Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Starmer gets the best ratings from both all voters and LAB mem
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Starmer gets the best ratings from both all voters and LAB members in new large sample Ashcroft poll
There’s a new large sample Lord Ashcroft poll that’s been published overnight that looks back at the general election particularly the reasons for the LAB defeat and looks forward to the coming LAB leadership ballot which starts later this month. The full report is well worth downloading.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think I get the dots. But what is the grey number on the two numbers on the right hand side?
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
Chances of any of the leadership candidates actually listening to what the Evil Tory Ashcroft voters who deserted them had to say??
https://twitter.com/DanielSavickas/status/1227099895380824065
1) why the turnaround since the 2017 election?
2) if it is personal then it is not policy so RLB should be the new leader: same policies but without the personally toxic Corbyn.
On the question of the change since 2017, I'd suggest three possible causes:
1) Corbyn seemed to have aged a lot more than two years and now seemed old and grumpy
2) his new glasses with the funny lens prevented eye contact with audiences
3) toxic under-the-radar attacks from the Conservatives (only inferred since by their nature we do not know what was said)
Of course, if the everyone hates Corbyn thesis is wrong then we might also observe that on policy, the incoherent mish-mash spewing forth from Seamus & Co made matters worse since they were at best incoherent and at worst voter-repellent, and that 2017's popular policies had all been pinched by Boris.
https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1227103902241296384
Michael Howard took the Conservative share of the vote in the 2005 General Election from 31.7% and 166 seats under William Hague in 2001 to 32.4% and 198 seats, a modest but nonetheless significant uptick.
As well as Hart's Location, which went convincingly for Baemy, there's also Dixville Notch, where Bloomberg has apparently swept the primary for both parties.
https://twitter.com/ActorAaronBooth/status/1227096846742499328
For two decades, the Post Office pursued hundreds of its workers over accounting discrepancies with its Horizon IT system, accusing people of theft, fraud or false accounting. Many were fired, made bankrupt or even sent to prison.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51446463
It's going to cost them a lot more than this judgement over the long term, people who have been on the receiving end deserve exemplary compensation, and the PO needs to be considered a vexatious litigator by the courts in future. I quite like the American concept of double and triple damages in cases like these.
Howard was much maligned partly because he could appear irritating in front of the media and significantly because of naked anti-semitism.
Since standing down Michael Howard has been a rare example of a former leader displaying grace and loyalty.
So wholly unlike IDS who is a steaming turd. Nicely subjective.
Labour's sums were a long way from adding up in the eyes of the average Deplorable working man, and while the Brexit flip-flopping and Corbyn himself were factors, most people just saw taxes going up to pay for things that mostly went to 'other people' (middle-class students, WASPI women, benefits claimants, train commuters etc).
IDS never faced the electorate so that further undoes it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/10/eu-wants-power-freeze-post-brexit-uk-eu-deals-punishment/
In other words, they want to be able to tell us to r"e-level" our social and employment "playing field" or they will stop the planes landing.
I suspect that if they are not in some 'charmed circle' this could end up very badly for that someone and/or their immediate 'friends'.
The judge in the relevant case was very critical indeed of the Post Office.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-happened-to-the-proposed-hs1-hs2-link.159325/
Basically, it would have meant either vastly more expense or using congested existing lines (losing the point of HS Rail) so it wasn’t worth it for the sake of a two hundred yard walk.
The intention seems to be to bring Euston Square in as part of Euston Station so you can just transfer by tube.
Separating the train terminals between Paddington, Euston and St.Pancras was obviously a decision made by the A501 Chamber of Commerce and the Black Cab Union.
Philip, Scotland is a country not a part of a country like Catalonia. We are supposed to be part of a union of Countries but are treated as a colony.
malcolmg said:
» show previous quotes
That is just bollox
The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.
The concept was first expressed in the 1860s, and spread rapidly thereafter. During and after World War I, the principle was encouraged by both Vladimir Lenin and United States President Woodrow Wilson. Having announced his Fourteen Points on 8 January 1918, on 11 February 1918 Wilson stated: "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. 'Self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action."
During World War II, the principle was included in the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter. It was recognized as an international legal right after it was explicitly listed as a right in the UN Charter.
I'm on your side. I want you to determine this and I want you to go independent. I'm of the view its the best outcome for Scotland as it will make Scottish MSPs responsible for Scottish decisions without the excuse of blaming England. Identical logic to Brexit.
However international law doesn't dictate this. As far as I'm aware (IANAL) this right applies to colonised peoples and not constituent parts of a country. So if Falklands or Gibraltar wanted independence they could get it, but not Scotland or Catalonia.
Otherwise the Catalans could take their case to the Hague and demand their rights.
(Waits for @edmundintokyo to reply with KLOBUCHAR!)
Total for the Republicans 38 votes (Trump 31 votes).
Total for the Democrats 27 votes.
9 democrats combined get fewer votes than Trump by himself.
But in an area where Trump won by a 2-1 margin in 2016.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-gers/
But reports and polling since the election are adamant that it was Corbyn's personal toxicity to blame. I'm not convinced, and nor are his critics because if they are right it was not policy-related, they'd be voting for RLB and Corbynbism sans Corbyn.
Taking these findings seriously means we need to explain the turnaround since 2017. Now I've not read Lord Ashcroft's report; maybe the answer is in there. Until then, I quite like my new glasses, no eye-contact theory which is at least novel, and the inference of under-the-radar character assassination, which might need to wait for the post-election books to tell us more about the content of CCHQ social media messages.
The only way a deal is workable is for any dispute mechanism to be equidistant from both sides and for the relevant punishments for rule breaking to be determined by the independent arbiter.
The Dem base is furious about Trump, the issue last time was lack of Dem base energy. His strategy could well work.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/amy-klobuchar-is-having-a-mini-surge-in-new-hampshire-weve-gone-up-to-no-3?ref=scroll
And turnout was?
Mind you, given who drew them up, it seems eminently possible he was that dumb...
Dislike it being so cold.
Let’s put that money into public transport by buying advertising space on a bus instead.
I think the headlines are that a lot of Labour voters (even those from 2017) thought that the party was moving away from its roots in working class communities, and becoming more the party of middle-class idealists who live in big cities - people concerned more with Palestine than Peterborough or Penistone.
They also saw the behaviour of MPs in the last Parliament, who were saying one thing and doing another when it came to delivering on the Brexit vote - in 2017 they said they would deliver, but then voted against every form of actually doing so.
The policy programme as a whole looked like Labour wanted to primarily level down the country, rather than level up - to make the rich poorer rather than the poor richer.
They also liked Boris more than TM, someone who, despite his clear flaws, is full of optimism in contrast to Labour's constant negativity.
And it still shows a deficit, albeit one 20% smaller.
Now, there are reasons for this. The geography of Scotland makes it more difficult and expensive to provide public services. Plus, it has much higher social deprivation, on average, than England. That’s expensive too. Not many billionaires in Scotland paying lots of lovely tax, as they do in London even after accountants have managed the figure down. So income would be lower.
But it’s still a deficit at least comparable to the UK’s as a whole. True, part of that might be debt interest. But it doesn’t account for all of it. And bearing in mind quite a lot of the debt was taken on to rescue a Scottish bank, your logic of ‘no debt’ doesn’t follow.
That’s not to say an independent Scotland would be economically unviable. Clearly, it could be prosperous based on its native industries (highly profitable tourism and whisky are going nowhere even when the oil runs out). But painful choices would have to be made in the short term to balance the books. University tuition fees would rise steeply, for starters.
Have a good morning.
It’s already a demonstration of the insanity of the Republican Supreme Court effectively destroying campaign finance regulation.
Neatly side-stepping the blatant truth that people used local elections to send a message to Tony Blair's otherwise successful reign. The locals meant didly squat on a national level and it's at best lazy argument to suggest otherwise and at worst deliberate deceit.
It’s a rather futile speculation, since it would require postulating a somewhat different society than existed at the time.
He was good enough to have risen quickly under a meritocratic system.
Or, more bluntly, in 2017 he could at least appeal to people as a man of principle, whereas by 2019 he was cynically trying to hide his own views and manoeuvre his party atop the fence. His supporters wanted to see his inner Trump not his inner Clinton.
Corbyn, and Labour, also made the mistake of thinking that because people liked the giveaways on offer in 2017, they should double down and offer twice as many in 2019. Yet this turned their campaign into a parody of itself.
I recommend reading it in full.
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/eyeplayer/play-367
Two business titans going head-to-head would be explosive, although Bloomberg makes Trump look like Poundshop.
It was the French, after their revolution opened up prospects for soldiers with ability to rise more freely into the officer ranks, that had the dividend from better officers.
Bloomberg 3.9
Buttigieg 8.4
Biden 15.5
Warren 25
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128161111
Only in that the rest of them mostly believed in Brexit from the beginning.
Trying to pretend that based on UK policies we are a basket case is just wrong, unionists trying to pretend Scotland is 80% of the UK deficit is just stupid. On your last point, we have lots of painful choices forced on us now with no input on what is best for us.
You have to be blind to think Scotland is being run successfully from London.
I agree small countries can be successful and I think Scotland can be, once it drops its fripperies I completely agree. Just a shame the SNP insist on maintaining those fripperies today and not leading by example.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.