impact is in appointing effective people to the right roles, which is also something of a lottery. Id be surprised if Mayors can make more than a 10% change in a cities murder over a 4 year term through their own actions, most of the changes are down to factors outside their control. (For the statistically challenged showing a reduction bigger than 10% doesnt prove that it was down to a particular Mayor).
In London it's a very big difference as the mayor sets the policing strategy. Khan chose to focus Met resources on people making mean comments on Twitter.
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
BJ: 'The terrorist on London Bridge was sentenced 11 years ago' BBC: 'Khan was known to the authorities, having been convicted for terrorism offences in 2012' Which is true and which is a lie d'ye think?
BJ has made it clear on his twitter that he was sentenced under legislation from 11 years ago.
Has he apologised for having a misleading lie printed in a best selling newspaper?
Morning all. With Trump's visit in mind I was interested to see someone downthread mention that he is despised in the UK. Actually, I think that is probably incorrect in some Labour leave seats where Trump "putting America first" is admired. I'm not convinced that Corbyn going full on anti Trump will be that helpful in North and Midlands marginals.
"What next? It'll be free Pot Noodles for migrants."
(and they weren't entirely complimentary about Boris Johnson, either...)
This is something predicted on pb, that Labour risks a return to its 2015 problem when its analyses were seen as broadly correct (and later borrowed by the Conservatives) but its proposals impracticable.
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
BJ: 'The terrorist on London Bridge was sentenced 11 years ago' BBC: 'Khan was known to the authorities, having been convicted for terrorism offences in 2012' Which is true and which is a lie d'ye think?
BJ has made it clear on his twitter that he was sentenced under legislation from 11 years ago.
And in the Marr interview. Labour losing their shit over nothing again.
Streamlined public services will 'miss chances to intervene in the lives of people who go on to commit inexcusable acts,' the Labour leader said today.
How can the come on a TV Program and not be willing to answer questions and just boorish spout corbyn is a communist get brexit done.
He is so out of his depth and he will be running the country for the next five years thanks to the Labour membership.
Thanks for your views I never knew you felt that!!
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
Yep - by insisting on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, pro-Brexit, Bennite dinosaur Labour members have successfully managed to alienate millions of voters and deliver power to a right-wing, English nationalist party led by a lightweight, lying charlatan. Congratulations.
So strange to obsessively pigeon hole people, and yourself, into little pre defined boxes like that. It must make life incredibly difficult.
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
The rest of his Twitter timeline is anything but impartial.
He writes for the Guardian. Nuff said.
But Johnson is lying - and demonstrably so.
SO... I think we get the message that you think BJ is a liar.. does it make you feel better to post it time after time.?
It's not a mattr of thinking. There is a clear and demonstrable lie in his Mail on Sunday article. There is no room for interpretation. When he says that Khan was sentenced eleven years ago it is, quite simply, untrue.
Streamlined public services will 'miss chances to intervene in the lives of people who go on to commit inexcusable acts,' the Labour leader said today.
Yep - that will stop them
Is Corbyn naively stupid - or just being the cynical politician? Either way - no thanks!
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Both Corbyn's quote and yours are why the Conservatives will be wise to push this message hard in the final 10 days of campaigning: the public doesn't share your carefree attitude towards their safety.
So getting rid of 20,000 police officers wasn’t a carefree attitude to public safety?
Then you'll be relieved to know that one of Boris' first commitments was to hire 20,000 more police officers! Big difference with Theresa May.
The number has a familiar ring about it, though?
its only 11k,9k are due to retire.. its a political promise..
So many nasty comments on twitter to investigate, so little time.....
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
The rest of his Twitter timeline is anything but impartial.
He writes for the Guardian. Nuff said.
But Johnson is lying - and demonstrably so.
SO... I think we get the message that you think BJ is a liar.. does it make you feel better to post it time after time.?
It's not a mattr of thinking. There is a clear and demonstrable lie in his Mail on Sunday article. There is no room for interpretation. When he says that Khan was sentenced eleven years ago it is, quite simply, untrue.
Don't you recall getting all het up when Brown and Blair were economical with the truth. You are just losing it because Labour are going to lose and because your party(that your resigned from) is a loser. Why aren't Corbyn and co challenging him about it.. because they are as useless or more useless. Boris has issued a correction. end of story. If "Come home to Labour" is the best message Labour have got, bar the unfulfillable bribes, they don't deserve to win.
I think Boris is both running against the previous Labour administration and the previous Tory adminstration - he wants to be the change and fresh start candidate so voters look at him afresh, particularly oop north.
In other words, he's trying a not dissimilar thing to what Theresa May did - just more shamelessly, with more charisma and a bit more money.
As Foreign Secretary in the last government and as leading Tory before that, he cannot run against the Tory record.
I'm seeing some dangerous divergence of thought amongst the BJorg. Half say all pols lie, it's only to be expected, while the rest are trying to convince themselves that an incontrovertible lie printed in a Sunday paper is not in fact a lie. Get your act together lads!
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
The rest of his Twitter timeline is anything but impartial.
He writes for the Guardian. Nuff said.
But Johnson is lying - and demonstrably so.
SO... I think we get the message that you think BJ is a liar.. does it make you feel better to post it time after time.?
It's not a mattr of thinking. There is a clear and demonstrable lie in his Mail on Sunday article. There is no room for interpretation. When he says that Khan was sentenced eleven years ago it is, quite simply, untrue.
Don't you recall getting all het up when Brown and Blair were economical with the truth. You are just losing it because Labour are going to lose and because your party(that your resigned from) is a loser. Why aren't Corbyn and co challenging him about it.. because they are as useless or more useless. Boris has issued a correction. end of story. If "Come home to Labour" is the best message Labour have got, bar the unfulfillable bribes, they don't deserve to win.
How many times do the Tories have to issue a lie followed by a correction before people understand it is a deliberate ploy. The reaction to the lie is to drive the press attention and their angle. They dont care if people think they are lying. Why anyone trusts a word their current leadership says, I have no idea.
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
The rest of his Twitter timeline is anything but impartial.
He writes for the Guardian. Nuff said.
But Johnson is lying - and demonstrably so.
SO... I think we get the message that you think BJ is a liar.. does it make you feel better to post it time after time.?
It's not a mattr of thinking. There is a clear and demonstrable lie in his Mail on Sunday article. There is no room for interpretation. When he says that Khan was sentenced eleven years ago it is, quite simply, untrue.
Don't you recall getting all het up when Brown and Blair were economical with the truth. You are just losing it because Labour are going to lose and because your party(that your resigned from) is a loser. Why aren't Corbyn and co challenging him about it.. because they are as useless or more useless. Boris has issued a correction. end of story. If "Come home to Labour" is the best message Labour have got, bar the unfulfillable bribes, they don't deserve to win.
He hasn't issued a correction. Yes, I am deeply frustrated that thanks to the Labour membership someone so lightweight, lazy and mendacious as Johnson will be running the country for the next few years. I think it will cause deep harm.
Morning all. With Trump's visit in mind I was interested to see someone downthread mention that he is despised in the UK. Actually, I think that is probably incorrect in some Labour leave seats where Trump "putting America first" is admired. I'm not convinced that Corbyn going full on anti Trump will be that helpful in North and Midlands marginals.
Indeed, some polls have even given Trump a net positive rating amongst Leave voters though his ratings are abysmal with Remain voters
SO... I think we get the message that you think BJ is a liar.. does it make you feel better to post it time after time.?
It's not a mattr of thinking. There is a clear and demonstrable lie in his Mail on Sunday article. There is no room for interpretation. When he says that Khan was sentenced eleven years ago it is, quite simply, untrue.
It's abundantly clear what he meant, and it makes no difference whatsoever to the thrust of the message. He's told so many actual lies; and it's so easy to paint him as having poor attention to detail; why get mixed up between the two?
Comments
It's far from a smear to suggest Corbyn has throughout his long career totally failed to recognise antisemitism in his section of the left and has even promoted some dreadful offenders because they were on his 'side' and ignored the anger of Jews who complained about them. Does that make him guilty of antisemitic prejudice? Well it does if you take the left and liberal (which I think is correct) general post-Macpherson view of racism, which holds that you do not have to deliberately racist to be a racist - your subconscious prejudice can make you one if your actions have the result of discriminating against people due to their racial background.
That's why Jews call Corbyn an antisemite but his supporters act with incredulity at the suggestion.
I am no exception.
I think it's worth bearing in mind the large MoE in estimating seat totals - it's not a nice crisp pyramid, it's very flat at the top of the range. That's why you can (amusingly) get people who both say 400 votes different and it'd be a majority or Corbyn Government the other way but are also happy to stick their necks out on predicting exact seat numbers the next time.
I am 85-90% confident the Tories will fall into the 310-380 seat range, but no more than that.
As a consequence I'm only buying seat bands in chunks of 50, betting instead on voteshares in bands of 5% (far less liquid but more predictable) and going for value bets in constituencies.
A genuine criticism of the Conservative government is not that poverty has increased (it hasnt) but the the trend of continuing reductions has flattened out since the Conservative government.
The first is so that the opposition can sort itself out.
The second is so that the government can take a considered rather than precarious view on controversial issues: Drugs, Tuition Fees etc
These instable governments which are constantly on the brink of potentially collapsing leading to another election leads to a situation where issues are just not being tackled properly.
https://twitter.com/nazirafzal/status/1201079502794833920?s=20
Johnson: not necessarily
Corbyn: if they’re dangerous
See what I did there?
The BNP made a big play in 2010 of a black guy on the BBC out canvassing for them. I didn't take his endorsement of Griffin as a sign the BNP were egalitarian heroes.
Showed us all you are a pillock?
Add to that the current likelihood that third parties will have more than the 70 seats they had in June 2017. And the fact that Corbyn won't be the only alternative to the Tories, if Labour's 250-270 MPs face a choice between decapitating him and 5 more years of Tory misrule.
Corbyn merely 5 or so behind Johnson probably won't be PM. But neither will Johnson. A Tory plurality merely 5 points ahead of Labour means a civilised grownup will be asked to form a government.
A surprising number of such people will be on their way to Westminster next Friday morning. And one of them will be PM by the New Year.
Marr's agenda was clearly to give Boris the Neil interview he'd skived, complete with the reeling off of damning statistics. Because he isn't Neil, he failed and came off angry and aggressive. For Boris' part, it wasn't a good interview - going full on political was clearly a strategic choice, but I think he should have slowed the pace of the answers more clearly to make his point. However, he did manage to get his lines in, and with the main takeaway being Marr's belligerence, I'd call it a win on points for Boris.
Rough sleeping isnt a sign of poverty, the bulk of growth have come from foreign nationals and growth (and change) in drug use. However it is a particular problem in larger urban areas. The solutions are not easy, and not as simple as "give them a house". I know in my sleepy area of the country the rough sleepers have been offered support and accommodation which is often refused because they cant drink or take drugs in the hostels. At one point a blind eye used to be turned to this kind of thing but a court case made the local authority responsible following a death.
In my area we have very few rough sleepers but we do have quite a few beggars with sleeping bags who leave when the customer base leaves. But that might not be the case in large urban areas.
How Labour show their faces in public is beyond me.
Their strategists will be trying to pull the campaign onto that and away from the NHS next week.
It's the biggest potential (explainable) polling error this time, and the pollsters with this approach typically have lower Tory leads
Being serious I would say there were more rough sleepers now but they are only a tiny proportion of the population and I suspect many are so doing primarily from other causes rather than poverty.
It would also been useful to know how many rough sleepers are immigrants.
If the Tories wanted to be brutal, they could have Boris replicate Corbyn's NHS dossier stunt, just with a dossier of all the extremist groups with whom Corbyn has knowingly associated over the decades...
Boris had the only memorable moment in the Marr-crash.
In other words, he's trying a not dissimilar thing to what Theresa May did - just more shamelessly, with more charisma and a bit more money.
-Murder rate cut by 50%
-Road traffic fatalities cut by 50%
-Out built Labour with 100,000 affordable homes
-In 2008 4 of 6 poorest boroughs in England were in London,after two terms none were in the bottom 20.
Its up to the electorate if they let him
My sweetest personal memory is of the 2010 general election. In truth, I have relatively few insights and all of the really good ones have seemed blindingly obvious at the time. In 2010, at a time when the opinion polls showed a statistical dead heat between the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems with three weeks to go to the election date, you could get odds against a hung Parliament. The betting markets had simply been too slow to catch up with the new reality.
I think I must personally have helped moved the odds with the amount of money I bet on this, putting the maximum I was allowed on with every single bookie that offered odds on the proposition. To this day, it remains one of my top three most successful betting positions ever.
If only the odds in 2019 were so clearly wrong. Annoyingly, the odds on the Conservatives getting an overall majority of roughly 1/2 on Betfair look about right given the information we currently have.
The outcome will seem obvious in retrospect, I'm sure.
"What next? It'll be free Pot Noodles for migrants."
(and they weren't entirely complimentary about Boris Johnson, either...)
But, but Miriam said
But breaking strict logic is precisely what Boris is good at
Of the impact Mayors do have some of it will impact beyond their time, what happened in 2014 impacts 2018 so we shouldnt just look at their time in office. Most of their impact is in appointing effective people to the right roles, which is also something of a lottery.
Id be surprised if Mayors can make more than a 10% change in a cities murder over a 4 year term through their own actions, most of the changes are down to factors outside their control. (For the statistically challenged showing a reduction bigger than 10% doesnt prove that it was down to a particular Mayor).
BBC: 'Khan was known to the authorities, having been convicted for terrorism offences in 2012'
Which is true and which is a lie d'ye think?
None of it's fair but that's politics.
With Trump's visit in mind I was interested to see someone downthread mention that he is despised in the UK. Actually, I think that is probably incorrect in some Labour leave seats where Trump "putting America first" is admired. I'm not convinced that Corbyn going full on anti Trump will be that helpful in North and Midlands marginals.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7743241/Jeremy-Corbyn-blames-Tory-cuts-London-Bridge-attack.html
Streamlined public services will 'miss chances to intervene in the lives of people who go on to commit inexcusable acts,' the Labour leader said today.
Yep - that will stop them
Either way - no thanks!
I regret it. Please accept my apologies.
Which, when you come down to it, is socialism summed up in a few words.
He's told so many actual lies; and it's so easy to paint him as having poor attention to detail; why get mixed up between the two?