Interesting line on Playbook about the BBC mulling over what to do about the PM turning Covid briefings into political campaign rallies. His not entirely factual / outright lie attack on Khan has got their heckles up as how do they maintain impartiality during purdah?
Perfect issue for the Tories. Johnson simply makes up any old lie he likes about Khan or any other opposition candidate. The BBC cuts away. And then attack waves of Tory MPs and the Mail/Express/GBnotNews go piling in about leftie BBC cancel culture.
That it is illegal for the BBC to broadcast shagger's lies won't matter. Watch for more of them in coming days and more of him leading the press conferences.
I want 90k at Wembley. And I think it’s entirely sensible to say it should happen for England vs Scotland and we could get away without vaccine certificates for it.
The government’s main problem on this is it’s setting up an unBrittish and illiberal policy without explaining in what basis it will be rescinded. If there was an automatic sunset clause when say 80% [pick a number] of over 18s had received two doses, I wouldn’t grumble. It’s this implicit undertone that once they’re implemented they’re never disappearing. Much as with masks.
Compulsory masks are disappearing. The current regulations on masks in England cease to apply for public transport on 15th June and for other settings on 24th July. The government could, of course, extend the regulations but, as things stand, compulsory face masks will come to an end this summer.
It won't stop me wearing one ..
And that is your right. I have lost faith in the hand sanitising as the evidence has shown that aerosols are by far and away the biggest form of spread. I wash them when dirty and before eating. But that is my choice too.
I was told that there is evidence that hand sanitising has prevented any flu this year...I many have been misinformed?
Ashworth on R4, laying into vaccine passports whilst doggedly refusing to say Labour would vote against them.
This really is undermining SKS. Has he a firm view on anything (other than a delusion that despite being unable to make up his mind he would be a better PM)?
*looks hard at Boris Johnson*
That isn’t a delusion, David.
Nope. One of the key aspects of being PM is having some idea of what you want to do when you get the job. Our worst PMs wanted the position for its own sake.
I agree with Mike that Labour are clear value here now.
This poll is more than slightly suspect, with a small data set and the telephone angle no doubt making it difficult to get a balanced poll. We retain a landline for internet services but we very, very rarely even answer it these days as everyone we want to speak to calls on the mobiles. I suspect that is not unusual which means those answering landlines are likely to be older and possibly poorer than the average. I would not be inclined to give it much weight and this is not a criticism of Survation, its the reality that they have to deal with in a time of Covid.
As @Foxy has already pointed out the other questions are not exactly compatible with a Tory lead either. The responses are to the left of SKS, to the extent that he has a view at all.
If you were a union with an axe to grind against Starmer, and wanted to target the most brexit-y voters then a phone poll on landlines would be the way to go.
Now I don't know local politics in the North East and they seem to have fallen out of love with Labour - but there is a loyalty to Labour, and it is all very well telling a pollster you will vote Tory, but going to the polling station and putting and X in a box for the evil Tories is surely a step beyond Ukip/Brexit
Why? So many of them will already be doing so - Ben Houchen will win by a landslide, and likely now a comfortable win for the Tory PCC candidate. Once you lose that habit of always voting Labour, all kinds of things are possible as witnessed by the Tory MP elected in Bolsover. As I keep pointing out, this is merely one of many votes happening that day, turnout will be decent, many (formerly) LLLLLL voters will be putting a cross against the Tory Mayor so why not for Tory cash for the town as well?
The bit in bold is very important here - the regional mayor's campaign is very much - look what I've already achieved, imagine what is still to come.
And Hartlepool has missed out on everything so far. Now there are reasons for that (Darlington got the Treasury as the local communication links rival anywhere you can think of now the airport is safe, Redcar had the steel works to replace...) but it's got to be obvious that a Tory council and a Tory MP is going to give the town more chances of getting investment than voting for labour.
Do I lay Laurence Fox at 739 -1 or does he shorten further ?
The candidate list is published on Thursday, and he’s unlikely to be on it. He’s standing in London on the same day. Presumably he gets laid out to infinity, the minute he’s officially a non-runner?
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
I agree with Mike that Labour are clear value here now.
This poll is more than slightly suspect, with a small data set and the telephone angle no doubt making it difficult to get a balanced poll. We retain a landline for internet services but we very, very rarely even answer it these days as everyone we want to speak to calls on the mobiles. I suspect that is not unusual which means those answering landlines are likely to be older and possibly poorer than the average. I would not be inclined to give it much weight and this is not a criticism of Survation, its the reality that they have to deal with in a time of Covid.
As @Foxy has already pointed out the other questions are not exactly compatible with a Tory lead either. The responses are to the left of SKS, to the extent that he has a view at all.
I think the point is that the voters in Hartlepool want a magic money tree and believe that the Tories will provide one.
In fairness to date Rishi has been burning his way through the magic money forest with the rapaciousness of an Amazonian logger so it is perhaps not surprising they approve. Like the Amazon, however, the forest is not endless, nor is it quite as magical as it appears.
Pedantically, it is farmers not loggers burning the rainforest surely?
The question though is how long the forest lasts, and what happens when it is finished? I reckon it will last until 2024, then quite a reckoning.
There is no party to vote for who wants sound money and a balanced budget. Voters who want these things are like the designated driver at a stag night.
For a truly ghastly moment, I thought you meant the Amazon rainforest would be gone by 2024.
Ashworth on R4, laying into vaccine passports whilst doggedly refusing to say Labour would vote against them.
This really is undermining SKS. Has he a firm view on anything (other than a delusion that despite being unable to make up his mind he would be a better PM)?
*looks hard at Boris Johnson*
That isn’t a delusion, David.
Nope. One of the key aspects of being PM is having some idea of what you want to do when you get the job. Our worst PMs wanted the position for its own sake.
I want 90k at Wembley. And I think it’s entirely sensible to say it should happen for England vs Scotland and we could get away without vaccine certificates for it.
The government’s main problem on this is it’s setting up an unBrittish and illiberal policy without explaining in what basis it will be rescinded. If there was an automatic sunset clause when say 80% [pick a number] of over 18s had received two doses, I wouldn’t grumble. It’s this implicit undertone that once they’re implemented they’re never disappearing. Much as with masks.
Compulsory masks are disappearing. The current regulations on masks in England cease to apply for public transport on 15th June and for other settings on 24th July. The government could, of course, extend the regulations but, as things stand, compulsory face masks will come to an end this summer.
It won't stop me wearing one ..
And that is your right. I have lost faith in the hand sanitising as the evidence has shown that aerosols are by far and away the biggest form of spread. I wash them when dirty and before eating. But that is my choice too.
I was told that there is evidence that hand sanitising has prevented any flu this year...I many have been misinformed?
Norovirus has disappeared.
I think that cleanliness will persist after covid, for a couple of years at least.
I want 90k at Wembley. And I think it’s entirely sensible to say it should happen for England vs Scotland and we could get away without vaccine certificates for it.
The government’s main problem on this is it’s setting up an unBrittish and illiberal policy without explaining in what basis it will be rescinded. If there was an automatic sunset clause when say 80% [pick a number] of over 18s had received two doses, I wouldn’t grumble. It’s this implicit undertone that once they’re implemented they’re never disappearing. Much as with masks.
Compulsory masks are disappearing. The current regulations on masks in England cease to apply for public transport on 15th June and for other settings on 24th July. The government could, of course, extend the regulations but, as things stand, compulsory face masks will come to an end this summer.
Good riddance. They were sold as a way to prevent a second wave and they were a total failure at that, though they may of course have slightly reduced its severity.
One of the few benefits from the staged reopening is that we might get some idea which lockdown measures actually make any kind of difference.
Interesting line on Playbook about the BBC mulling over what to do about the PM turning Covid briefings into political campaign rallies. His not entirely factual / outright lie attack on Khan has got their heckles up as how do they maintain impartiality during purdah?
Perfect issue for the Tories. Johnson simply makes up any old lie he likes about Khan or any other opposition candidate. The BBC cuts away. And then attack waves of Tory MPs and the Mail/Express/GBnotNews go piling in about leftie BBC cancel culture.
That it is illegal for the BBC to broadcast shagger's lies won't matter. Watch for more of them in coming days and more of him leading the press conferences.
Same applies to Sturgeon. Last week I was watching her one and the BBC and Sky News let her give her speech but then didn't carry the Q&A, which seemed wrong to me.
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the truth is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Interesting line on Playbook about the BBC mulling over what to do about the PM turning Covid briefings into political campaign rallies. His not entirely factual / outright lie attack on Khan has got their heckles up as how do they maintain impartiality during purdah?
Perfect issue for the Tories. Johnson simply makes up any old lie he likes about Khan or any other opposition candidate. The BBC cuts away. And then attack waves of Tory MPs and the Mail/Express/GBnotNews go piling in about leftie BBC cancel culture.
That it is illegal for the BBC to broadcast shagger's lies won't matter. Watch for more of them in coming days and more of him leading the press conferences.
Fair enough - so why have the Beeb let Sturgeon get away with it for so long?
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
Interesting line on Playbook about the BBC mulling over what to do about the PM turning Covid briefings into political campaign rallies. His not entirely factual / outright lie attack on Khan has got their heckles up as how do they maintain impartiality during purdah?
Perfect issue for the Tories. Johnson simply makes up any old lie he likes about Khan or any other opposition candidate. The BBC cuts away. And then attack waves of Tory MPs and the Mail/Express/GBnotNews go piling in about leftie BBC cancel culture.
That it is illegal for the BBC to broadcast shagger's lies won't matter. Watch for more of them in coming days and more of him leading the press conferences.
Fair enough - so why have the Beeb let Sturgeon get away with it for so long?
To be fair, purdah has only just started.
Playing the statement, but not the Q&A seems a reasonable compromise. The partisan stuff tends to come from the Q&A as the journalists go for partisan questions. If the statement is partisan, then that's an issue.
Sounds like Cammo's Greensill has taken Credit Suisse down with it
Don't think that they are in any danger of going down but they have certainly taken a serious hit. Why do you say that? The article I read suggested a loss of £900m in Q1, not great but nothing like enough to bring a bank like that down.
Though others must be taking a hit too from Archegos as well as Greenshill.
Perhaps getting to time to cash out of the equities bubble again?
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
Largely they were never Tories. They were don't votes, or ex Labour. That they are now solidly Tory is the entertaining bit.
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
You need to read what Rochdale actually said as he was quoting a local (Stockton North) Tory councillor who had switched to BXP and was campaigning for the BXP.
Being blunt - Labour is a spent force in the North East - it's failed in the local towns (albeit that's because they had to implement Tory austerity) and the things it talks about nationally are completely irrelevant to the North East. Worse for Labour, the regional mayor has been so successful that it really is a situation of Tories - done very well over the past 4 years, labour done really badly over the last 10. Now some of that is very local (Labour in Darlington tried to close all the libraries to save money until told it was a legal requirement at which point they tried to cram it into the local leisure centre) but the story is a generic one. Austerity means there are 10 years of council service cuts with the Labour party's name all over them.
Sounds like Cammo's Greensill has taken Credit Suisse down with it
Don't think that they are in any danger of going down but they have certainly taken a serious hit. Why do you say that? The article I read suggested a loss of £900m in Q1, not great but nothing like enough to bring a bank like that down.
Though others must be taking a hit too from Archegos as well as Greenshill.
Perhaps getting to time to cash out of the equities bubble again?
£4.7 bn loss in Archegos alone, makes Greensill pale in comparison.
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
You need to read what Rochdale actually said as he was quoting a local (Stockton North) Tory councillor who had switched to BXP and was campaigning for the BXP.
Being blunt - Labour is a spent force in the North East - it's failed in the local towns (albeit that's because they had to implement Tory austerity) and the things it talks about nationally are completely irrelevant to the North East. Worse for Labour, the regional mayor has been so successful that it really is a situation of Tories - done very well over the past 4 years, labour done really badly over the last 10.
I did read that and RP has been informative and authoritative on the local area. But that wasn't my point.
I specifically highlighted the section I put in bold, which was "Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right."
My question was 'is there anything wrong' with 'apparently' making that preference?
I want 90k at Wembley. And I think it’s entirely sensible to say it should happen for England vs Scotland and we could get away without vaccine certificates for it.
The government’s main problem on this is it’s setting up an unBrittish and illiberal policy without explaining in what basis it will be rescinded. If there was an automatic sunset clause when say 80% [pick a number] of over 18s had received two doses, I wouldn’t grumble. It’s this implicit undertone that once they’re implemented they’re never disappearing. Much as with masks.
Compulsory masks are disappearing. The current regulations on masks in England cease to apply for public transport on 15th June and for other settings on 24th July. The government could, of course, extend the regulations but, as things stand, compulsory face masks will come to an end this summer.
It won't stop me wearing one ..
And that is your right. I have lost faith in the hand sanitising as the evidence has shown that aerosols are by far and away the biggest form of spread. I wash them when dirty and before eating. But that is my choice too.
I was told that there is evidence that hand sanitising has prevented any flu this year...I many have been misinformed?
I suspect the masks have had a pretty good effect on it, plus the social distancing and lockdown. Cleaning hands will have some effect but it is not the major issue that was suggested at the start of pandemic, and had resulted in epic levels of sanitising theatre.
Sounds like Cammo's Greensill has taken Credit Suisse down with it
Don't think that they are in any danger of going down but they have certainly taken a serious hit. Why do you say that? The article I read suggested a loss of £900m in Q1, not great but nothing like enough to bring a bank like that down.
Though others must be taking a hit too from Archegos as well as Greenshill.
Perhaps getting to time to cash out of the equities bubble again?
I meant, as in a peg or two, not as in floored.
Increasingly I think we'll see a correction, at the very east, over the next year, possibly as early as this autumn. There'll be a trigger event of some sort; this one isn't going to be it.
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
You need to read what Rochdale actually said as he was quoting a local (Stockton North) Tory councillor who had switched to BXP and was campaigning for the BXP.
Being blunt - Labour is a spent force in the North East - it's failed in the local towns (albeit that's because they had to implement Tory austerity) and the things it talks about nationally are completely irrelevant to the North East. Worse for Labour, the regional mayor has been so successful that it really is a situation of Tories - done very well over the past 4 years, labour done really badly over the last 10.
I did read that and RP has been informative and authoritative on the local area. But that wasn't my point.
I specifically highlighted the section I put in bold, which was "Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right."
My question was 'is there anything wrong' with 'appartently' making that preference?
Read it from a BXP viewpoint - Boris with a 120 seat majority could have gone for a very weak deal (standard market for goods...)
With a majority of 80 Boris had to go for a very limited deal because there was 45+ awkward squad Tory MPs who could have voted against his watered down plan.
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
Largely they were never Tories. They were don't votes, or ex Labour. That they are now solidly Tory is the entertaining bit.
Indeed.
Like in Scotland once someone who is "never" changing does change, there becomes little reason to revert back.
Not long ago saying in that area that you were voting Tory would probably be a bit like saying that you have a perversion, but that's not the case now anymore. The societal pressure to conform has gone.
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
You need to read what Rochdale actually said as he was quoting a local (Stockton North) Tory councillor who had switched to BXP and was campaigning for the BXP.
Being blunt - Labour is a spent force in the North East - it's failed in the local towns (albeit that's because they had to implement Tory austerity) and the things it talks about nationally are completely irrelevant to the North East. Worse for Labour, the regional mayor has been so successful that it really is a situation of Tories - done very well over the past 4 years, labour done really badly over the last 10.
I did read that and RP has been informative and authoritative on the local area. But that wasn't my point.
I specifically highlighted the section I put in bold, which was "Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right."
My question was 'is there anything wrong' with 'appartently' making that preference?
Read it from a BXP viewpoint - Boris with a 120 seat majority could have gone for a very weak deal (standard market for goods...)
With a majority of 80 Boris had to go for a very limited deal because there was 45+ awkward squad Tory MPs who could have voted against his watered down plan.
Well precisely. But from the perspective of the ex-councillor he was chatting to at the count - the ex-councillor has got exactly what he wanted, hasn't he? BXP have got what they wanted, haven't they?
Sounds like Cammo's Greensill has taken Credit Suisse down with it
Don't think that they are in any danger of going down but they have certainly taken a serious hit. Why do you say that? The article I read suggested a loss of £900m in Q1, not great but nothing like enough to bring a bank like that down.
Though others must be taking a hit too from Archegos as well as Greenshill.
Perhaps getting to time to cash out of the equities bubble again?
I meant, as in a peg or two, not as in floored.
Increasingly I think we'll see a correction, at the very east, over the next year, possibly as early as this autumn. There'll be a trigger event of some sort; this one isn't going to be it.
I see that both the Dow and Dax are at all time highs, and that makes me nervous.
On the other hand, QE and MMT spending does push up real asset prices.
I may shift out of financials a bit though. It is a bit too much of my portfolio.
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
You need to read what Rochdale actually said as he was quoting a local (Stockton North) Tory councillor who had switched to BXP and was campaigning for the BXP.
Being blunt - Labour is a spent force in the North East - it's failed in the local towns (albeit that's because they had to implement Tory austerity) and the things it talks about nationally are completely irrelevant to the North East. Worse for Labour, the regional mayor has been so successful that it really is a situation of Tories - done very well over the past 4 years, labour done really badly over the last 10.
I did read that and RP has been informative and authoritative on the local area. But that wasn't my point.
I specifically highlighted the section I put in bold, which was "Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right."
My question was 'is there anything wrong' with 'apparently' making that preference?
Nothing at all - as a strategy it worked. My point was that for the "Tories could have won seat x" comments, the Tories neither needed to win these seats nor did Farage have any interest in helping them win those seats - it was Brexit uber alles.
The BXP candidate from Stockton South (John Prescott...) is running for RUK in Hartlepool. He is a perfectly amiable chap from Newcastle who seemed entirely focused on a clean Brexit as his goal. Which absolutely backed up what their activists told me as the strategy. I have no idea why RUK exist never mind what candidates like Prescott will be campaigning on.
Interesting line on Playbook about the BBC mulling over what to do about the PM turning Covid briefings into political campaign rallies. His not entirely factual / outright lie attack on Khan has got their heckles up as how do they maintain impartiality during purdah?
Perfect issue for the Tories. Johnson simply makes up any old lie he likes about Khan or any other opposition candidate. The BBC cuts away. And then attack waves of Tory MPs and the Mail/Express/GBnotNews go piling in about leftie BBC cancel culture.
That it is illegal for the BBC to broadcast shagger's lies won't matter. Watch for more of them in coming days and more of him leading the press conferences.
Fair enough - so why have the Beeb let Sturgeon get away with it for so long?
I suspect because prior to now - it filled the airwaves but purdah means that different rules have to be applied.
Sounds like Cammo's Greensill has taken Credit Suisse down with it
Don't think that they are in any danger of going down but they have certainly taken a serious hit. Why do you say that? The article I read suggested a loss of £900m in Q1, not great but nothing like enough to bring a bank like that down.
Though others must be taking a hit too from Archegos as well as Greenshill.
Perhaps getting to time to cash out of the equities bubble again?
£4.7 bn loss in Archegos alone, makes Greensill pale in comparison.
Ouch.
There is a reason for the name Debit Suisse.
Anyone else remember what happened to their asset management arm?
Hartlepool opinion poll summary: * very good for the Tories, very bad for Labour; * very high margin of error; * the Tories will absolutely wish it had not been done, Labour will be sort of pleased it was.
I want 90k at Wembley. And I think it’s entirely sensible to say it should happen for England vs Scotland and we could get away without vaccine certificates for it.
The government’s main problem on this is it’s setting up an unBrittish and illiberal policy without explaining in what basis it will be rescinded. If there was an automatic sunset clause when say 80% [pick a number] of over 18s had received two doses, I wouldn’t grumble. It’s this implicit undertone that once they’re implemented they’re never disappearing. Much as with masks.
Compulsory masks are disappearing. The current regulations on masks in England cease to apply for public transport on 15th June and for other settings on 24th July. The government could, of course, extend the regulations but, as things stand, compulsory face masks will come to an end this summer.
Sage talking about masks for at least another 12 months, Bozza and Gove scared of their own shadows and begging up a "summer wave"... I'm fairly certain the mask regulation will be extended, because they are (incorrectly) seen as a zero cost intervention. Well I'm not playing anymore, come June no matter what happens I will not be wearing one. Download the pdf of Exempt on your phone in case anyone tries to moan at me.
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
You need to read what Rochdale actually said as he was quoting a local (Stockton North) Tory councillor who had switched to BXP and was campaigning for the BXP.
Being blunt - Labour is a spent force in the North East - it's failed in the local towns (albeit that's because they had to implement Tory austerity) and the things it talks about nationally are completely irrelevant to the North East. Worse for Labour, the regional mayor has been so successful that it really is a situation of Tories - done very well over the past 4 years, labour done really badly over the last 10.
I did read that and RP has been informative and authoritative on the local area. But that wasn't my point.
I specifically highlighted the section I put in bold, which was "Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right."
My question was 'is there anything wrong' with 'appartently' making that preference?
Read it from a BXP viewpoint - Boris with a 120 seat majority could have gone for a very weak deal (standard market for goods...)
With a majority of 80 Boris had to go for a very limited deal because there was 45+ awkward squad Tory MPs who could have voted against his watered down plan.
Well precisely. But from the perspective of the ex-councillor he was chatting to at the count - the ex-councillor has got exactly what he wanted, hasn't he? BXP have got what they wanted, haven't they?
They've not messed up here, have they?
They haven't - but it does mean that we actually don't know what the real voter / seat composition of Parliament should be as the BXP impacted the results.
Which for Labour is going to be a problem as there are 30-40 or so seats which Labour won thanks to the BXP stealing Tory votes and another 10-20 seats that seemed safe Labour but are in reality marginal.
Which means SKS has a real problem as he can't just campaign in Tory seats that Labour lost in 2019 - he needs to also campaign in 50+ seats that are currently labour held only because the not labour vote was split.
Interesting line on Playbook about the BBC mulling over what to do about the PM turning Covid briefings into political campaign rallies. His not entirely factual / outright lie attack on Khan has got their heckles up as how do they maintain impartiality during purdah?
Perfect issue for the Tories. Johnson simply makes up any old lie he likes about Khan or any other opposition candidate. The BBC cuts away. And then attack waves of Tory MPs and the Mail/Express/GBnotNews go piling in about leftie BBC cancel culture.
That it is illegal for the BBC to broadcast shagger's lies won't matter. Watch for more of them in coming days and more of him leading the press conferences.
In this case he was asked by a London journalist about TFL and responded as any politician would
Indeed this has been a continuing theme in Sturgeon's press conferences
Boris and Nicola both upsetting opponents is politics
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
You need to read what Rochdale actually said as he was quoting a local (Stockton North) Tory councillor who had switched to BXP and was campaigning for the BXP.
Being blunt - Labour is a spent force in the North East - it's failed in the local towns (albeit that's because they had to implement Tory austerity) and the things it talks about nationally are completely irrelevant to the North East. Worse for Labour, the regional mayor has been so successful that it really is a situation of Tories - done very well over the past 4 years, labour done really badly over the last 10.
I did read that and RP has been informative and authoritative on the local area. But that wasn't my point.
I specifically highlighted the section I put in bold, which was "Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right."
My question was 'is there anything wrong' with 'apparently' making that preference?
Nothing at all - as a strategy it worked. My point was that for the "Tories could have won seat x" comments, the Tories neither needed to win these seats nor did Farage have any interest in helping them win those seats - it was Brexit uber alles.
The BXP candidate from Stockton South (John Prescott...) is running for RUK in Hartlepool. He is a perfectly amiable chap from Newcastle who seemed entirely focused on a clean Brexit as his goal. Which absolutely backed up what their activists told me as the strategy. I have no idea why RUK exist never mind what candidates like Prescott will be campaigning on.
Interesting line on Playbook about the BBC mulling over what to do about the PM turning Covid briefings into political campaign rallies. His not entirely factual / outright lie attack on Khan has got their heckles up as how do they maintain impartiality during purdah?
Perfect issue for the Tories. Johnson simply makes up any old lie he likes about Khan or any other opposition candidate. The BBC cuts away. And then attack waves of Tory MPs and the Mail/Express/GBnotNews go piling in about leftie BBC cancel culture.
That it is illegal for the BBC to broadcast shagger's lies won't matter. Watch for more of them in coming days and more of him leading the press conferences.
Again, I've got no issue with them blocking that stuff, but at the same time they've let Nicola have a daily SNP political broadcast for a year so I'm not sure that they'll be able to do anything about it.
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
You need to read what Rochdale actually said as he was quoting a local (Stockton North) Tory councillor who had switched to BXP and was campaigning for the BXP.
Being blunt - Labour is a spent force in the North East - it's failed in the local towns (albeit that's because they had to implement Tory austerity) and the things it talks about nationally are completely irrelevant to the North East. Worse for Labour, the regional mayor has been so successful that it really is a situation of Tories - done very well over the past 4 years, labour done really badly over the last 10.
I did read that and RP has been informative and authoritative on the local area. But that wasn't my point.
I specifically highlighted the section I put in bold, which was "Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right."
My question was 'is there anything wrong' with 'apparently' making that preference?
Nothing at all - as a strategy it worked. My point was that for the "Tories could have won seat x" comments, the Tories neither needed to win these seats nor did Farage have any interest in helping them win those seats - it was Brexit uber alles.
The BXP candidate from Stockton South (John Prescott...) is running for RUK in Hartlepool. He is a perfectly amiable chap from Newcastle who seemed entirely focused on a clean Brexit as his goal. Which absolutely backed up what their activists told me as the strategy. I have no idea why RUK exist never mind what candidates like Prescott will be campaigning on.
What is RUK?
The Reform party - which Nigel created after Brexit occurred.
If the vote on vaxports is very tight, then Gillan's seat sadly empty but Hartlepool a Tory would keep the balance, but if the latter retains a Lab MP slight uptick potentially in 'no' vote (assuming Starmer whips for 'no' - massive assumption at moment).
Hartlepool opinion poll summary: * very good for the Tories, very bad for Labour; * very high margin of error; * the Tories will absolutely wish it had not been done, Labour will be sort of pleased it was.
Good for the Tories in the Leave voting Red Wall where they are still squeezing the BXP but also Labour can take some comfort they are also up and squeezing the LDs.
In a Tory Remain seat like Chingford and Woodford Green, in 2019 Labour got 46%, the Tories 48.5% and the LDs 6% in 2019 and there was no BXP candidate.
Even on the Hartlepool poll swing then Labour would still take Chingford for instance
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
The irony here is that I, a traitor who fucked off to join the Tories LibDems want Paul Williams and Labour to win, and you the proper socialist want Labour to lose.
Well, if you use the institutional racism yardstick, then vaccine passports are racist.
- Vaccination skews heavily away from some minority groups. - So those without vaccine passports will be skewed towards minority groups. - So a disproportionate (by population) number of minority people will be denied services etc
Though
- Vaccination and reopening without passports. Will lead to higher incidence in minority groups (vaccination). - Vaccination and passports. Discrimination against minorities. - Vaccination and continued lockdown until vaccination levels out. "Forcing" minorities to get the vaccinations.
Hartlepool opinion poll summary: * very good for the Tories, very bad for Labour; * very high margin of error; * the Tories will absolutely wish it had not been done, Labour will be sort of pleased it was.
Confirms what the locals on the ground think so high margin of error but corresponds to what I'm hearing and seeing on facebook locally.
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
Split vote - as I stated at the 2019 election - Nigel Farage cost the Tories 15-20 seats minimum
Stockton North being a prime example. The Brexit Party went for it - and entertainingly many of their activists were ex Tories. Including one notable ex Tory councillor who had been booted in one of the Tory purges they used to regularly do on Teesside. Chatting with said ex-councillor at the count, and putting it to him that the neck and neck Lab / Con piles wouldn't be without them running a spoiler campaign, he said they HAD to campaign hard to put the shits up Boris. Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right.
The Tories could have taken all kinds of unlikely seats on the night had BXP not deliberately split the vote to keep the Tories honest.
Bold: Is there anything wrong in that?
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
The entire point was that Nigel / the Brexit party cost the Tories 20 - 30 seats which means
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140) 2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the reality is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
Indeed. But if you're not a Tory partisan was there any reason for people like Rochdale described wanting a "proper Brexit" or to "keep Boris honest" not to prefer that over a 120 instead of 80 seat majority.
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
You need to read what Rochdale actually said as he was quoting a local (Stockton North) Tory councillor who had switched to BXP and was campaigning for the BXP.
Being blunt - Labour is a spent force in the North East - it's failed in the local towns (albeit that's because they had to implement Tory austerity) and the things it talks about nationally are completely irrelevant to the North East. Worse for Labour, the regional mayor has been so successful that it really is a situation of Tories - done very well over the past 4 years, labour done really badly over the last 10.
I did read that and RP has been informative and authoritative on the local area. But that wasn't my point.
I specifically highlighted the section I put in bold, which was "Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right."
My question was 'is there anything wrong' with 'apparently' making that preference?
Nothing at all - as a strategy it worked. My point was that for the "Tories could have won seat x" comments, the Tories neither needed to win these seats nor did Farage have any interest in helping them win those seats - it was Brexit uber alles.
The BXP candidate from Stockton South (John Prescott...) is running for RUK in Hartlepool. He is a perfectly amiable chap from Newcastle who seemed entirely focused on a clean Brexit as his goal. Which absolutely backed up what their activists told me as the strategy. I have no idea why RUK exist never mind what candidates like Prescott will be campaigning on.
What is RUK?
The Reform party - which Nigel created after Brexit occurred.
My only comment on this is that this is a phone poll so presumably done via landlines (identifiably local) rather than mobile phones which may bias the results but it confirms my view from the moment this election was announced - the Brexit vote has swung to the Tories and this will be reinforced as the mayoral election emphasises Ben Houchen's successes elsewhere in the region.
My understanding is that there is now a lot of mobile phone data available through public commercial sources, presumably people who buy stuff online and don't tick the "Do not share my details with trusted partners" box. So perhaps half the electorate are still accessible. But which half?
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
Hartlepool opinion poll summary: * very good for the Tories, very bad for Labour; * very high margin of error; * the Tories will absolutely wish it had not been done, Labour will be sort of pleased it was.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub doors aren't secured or ticketed.
It’s staggering to me that a lot of people seem to think Labour is point scoring in a crisis when others simultaneously think they aren’t doing anything at all. I can’t comprehend that
I agree with Mike that Labour are clear value here now.
This poll is more than slightly suspect, with a small data set and the telephone angle no doubt making it difficult to get a balanced poll. We retain a landline for internet services but we very, very rarely even answer it these days as everyone we want to speak to calls on the mobiles. I suspect that is not unusual which means those answering landlines are likely to be older and possibly poorer than the average. I would not be inclined to give it much weight and this is not a criticism of Survation, its the reality that they have to deal with in a time of Covid.
As @Foxy has already pointed out the other questions are not exactly compatible with a Tory lead either. The responses are to the left of SKS, to the extent that he has a view at all.
I don't think we should take the poll as gospel, but I'd caution against being too suspect of the policy/VI split. The public are consistently left-wing economically (and socially conservative on immigration, law and order, and some other areas). But polls showing the public preferred the policies of Ed Miliband in 2015 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2019 didn't lead those same public to vote for them to run the country. Rail nationalisation, for example, has been popular forever - but Labour can still hurt their brand by backing it if it plays into an image that they are anti-business.
Another good example of a policy where the public are far more left-wing than you'd think is rent controls, which if memory serves is backed by a majority...of Tory voters...and about 80% of the public overall. Funnily enough, despite being rather left-wing myself on most issues I am one of the 20%.
Re; "The public are consistently left-wing economically" - I keep hearing this and I'm far from convinced.
True that the public seem happy to soak future generations for their own personal advantage today - was this ever any different? - but I don't think this defines being left wing economically. At least I hope it doesn't.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub does aren't secured or ticketed.
Is that like the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost because it's lighter there?
Sounds like Cammo's Greensill has taken Credit Suisse down with it
Don't think that they are in any danger of going down but they have certainly taken a serious hit. Why do you say that? The article I read suggested a loss of £900m in Q1, not great but nothing like enough to bring a bank like that down.
Though others must be taking a hit too from Archegos as well as Greenshill.
Perhaps getting to time to cash out of the equities bubble again?
£4.7 bn loss in Archegos alone, makes Greensill pale in comparison.
Ouch.
I can't find the original, but there's a great quote from someone about LTCM or maybe the 2008 crash along the lines of "Some smart people convinced themselves they'd discovered magic, but really it was just leverage."
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
In theatres and classical music concerts the audience sits quietly and doesn't vocalise. Probably the biggest risk of transmission is at the half time drinks. In pop concerts, night clubs and football the audience makes lots of noise, so a much greater risk IMO. Pubs and bars are probably between the two, depending on clientele.
It’s staggering to me that a lot of people seem to think Labour is point scoring in a crisis when others simultaneously think they aren’t doing anything at all. I can’t comprehend that
Labour don't have any policies, so they stumble from one subject to another. It doesn't help that the Party is split down the middle.
I don’t know, can Starmer be happy in some sense that Labour’s vote has at least gone up, it would seem to imply that if he does better than Corbyn, it’s because he basically brought back the 2017 Remain coalition.
Of course his big issue is the Tory vote is still incredibly strong, in fact historically so. And he’s not yet found really any solution to that problem.
I tend to agree with others, the best chance he has is the Tories fucking up like Trump did. I cannot however see that happening.
He’ll hope to make some level of progress in 2024 and if he does he can go to bed happy IMHO.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
IIRC it was simply confirmed yesterday they would not be required for pubs “from next Monday”. You yourself have said it should be a matter of choice for the business concerned so there is nothing to stop retailers demanding them.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
In theatres and classical music concerts the audience sits quietly and doesn't vocalise. Probably the biggest risk of transmission is at the half time drinks. In pop concerts, night clubs and football the audience makes lots of noise, so a much greater risk IMO. Pubs and bars are probably between the two, depending on clientele.
It’s staggering to me that a lot of people seem to think Labour is point scoring in a crisis when others simultaneously think they aren’t doing anything at all. I can’t comprehend that
Good point but I think that those who criticise LP for the former are a different group to those that criticise for the latter? SKS is in a difficult position over this and many other matters and I feel sorry for him TBH.
I don’t know, can Starmer be happy in some sense that Labour’s vote has at least gone up, it would seem to imply that if he does better than Corbyn, it’s because he basically brought back the 2017 Remain coalition.
Of course his big issue is the Tory vote is still incredibly strong, in fact historically so. And he’s not yet found really any solution to that problem.
I tend to agree with others, the best chance he has is the Tories fucking up like Trump did. I cannot however see that happening.
He’ll hope to make some level of progress in 2024 and if he does he can go to bed happy IMHO.
Starmer's big problem (charisma bypass, and supporting everything the govt has done for the past 12 months aside) is that as the Cons have turned on the spending taps, voters are likely to think - oh I want some of that nice Conservative money please. Anything Lab says on this issue will fail (spend more: you would say that we are getting plenty as it is now thanks v much; spend the same: what's the point in changing horses; spend less: well....)
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
IIRC it was simply confirmed yesterday they would not be required for pubs “from next Monday”. You yourself have said it should be a matter of choice for the business concerned so there is nothing to stop retailers demanding them.
That's my personal preference yes, to leave it to personal choice, not the government's policy.
If the government adopts that then pubs are not required to use vaccine passports. They can if they choose to do so, but they're not required. Required means compulsory, not optional.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub does aren't secured or ticketed.
Is that like the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost because it's lighter there?
One point, in a cinema at full capacity you're next to, and in front of someone you don't know for two hours. In a pub you can choose where you sit. Also the ticketing practicality is a real world consideration.
I agree with Mike that Labour are clear value here now.
This poll is more than slightly suspect, with a small data set and the telephone angle no doubt making it difficult to get a balanced poll. We retain a landline for internet services but we very, very rarely even answer it these days as everyone we want to speak to calls on the mobiles. I suspect that is not unusual which means those answering landlines are likely to be older and possibly poorer than the average. I would not be inclined to give it much weight and this is not a criticism of Survation, its the reality that they have to deal with in a time of Covid.
As @Foxy has already pointed out the other questions are not exactly compatible with a Tory lead either. The responses are to the left of SKS, to the extent that he has a view at all.
I don't think we should take the poll as gospel, but I'd caution against being too suspect of the policy/VI split. The public are consistently left-wing economically (and socially conservative on immigration, law and order, and some other areas). But polls showing the public preferred the policies of Ed Miliband in 2015 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2019 didn't lead those same public to vote for them to run the country. Rail nationalisation, for example, has been popular forever - but Labour can still hurt their brand by backing it if it plays into an image that they are anti-business.
Another good example of a policy where the public are far more left-wing than you'd think is rent controls, which if memory serves is backed by a majority...of Tory voters...and about 80% of the public overall. Funnily enough, despite being rather left-wing myself on most issues I am one of the 20%.
Re; "The public are consistently left-wing economically" - I keep hearing this and I'm far from convinced.
True that the public seem happy to soak future generations for their own personal advantage today - was this ever any different? - but I don't think this defines being left wing economically. At least I hope it doesn't.
We can quibble over definitions, but my point is polls have shown for many years that the public back higher taxes on high earners and increased public spending on most specific suggestions (albeit not always an increase in overall spending) - and therefore we shouldn't read too much into them backing free broadband and so on in this poll.
It's straight out of Yes Minister - aggressively oppose something that no one is proposing.
It's the logical end part of a vaccination card - start at theatres, move to pubs / coffee shops then require in shops (and remember I saw NHS check-ins being required last summer in some shops)
But it also shows that Labour are starting to understand politics which is surely a good thing.
Well, if you use the institutional racism yardstick, then vaccine passports are racist.
- Vaccination skews heavily away from some minority groups. - So those without vaccine passports will be skewed towards minority groups. - So a disproportionate (by population) number of minority people will be denied services etc
Though
- Vaccination and reopening without passports. Will lead to higher incidence in minority groups (vaccination). - Vaccination and passports. Discrimination against minorities. - Vaccination and continued lockdown until vaccination levels out. "Forcing" minorities to get the vaccinations.
Take your pick.
It is an extremely dangerous issue for both sides. Having a basic policy is simple. Once implemented you have to live with it when public opinion switches sides. And implementation is both politically and logistically fiendish. The actual legislation and subsequent SIs would be complex in the extreme if government took the view that government makes all the big calls. Expect government to maximally delegate decision making down to Tim Martin and Ryan Air and friends, and expect them to demand that government makes the big calls.
Opposition to the ID aspect of things unites extreme left, extreme right, liberals, libertarians, the Spectator, Kill the Bill, Jezza, BAMEs, journalists and anyone who feels a bit left out.
The Tories for as long as possible will test out possibilities, and Labour will tell us what it doesn't want but not (apart from hot air) what it does. Those with no prospect of power (LDs) will take simple positions).
The safest course for government is to make available but not compulsory a free vaccine status certificate, with paper and digital alternatives, that alone is hard enough, and delegate within the UK to commerce how to run things (pubs with free entry that may kill you, pubs with regulation that are a bit boring etc). Internationally the government hides behind the needs and provisions of other countries.
Potentially this is Iraq and poll tax and credit crunch for a government if it goes wrong.
Hartlepool opinion poll summary: * very good for the Tories, very bad for Labour; * very high margin of error; * the Tories will absolutely wish it had not been done, Labour will be sort of pleased it was.
Confirms what the locals on the ground think so high margin of error but corresponds to what I'm hearing and seeing on facebook locally.
I am sure it does. Hartlepool always looked a nailed on gain for the Tories to me. I am actually slightly surprised the Labour vote share may actually increase.
It’s staggering to me that a lot of people seem to think Labour is point scoring in a crisis when others simultaneously think they aren’t doing anything at all. I can’t comprehend that
Because you can take sensible constructive criticism. Hunt has done that e.g. he suggested things like having schools open for key worker kids and restricting visits to old people homes.
Labour response time and time again has been we agree, then complaining about more money needed or nit picking about nonsense. Then 2 weeks later moaning government doing it all wrong.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
For now. Then later in the year they will once the scheme is actually working is what he means.
I just don't believe a word Zahawi says on this. Nothing against him, he said he was against it weeks ago and I rather suspect he still is, but Downing Street have told him to hold the line on this while Gove and Hancock do their review.
If they are now saying that nothing that has been reopened will then subsequently need a vaxport then what is the frigging point other than foreign travel? As Freddy Sawyers is arguing this morning in DT, even nightclubs will have been stuffed to breaking with young people for months by the time this app is up and running.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub does aren't secured or ticketed.
Is that like the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost because it's lighter there?
One point, in a cinema at full capacity you're next to, and in front of someone you don't know for two hours. In a pub you can choose where you sit. Also the ticketing practicality is a real world consideration.
No one in government has made this point, but you're implicitly making this about personal safety.
Well, I'm not worried about my own or any other individual's safety. The vaccine is good enough for me. If anyone is worried about catching something, stay at home.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub does aren't secured or ticketed.
Is that like the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost because it's lighter there?
One point, in a cinema at full capacity you're next to, and in front of someone you don't know for two hours. In a pub you can choose where you sit. Also the ticketing practicality is a real world consideration.
What pubs do you go to? I would bet that for every pub that has seating for everyone, there is one wherein it's a bunfight, pushing through crowds of people to queue up at the bar.
Well, if you use the institutional racism yardstick, then vaccine passports are racist.
- Vaccination skews heavily away from some minority groups. - So those without vaccine passports will be skewed towards minority groups. - So a disproportionate (by population) number of minority people will be denied services etc
Though
- Vaccination and reopening without passports. Will lead to higher incidence in minority groups (vaccination). - Vaccination and passports. Discrimination against minorities. - Vaccination and continued lockdown until vaccination levels out. "Forcing" minorities to get the vaccinations.
Take your pick.
It is an extremely dangerous issue for both sides. Having a basic policy is simple. Once implemented you have to live with it when public opinion switches sides. And implementation is both politically and logistically fiendish. The actual legislation and subsequent SIs would be complex in the extreme if government took the view that government makes all the big calls. Expect government to maximally delegate decision making down to Tim Martin and Ryan Air and friends, and expect them to demand that government makes the big calls.
Opposition to the ID aspect of things unites extreme left, extreme right, liberals, libertarians, the Spectator, Kill the Bill, Jezza, BAMEs, journalists and anyone who feels a bit left out.
The Tories for as long as possible will test out possibilities, and Labour will tell us what it doesn't want but not (apart from hot air) what it does. Those with no prospect of power (LDs) will take simple positions).
The safest course for government is to make available but not compulsory a free vaccine status certificate, with paper and digital alternatives, that alone is hard enough, and delegate within the UK to commerce how to run things (pubs with free entry that may kill you, pubs with regulation that are a bit boring etc). Internationally the government hides behind the needs and provisions of other countries.
Potentially this is Iraq and poll tax and credit crunch for a government if it goes wrong.
One thing that amused me yesterday was people asking why Labour wasn't making a big thing about people entering Lockdown Britain on "holiday".
Either they are naive and believe that all illegal migrants enter the country via RIBs on the Channel or they have their eyes tightly shut.
Tightening up on "holiday" visas would have a similar effect to the tightening up on the bullshit "colleges" that were being used for a similar purpose.
It’s staggering to me that a lot of people seem to think Labour is point scoring in a crisis when others simultaneously think they aren’t doing anything at all. I can’t comprehend that
Because you can take sensible constructive criticism. Hunt has done that e.g. he suggested things like having schools open for key worker kids and restricting visits to old people homes.
Labour response time and time again has been we agree, then complaining about more money needed or nit picking about nonsense. Then 2 weeks later moaning government doing it all wrong.
That wasn’t my point, my point is how so many people can think they’re not doing any opposition whilst others think it’s far too much. People really do have widely different perceptions, it’s actually kind of fascinating
I don’t know, can Starmer be happy in some sense that Labour’s vote has at least gone up, it would seem to imply that if he does better than Corbyn, it’s because he basically brought back the 2017 Remain coalition.
Of course his big issue is the Tory vote is still incredibly strong, in fact historically so. And he’s not yet found really any solution to that problem.
I tend to agree with others, the best chance he has is the Tories fucking up like Trump did. I cannot however see that happening.
He’ll hope to make some level of progress in 2024 and if he does he can go to bed happy IMHO.
Starmer's big problem (charisma bypass, and supporting everything the govt has done for the past 12 months aside) is that as the Cons have turned on the spending taps, voters are likely to think - oh I want some of that nice Conservative money please. Anything Lab says on this issue will fail (spend more: you would say that we are getting plenty as it is now thanks v much; spend the same: what's the point in changing horses; spend less: well....)
Just as the public tend to think that Labour is the NHS party whatever happens, they tend to think Labour is the magic money tree party whatever happens. Current situations are testing this to extremes.
I agree with Mike that Labour are clear value here now.
This poll is more than slightly suspect, with a small data set and the telephone angle no doubt making it difficult to get a balanced poll. We retain a landline for internet services but we very, very rarely even answer it these days as everyone we want to speak to calls on the mobiles. I suspect that is not unusual which means those answering landlines are likely to be older and possibly poorer than the average. I would not be inclined to give it much weight and this is not a criticism of Survation, its the reality that they have to deal with in a time of Covid.
As @Foxy has already pointed out the other questions are not exactly compatible with a Tory lead either. The responses are to the left of SKS, to the extent that he has a view at all.
I don't think we should take the poll as gospel, but I'd caution against being too suspect of the policy/VI split. The public are consistently left-wing economically (and socially conservative on immigration, law and order, and some other areas). But polls showing the public preferred the policies of Ed Miliband in 2015 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2019 didn't lead those same public to vote for them to run the country. Rail nationalisation, for example, has been popular forever - but Labour can still hurt their brand by backing it if it plays into an image that they are anti-business.
Another good example of a policy where the public are far more left-wing than you'd think is rent controls, which if memory serves is backed by a majority...of Tory voters...and about 80% of the public overall. Funnily enough, despite being rather left-wing myself on most issues I am one of the 20%.
Re; "The public are consistently left-wing economically" - I keep hearing this and I'm far from convinced.
True that the public seem happy to soak future generations for their own personal advantage today - was this ever any different? - but I don't think this defines being left wing economically. At least I hope it doesn't.
I don't think its right either and its from cherrypicking questions typically.
If you say "do you want more spending on [nice thing here]" then a majority will almost always say yes.
If you say "do you want higher taxes [for others]" then a majority will almost always say yes.
If you say "do you want lower taxes [for yourself]" then a majority will almost always say yes.
If you say "do you want to pay higher taxes" then a majority is unlikely to say yes.
The reality is that people weigh up the choices, but put a simple question before them and they'll answer that simple question without considering how its paid for or anything else that goes with it. But when people vote they do balance issues.
It’s staggering to me that a lot of people seem to think Labour is point scoring in a crisis when others simultaneously think they aren’t doing anything at all. I can’t comprehend that
Labour don't have any policies, so they stumble from one subject to another. It doesn't help that the Party is split down the middle.
Some of us did say that with Brexit done, the Conservative Party would come together like it hasn't been for 40 years, bringing back to the fold many who left for UKIP/Brexit.
Labour on the other hand is now a disparate set of interest groupings, where dedication to the pet hobby horse is stronger than any glue that binds them. Hating the Tories is as near as it gets to a unifying force, but many are not prepared to compromise to come together to get the power that moves the Tories out.
Poor Sir Keir. He is trying to herd cats. Big cats. Who haven't been fed in a long while.
Hartlepool opinion poll summary: * very good for the Tories, very bad for Labour; * very high margin of error; * the Tories will absolutely wish it had not been done, Labour will be sort of pleased it was.
Confirms what the locals on the ground think so high margin of error but corresponds to what I'm hearing and seeing on facebook locally.
I am sure it does. Hartlepool always looked a nailed on gain for the Tories to me. I am actually slightly surprised the Labour vote share may actually increase.
Labour would win Kensington, Chipping Barnet and Chingford and Woodford Green from the Tories on the Hartlepool poll by squeezing the LDs.
However the Tory majority would increase in most of the Red Wall seats they gained from Labour in 2019 by squeezing the BXP vote and they would add a few more like Dagenham and Rainham and Stockton North as well as Hartlepool on that basis
It’s staggering to me that a lot of people seem to think Labour is point scoring in a crisis when others simultaneously think they aren’t doing anything at all. I can’t comprehend that
Because you can take sensible constructive criticism. Hunt has done that e.g. he suggested things like having schools open for key worker kids and restricting visits to old people homes.
Labour response time and time again has been we agree, then complaining about more money needed or nit picking about nonsense. Then 2 weeks later moaning government doing it all wrong.
That wasn’t my point, my point is how so many people can think they’re not doing any opposition whilst others think it’s far too much. People really do have widely different perceptions, it’s actually kind of fascinating
Its almost as if people aren't a homogenous bloc so you can't please everyone all the time.
The problem is that Keir hasn't chosen a bloc. He vacillates between the two, so those who want opposition say he's not doing it, those who don't want nit picking think he is doing it. Because they both see him doing what they don't want.
I don’t know, can Starmer be happy in some sense that Labour’s vote has at least gone up, it would seem to imply that if he does better than Corbyn, it’s because he basically brought back the 2017 Remain coalition.
Of course his big issue is the Tory vote is still incredibly strong, in fact historically so. And he’s not yet found really any solution to that problem.
I tend to agree with others, the best chance he has is the Tories fucking up like Trump did. I cannot however see that happening.
He’ll hope to make some level of progress in 2024 and if he does he can go to bed happy IMHO.
Starmer's big problem (charisma bypass, and supporting everything the govt has done for the past 12 months aside) is that as the Cons have turned on the spending taps, voters are likely to think - oh I want some of that nice Conservative money please. Anything Lab says on this issue will fail (spend more: you would say that we are getting plenty as it is now thanks v much; spend the same: what's the point in changing horses; spend less: well....)
Just as the public tend to think that Labour is the NHS party whatever happens, they tend to think Labour is the magic money tree party whatever happens. Current situations are testing this to extremes.
Whereas in reality Lab probably haven't been the money tree party (save for after their spending match pledge ran out after 1997).
I wonder if they will make any kind of spending matching pledge as the next GE approaches.
Comments
Oh sorry, is that not what you meant?
Perfect issue for the Tories. Johnson simply makes up any old lie he likes about Khan or any other opposition candidate. The BBC cuts away. And then attack waves of Tory MPs and the Mail/Express/GBnotNews go piling in about leftie BBC cancel culture.
That it is illegal for the BBC to broadcast shagger's lies won't matter. Watch for more of them in coming days and more of him leading the press conferences.
And Hartlepool has missed out on everything so far. Now there are reasons for that (Darlington got the Treasury as the local communication links rival anywhere you can think of now the airport is safe, Redcar had the steel works to replace...) but it's got to be obvious that a Tory council and a Tory MP is going to give the town more chances of getting investment than voting for labour.
There's a major difference between putting your principles first and getting a government with a healthy majority (basically a landslide) that will do it - and putting your principles first socialist-style and ending up with the opposition getting a healthy majority/landslide.
On the first point, it’s both.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48827490
I think that cleanliness will persist after covid, for a couple of years at least.
That's not to say it's right, of course, but the reaction of the BBC should be consistent.
One of the few benefits from the staged reopening is that we might get some idea which lockdown measures actually make any kind of difference.
1) Boris's majority isn't as big as it should be (he really could have another 30 seats and a majority of 140)
2) we don't actually have a decent basis to work from for polling purposes.
Hartlepool (and this phone poll) is the first time we are seeing what the real picture is in the 2019 Labour seats where the Brexit party stood. And the reality is that while people argued the Brexit party was stealing votes from Labour / Tories equally (and hence their actual impact on the results was minimal) the truth is that those voters would have otherwise voted Tory
People like Big John Owls who'd prefer Labour to lose than compromise on socialism is one thing. People who're OK with an 80 seat majority is something else.
I believed (and still do) that these voters were "never Tories" who would have voted primarily Labour. If this poll turns out to be accurate then I was wrong.
Playing the statement, but not the Q&A seems a reasonable compromise. The partisan stuff tends to come from the Q&A as the journalists go for partisan questions. If the statement is partisan, then that's an issue.
Perhaps getting to time to cash out of the equities bubble again?
Being blunt - Labour is a spent force in the North East - it's failed in the local towns (albeit that's because they had to implement Tory austerity) and the things it talks about nationally are completely irrelevant to the North East. Worse for Labour, the regional mayor has been so successful that it really is a situation of Tories - done very well over the past 4 years, labour done really badly over the last 10. Now some of that is very local (Labour in Darlington tried to close all the libraries to save money until told it was a legal requirement at which point they tried to cram it into the local leisure centre) but the story is a generic one. Austerity means there are 10 years of council service cuts with the Labour party's name all over them.
Ouch.
I specifically highlighted the section I put in bold, which was "Apparently winning 120 seats and doing a poor Brexit was less important than 80 seats and doing it right."
My question was 'is there anything wrong' with 'apparently' making that preference?
Increasingly I think we'll see a correction, at the very east, over the next year, possibly as early as this autumn. There'll be a trigger event of some sort; this one isn't going to be it.
With a majority of 80 Boris had to go for a very limited deal because there was 45+ awkward squad Tory MPs who could have voted against his watered down plan.
Like in Scotland once someone who is "never" changing does change, there becomes little reason to revert back.
Not long ago saying in that area that you were voting Tory would probably be a bit like saying that you have a perversion, but that's not the case now anymore. The societal pressure to conform has gone.
They've not messed up here, have they?
On the other hand, QE and MMT spending does push up real asset prices.
I may shift out of financials a bit though. It is a bit too much of my portfolio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#Constituency_polling
They tended to underpredict the Conservatives and overpredict the LibDems - though that may have been because they were commissioned by the LibDems.
The BXP candidate from Stockton South (John Prescott...) is running for RUK in Hartlepool. He is a perfectly amiable chap from Newcastle who seemed entirely focused on a clean Brexit as his goal. Which absolutely backed up what their activists told me as the strategy. I have no idea why RUK exist never mind what candidates like Prescott will be campaigning on.
So Labour on 42% is actually up on the last general election in the seat, almost entirely by squeezing the LDs down to just 1%.
Just the Tories are leading in the seat now on 49% entirely by squeezing the 25% the Brexit Party got last time
Anyone else remember what happened to their asset management arm?
* very good for the Tories, very bad for Labour;
* very high margin of error;
* the Tories will absolutely wish it had not been done, Labour will be sort of pleased it was.
Which for Labour is going to be a problem as there are 30-40 or so seats which Labour won thanks to the BXP stealing Tory votes and another 10-20 seats that seemed safe Labour but are in reality marginal.
Which means SKS has a real problem as he can't just campaign in Tory seats that Labour lost in 2019 - he needs to also campaign in 50+ seats that are currently labour held only because the not labour vote was split.
Nobody has mentioned shops as far as I know.
Indeed this has been a continuing theme in Sturgeon's press conferences
Boris and Nicola both upsetting opponents is politics
And who are GB not News
In a Tory Remain seat like Chingford and Woodford Green, in 2019 Labour got 46%, the Tories 48.5% and the LDs 6% in 2019 and there was no BXP candidate.
Even on the Hartlepool poll swing then Labour would still take Chingford for instance
- Vaccination skews heavily away from some minority groups.
- So those without vaccine passports will be skewed towards minority groups.
- So a disproportionate (by population) number of minority people will be denied services etc
Though
- Vaccination and reopening without passports. Will lead to higher incidence in minority groups (vaccination).
- Vaccination and passports. Discrimination against minorities.
- Vaccination and continued lockdown until vaccination levels out. "Forcing" minorities to get the vaccinations.
Take your pick.
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
True that the public seem happy to soak future generations for their own personal advantage today - was this ever any different? - but I don't think this defines being left wing economically. At least I hope it doesn't.
Of course his big issue is the Tory vote is still incredibly strong, in fact historically so. And he’s not yet found really any solution to that problem.
I tend to agree with others, the best chance he has is the Tories fucking up like Trump did. I cannot however see that happening.
He’ll hope to make some level of progress in 2024 and if he does he can go to bed happy IMHO.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Well thank fuck for that
If the government adopts that then pubs are not required to use vaccine passports. They can if they choose to do so, but they're not required. Required means compulsory, not optional.
Corbyn lost in a landslide offering free broadband. I simply do not accept this is popular.
But it also shows that Labour are starting to understand politics which is surely a good thing.
Opposition to the ID aspect of things unites extreme left, extreme right, liberals, libertarians, the Spectator, Kill the Bill, Jezza, BAMEs, journalists and anyone who feels a bit left out.
The Tories for as long as possible will test out possibilities, and Labour will tell us what it doesn't want but not (apart from hot air) what it does. Those with no prospect of power (LDs) will take simple positions).
The safest course for government is to make available but not compulsory a free vaccine status certificate, with paper and digital alternatives, that alone is hard enough, and delegate within the UK to commerce how to run things (pubs with free entry that may kill you, pubs with regulation that are a bit boring etc). Internationally the government hides behind the needs and provisions of other countries.
Potentially this is Iraq and poll tax and credit crunch for a government if it goes wrong.
Labour response time and time again has been we agree, then complaining about more money needed or nit picking about nonsense. Then 2 weeks later moaning government doing it all wrong.
I just don't believe a word Zahawi says on this. Nothing against him, he said he was against it weeks ago and I rather suspect he still is, but Downing Street have told him to hold the line on this while Gove and Hancock do their review.
If they are now saying that nothing that has been reopened will then subsequently need a vaxport then what is the frigging point other than foreign travel? As Freddy Sawyers is arguing this morning in DT, even nightclubs will have been stuffed to breaking with young people for months by the time this app is up and running.
Well, I'm not worried about my own or any other individual's safety. The vaccine is good enough for me. If anyone is worried about catching something, stay at home.
Either they are naive and believe that all illegal migrants enter the country via RIBs on the Channel or they have their eyes tightly shut.
Tightening up on "holiday" visas would have a similar effect to the tightening up on the bullshit "colleges" that were being used for a similar purpose.
If you say "do you want more spending on [nice thing here]" then a majority will almost always say yes.
If you say "do you want higher taxes [for others]" then a majority will almost always say yes.
If you say "do you want lower taxes [for yourself]" then a majority will almost always say yes.
If you say "do you want to pay higher taxes" then a majority is unlikely to say yes.
The reality is that people weigh up the choices, but put a simple question before them and they'll answer that simple question without considering how its paid for or anything else that goes with it. But when people vote they do balance issues.
Labour on the other hand is now a disparate set of interest groupings, where dedication to the pet hobby horse is stronger than any glue that binds them. Hating the Tories is as near as it gets to a unifying force, but many are not prepared to compromise to come together to get the power that moves the Tories out.
Poor Sir Keir. He is trying to herd cats. Big cats. Who haven't been fed in a long while.
However the Tory majority would increase in most of the Red Wall seats they gained from Labour in 2019 by squeezing the BXP vote and they would add a few more like Dagenham and Rainham and Stockton North as well as Hartlepool on that basis
The problem is that Keir hasn't chosen a bloc. He vacillates between the two, so those who want opposition say he's not doing it, those who don't want nit picking think he is doing it. Because they both see him doing what they don't want.
I wonder if they will make any kind of spending matching pledge as the next GE approaches.