Mr. Theakes, if the negotiations were televised live and then subject to a vote by the electorate, I'd agree.

Politicians with large poll leads don't like debates. I agree she probably wouldn't fancy them anyway, but with a 20 point lead she has nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

A debate with Corbyn, Farron and Sturgeon would be like the Williams/Force India battle. Quite interesting, but it's only to be best of the rest.

Edited extra bit: Mr. Pulpstar, I didn't mean that as an excuse or to just shrug, only to say Defence spending isn't the problem, it's incompetent procurement.

One local topic which might trip the Tories up "up north", FRACKING. Massive local opposition, if Tories don't take NE Derbyshire this will be the reason why.

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's funny how many of the same people who complained about the 'Little Englanders' jibe are proving it with their insular views on DfID.

Yes, some DfID programs are stupid, and should be reduced or cut. But that's almost a symptom of the task: it changes and the programs should constantly evolve - something bureaucracies are rarely good at. However there are many other programs that are vital internationally and, if you only want to take a fiscal perspective, may even save us money in the medium and long term.

As an example, does anyone really begrudge the money we spend on polio eradication (£300 million over six years) ?

One issue I have is the idea of setting is hard and fast target of x% of GDP. There was a good story in the Mail (yes I know, I know) about the corrupt debit card scheme in Pakistan which just keep expanding and expanding hoovering up more money just because the DfID need to spend more dosh to make sure they hit the artificial target and just pouring more into it is easier than setting up new DfID schemes.

My view, as I've often said on here, is for the percentage GDP to be expanded from just DfID and Defence. It's a good way of allocating money IMO, with caveats.

The 0.7% is also an international agreement, so it's not something we've pulled out of our backsides.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/04/uk-among-six-countries-hit-un-aid-spending-target-oecd

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's funny how many of the same people who complained about the 'Little Englanders' jibe are proving it with their insular views on DfID.

Yes, some DfID programs are stupid, and should be reduced or cut. But that's almost a symptom of the task: it changes and the programs should constantly evolve - something bureaucracies are rarely good at. However there are many other programs that are vital internationally and, if you only want to take a fiscal perspective, may even save us money in the medium and long term.

As an example, does anyone really begrudge the money we spend on polio eradication (£300 million over six years) ?

One issue I have is the idea of setting is hard and fast target of x% of GDP. There was a good story in the Mail (yes I know, I know) about the corrupt debit card scheme in Pakistan which just keep expanding and expanding hoovering up more money just because the DfID need to spend more dosh to make sure they hit the artificial target and just pouring more into it is easier than setting up new DfID schemes.

My view, as I've often said on here, is for the percentage GDP to be expanded from just DfID and Defence. It's a good way of allocating money IMO, with caveats.

The 0.7% is also an international agreement, so it's not something we've pulled out of our backsides.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/04/uk-among-six-countries-hit-un-aid-spending-target-oecd

No, it was pulled out of the UN's backside

YouGov:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/public-think-theresa-may-right-call-early-election/

Curiously enough the least keen for an early election are SNP voters - tho still net in favour.

CarlottaVance said:

YouGov:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/public-think-theresa-may-right-call-early-election/

Curiously enough the least keen for an early election are SNP voters - tho still net in favour.

I have to say I am really surprised just how positive the public seem to be for this GE being called.

FrancisUrquhart said:

CarlottaVance said:

YouGov:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/public-think-theresa-may-right-call-early-election/

Curiously enough the least keen for an early election are SNP voters - tho still net in favour.

I have to say I am really surprised just how positive the public seem to be for this GE being called.

Who doesn't love a snap GE?

Tories would gain Hartlepool if that YouGov swing is correct for Leave areas.

JosiasJessop said:

RobD said:

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's funny how many of the same people who complained about the 'Little Englanders' jibe are proving it with their insular views on DfID.

Yes, some DfID programs are stupid, and should be reduced or cut. But that's almost a symptom of the task: it changes and the programs should constantly evolve - something bureaucracies are rarely good at. However there are many other programs that are vital internationally and, if you only want to take a fiscal perspective, may even save us money in the medium and long term.

As an example, does anyone really begrudge the money we spend on polio eradication (£300 million over six years) ?

One issue I have is the idea of setting is hard and fast target of x% of GDP. There was a good story in the Mail (yes I know, I know) about the corrupt debit card scheme in Pakistan which just keep expanding and expanding hoovering up more money just because the DfID need to spend more dosh to make sure they hit the artificial target and just pouring more into it is easier than setting up new DfID schemes.

My view, as I've often said on here, is for the percentage GDP to be expanded from just DfID and Defence. It's a good way of allocating money IMO, with caveats.

The 0.7% is also an international agreement, so it's not something we've pulled out of our backsides.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/04/uk-among-six-countries-hit-un-aid-spending-target-oecd

No, it was pulled out of the UN's backside

Aid should be based on need. Supply should meet demand as much as possible. A fixed income target makes it into socialist redistribution.

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

One local topic which might trip the Tories up "up north", FRACKING. Massive local opposition, if Tories don't take NE Derbyshire this will be the reason why.

Is that the decision between FRACKING THERESA MAY and FRACKING JEREMY CORBYN ?

Labour are opposed (I think) !

Natascha Engel a member of the local anti-fracking group. Those boards will outnumber any political boards...

That said I haven't heard official Labour policy on the matter...

Option C a big issue in South Essex, might provide UKIP with an outside chance of a gain.

You missed the gag. I am 100% certain that Corbyn is anti-fracking.

justin124 said:

theakes said:

TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.

As she is a diabetic one day we may get the pleasure of hearing that she has gone blind - or even become an amputee!

Oh that's nice!

HYUFD said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

kle4 said:

Tissue_Price said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Edinburgh South: 2015 result — Lab 39%, SNP 34%, Con 17.5%. Applying latest Scottish polls gives something like SNP 31%, Con 30%, Lab 29%. But the SNP are probably not doing as well in this constituency as the average across Scotland.

Tasty. Please please let there be an atypical LD surge there too, for a juicy four way.

But the SNP had a very deflated 2015 result because of their unsuitable candidate (I forget the details, but Ian Murray was a very lucky man).

I recall chatter to that effect. Oh well. Any ideas where the tightest contests are expected to be? Presumably somewhere that was traditionally a Lab/LD contest with a solid Tory finish.

The SNP candidate had disgraced himself on social media and was disowned by NS. I doubt SNP vetting will be so slack this time.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13214140.Edinburgh_South__why_Labour_held_on_against_the_SNP_tide/

Plus, the genteel retirees like Ruth D and are unlikely to vote for Mr. Corbyn's Red Labour, even tactically, leaving Ian Murray well exposed.

Scottish Labour will pile resources into Edinburgh South with leaflets and barcharts from 2015 and 2016 saying 'only Murray can beat the SNP here' (Labour in tiny writing down the bottom) while SNP resources will have to be shared more elsewhere, I expect it to still be the only Labour seat in Scotland with the LDs getting 2 MPs and the Tories 4 or 5

As they've got little else on the go, I agree - they gave it their all to win Edinburgh Southern at the Holyrood election. However, they did rely on activist help from down south in 2016, which won't be available this time around.

Edin South, Edin West and Mundell's seat will be the most interesting contests in Scotland.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, hasn't Defence procurement being bloody awful for decades?

I remember the BOWMAN radio system getting nicknamed Better Off With Map And Nokia by a mate who was serving in the 90's

I'd have thought the simplest method to spend the 0.7% would be to just give it straight to stuff like MSF, Red Cross disaster relief and some others (Water Aid) ?
Score up the various aid agencies on stuff like transparency, value for money, admin costs % of total (Lower better obviously) then give all the cash to the top ten. I think trying to set up out own programmes with errm 'local assistance' (bribes etc) is part of the perception problem...
I have no idea which are the most efficient aid agencies, but someone in DfiD ought to. I think MSF for instance would be a good one.

bobajobPB said:

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, jein.

Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.

I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.

The problem is building cheaply. Any fool (or Taylor Wimpey, or Bovis, or Persimmon, or Barratt) can throw up a house or five. Making a *good* house is harder and, more importantly, costs more. Making a hundred houses that have good infrastructure is much harder, and much, much more expensive.

They're just finishing off the village I live in (Cambourne), and during my walks and runs I get to see the houses go up. They're not particularly well built, and sell for a fortune. Worse, improvement to local infrastructure under S106 are only begrudgingly given.

There are many reasons why this happens, from council incompetence to the fact new-build houses rarely have a champion for snagging at all stages. But it happens all over the country.

Do you have any evidence that new builds are badly built? Most English people just prefer old houses, which is fair enough (I do, and live in one) but it's not true to say new builds are generally badly built.

May I break the non contact rule here @PBModerator? It isnt a partisan point

John Harris is massively on the case re this issue

"The story of what has happened in Orchard Village and who is responsible stretches back at least a decade. Among other things, it highlights how much housing associations – which adminster the homes of more than 2 million people in England and Wales – are changing. Once, they were thought of as a community-based, grassroots alternative to supposedly faceless and impersonal local councils. Now, encouraged by government deregulation, they are combining into new “mega-associations” and becoming powerful players in the rush to build so-called affordable houses and flats. In the process, say their critics, the people they are meant to serve are too often forgotten."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/06/life-flagship-housing-estate-orchard-village-east-london

SquareRoot said:

CarlottaVance said:

God botherer bothered:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tim-farron-lib-dem-election-brexit-gay-lgbt-sinners-liberal-democrats-fish-frogs-tweet-a7690771.html

Cheap shot

Are we not all sinful in the eyes of Christianity ?

rcs1000 said:

You do realise that if someone is occupies a house, it makes no difference whether they are a renter or a purchaser. In both cases, they have occupied one unit of housing.

The problem of housing, specifically, is that there is a great deal of demand in London and the surrounding areas (which is caused by London hitherto being one of only three or four wold cities, and being the only one in Europe). And there has not been much supply (green belt, councils, etc.). But that is changing already. There is now more housing under construction in London that at any period since the immediate post WW2 boom.

Despite SeanT's bullish prognostications for London property, I believe that net migration from the UK will turn negative by 2020, and this will happen at the same time that a massive amount of new supply hits the market. I expect prime London (Chelsea, St John's Wood, Mayfair, Hampstead, Belgravia) to fall 60% in real terms*, while outside London I expect only modest price moves.

Anyway, back to your point. If everyone is sitting on big losses on their properties, do you think they'll still be voting Conservative?

* Three years ago, at the peak of the market, a 1,500 square foot flat on the unfashionable Childs Hill side of Hampstead sold for £2.8m.

Valid points.

However I'm talking about home ownership as an factor in Tory votership.

Now let's assume you're a 55 year old in a middle class profession who bought a home in an unfashionable part of Hampstead aged 30, 25 years ago. If that home goes down in price from 2.8m to 1m, odds are you're still quids in on where you started. And you will still vote Tory.

If, on the other hand, you are locked out of the property market aged 30, still locked out at 40, 50 and 60, because you will literally never be able to afford a 0.4m property, let alone a 2.8m one... that's the problem.

Home ownership correlates with Conservative votes. Hence, Right To Buy in the 80s. Home ownership in England reached its peak in 2003, at 71% of households. That figure has fallen to 64% and is likely to continue to fall. What's more, it's falling disproportionately on the young. In 1991, 64% of under 35 year olds owned. That is now 45%. And in the 35 - 45 bracket it has fallen from 80% to 65%. Those are national figures. God only knows what they are in London and its surrounds.

These should be alarming figures for any Conservative government. It's about whether you own a place or not, not whether rich buggers who bought 30 years ago lose paper millions that should be of concern.

I don't think a fall in prices at the ultra high end of the market will lead to people flocking from the Tories to Labour. But I do think being unable to get on the property ladder and therefore settle down, have kids, and so on, will lead to a fall in Tory voters in the next ten to twenty years.

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/109547/simon-danczuk-says-he-will-stand-against-labour-if-he-is-not-the-labour-candidate

Rochdale - get the popcorn.

SquareRoot said:

CarlottaVance said:

God botherer bothered:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tim-farron-lib-dem-election-brexit-gay-lgbt-sinners-liberal-democrats-fish-frogs-tweet-a7690771.html

Cheap shot

Comedian David Baddiel said that people who claimed Tim Farron is talking the most sense had to face up to the fact that “he’s a fundamentalist Christian homophobe”. Activist Owen Jones branded the comments “an absolute disgrace”.

AndyJS said:

Tories would gain Hartlepool if that YouGov swing is correct for Leave areas.

Given the Tory lead more than matches Labour's in 1997 and 2001 and with ICM exceeds the Tory lead over Labour in 1983 it is possible we could see the Tories gain seats they have never held before, at least since WW2, Leave seats with Labour MPs in the North, Wales and Midlands are the ones to watch

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

AndyJS said:

Tories would gain Hartlepool if that YouGov swing is correct for Leave areas.

I can't imagine the local MP has decided not to stand again just because he was having a midlife crisis.

I think we need to shut the hell up about potential gains and losses before constituency odds are released !

I bet the bookies are crawling over this site looking out for pricing info

To be fair, they have a horrible task. The chances of ricks are substantial.

AlastairMeeks said:

The chances of ricks are substantial.

Is he going to be campaigning? "Never gonna give EU up..."

Back in the real world of local election fever, I'm impressed with my labour leaflet delivery today (still nothing from the Tories, 2 weeks behind the initial LD leaflet). It has:

A two side A5 sheet on the unitary candidate for the ward (albeit filled with triteness about 'being different' and not much else
An two side A4 glossy of all the Labour unitary candidates for the town with little bios, and a list of 'local issues' on the back, some of which really are local issues, and talking up how they are for the first time in a long time standing in all wards
A 4 page A5 leaflet, 3 pages of which lambasts Theresa May over the state of the NHS, and the last of which talks of how a 'Labour Government will deliver the real change Britain needs' after 'six years' of the Tories' policies, so either they are amazingly quick of the mark, or they were going to hammer the NHS message come what may for the locals.

Mostly platitudes, issues that are not locally relevant and endless whining about the NHS, but I'm impressed with the organisation and presentation to try and focus town wide issues with wider labour values.

justin124 said:

felix said:

justin124 said:

theakes said:

TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.

As she is a diabetic one day we may get the pleasure of hearing that she has gone blind - or even become an amputee!

Listen - we know you're a bit of a freak on here at times but that sort of comment is seriously out of order and totally nasty. Get a grip ffs.

But a lying bitch deserves nothing less!

You are saying May deserves to be blind or to lose limbs? You are sick.

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

This. Build.

I've said it before but the fact is there's an undeniable correlation between home ownership and voting Conservative.

If nobody under the age of 30 can afford to buy a house, those people will eventually become renters in their 40s and 50s and they will vote, in their droves, against the Tories. A demographic timebomb that could be solved with one simple policy: build, build, build.

You do realise that if someone is occupies a house, it makes no difference whether they are a renter or a purchaser. In both cases, they have occupied one unit of housing.

The problem of housing, specifically, is that there is a great deal of demand in London and the surrounding areas (which is caused by London hitherto being one of only three or four wold cities, and being the only one in Europe). And there has not been much supply (green belt, councils, etc.). But that is changing already. There is now more housing under construction in London that at any period since the immediate post WW2 boom.

Despite SeanT's bullish prognostications for London property, I believe that net migration from the UK will turn negative by 2020, and this will happen at the same time that a massive amount of new supply hits the market. I expect prime London (Chelsea, St John's Wood, Mayfair, Hampstead, Belgravia) to fall 60% in real terms*, while outside London I expect only modest price moves.

Anyway, back to your point. If everyone is sitting on big losses on their properties, do you think they'll still be voting Conservative?

* Three years ago, at the peak of the market, a 1,500 square foot flat on the unfashionable Childs Hill side of Hampstead sold for £2.8m.

That is just nuts. I've never calculated the square footage of our house but I'm sure it's a good deal more than that. We bought it three years ago for less than a tenth of that price and it comes with I'd guess about 0.2 acres of garden. And no Londoners (nor any direct neighbours given that it's detached).

ITV announce debate, but:

It is unclear whether ITV would risk falling foul of strict rules on broadcasters' impartiality by going ahead with a debate without the Prime Minister.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/85206/theresa-may-digs-itv-announces

justin124 said:

felix said:

justin124 said:

theakes said:

TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.

As she is a diabetic one day we may get the pleasure of hearing that she has gone blind - or even become an amputee!

Listen - we know you're a bit of a freak on here at times but that sort of comment is seriously out of order and totally nasty. Get a grip ffs.

But a lying bitch deserves nothing less!

She either lied to us on a political point or changed her mind and gave lame excuses for doing so, but people don't deserve to have mutilation wished on them for lying.

theakes said:

TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.

She already debates with them every week at PMs, Thatcher or Blair never did head to head TV debates

justin124 said:

felix said:

justin124 said:

theakes said:

TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.

As she is a diabetic one day we may get the pleasure of hearing that she has gone blind - or even become an amputee!

Listen - we know you're a bit of a freak on here at times but that sort of comment is seriously out of order and totally nasty. Get a grip ffs.

But a lying bitch deserves nothing less!

And you call yourself a Christian?

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Best news of the day is Ken Clarke staying on - my side of the Tory party continues to flicker!

Nah, best news of the day is Osbourne quitting. Good riddance. Clarke can continue to sit on the back benches and croak occasionally like that toad Heath. No one with any sense listens to him anyway.

justin124 said:

theakes said:

TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.

As she is a diabetic one day we may get the pleasure of hearing that she has gone blind - or even become an amputee!

Are the moderators around today?

justin124 said:

theakes said:

TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.

As she is a diabetic one day we may get the pleasure of hearing that she has gone blind - or even become an amputee!

Justin: any more comments of this type and you'll find yourself banned.

justin124 said:

rkrkrk said:

justin124 said:

felix said:

justin124 said:

theakes said:

TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.

As she is a diabetic one day we may get the pleasure of hearing that she has gone blind - or even become an amputee!

Listen - we know you're a bit of a freak on here at times but that sort of comment is seriously out of order and totally nasty. Get a grip ffs.

But a lying bitch deserves nothing less!

Eesh... Disgusting.
Can't we all agree that while we don't like some politicians we don't wish them to die or ill health...

You must speak for yourself - Adolf Hitler was a politician .

Ken, is that you ?

The nasty party seems to have a new identity.

AndyJS said:

justin124 said:

theakes said:

TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.

As she is a diabetic one day we may get the pleasure of hearing that she has gone blind - or even become an amputee!

Are the moderators around today?

Best behaviour now, OGH Jr has just turned up...

HYUFD said:

theakes said:

TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.

She already debates with them every week at PMs, Thatcher or Blair never did head to head TV debates

Times change. She doesn't have to do them, they aren't a requirement (so Robertson for once looks a bit foolish in my eyes with how hard he pushed it), but 'they didn't do it in the 80s and 90s' is a lame reason to justify not doing it either.

CarlottaVance said:

Has Ken pointed out yet that Hitler called a snap election?

LOL

Pulpstar said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

AndyJS said:

Tories would gain Hartlepool if that YouGov swing is correct for Leave areas.

I can't imagine the local MP has decided not to stand again just because he was having a midlife crisis.

I think we need to shut the hell up about potential gains and losses before constituency odds are released !

I bet the bookies are crawling over this site looking out for pricing info

Then we should throw a few rogue ones in as disinformation.
LD gain Hertsmere?

Lib Dems should definitely be around 5-2 in Maidenhead, strong remain territory. I'd make May 2-5 to hold.

She'll take a larger share of the vote in Maidenhead than Ollie Dowden will in Hertsmere imo.
Hertsmere was borderline about 1000 votes) leave

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

justin124 said:

theakes said:

TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.

As she is a diabetic one day we may get the pleasure of hearing that she has gone blind - or even become an amputee!

Are the moderators around today?

Best behaviour now, OGH Jr has just turned up...

Look innocents lads....Dickes stop the digging....

CarlottaVance said:

YouGov:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/public-think-theresa-may-right-call-early-election/

Curiously enough the least keen for an early election are SNP voters - tho still net in favour.

Presumably we'll get the headline voting intention numbers from that poll later (probably in The Sun?)

rkrkrk said:

RobD said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's funny how many of the same people who complained about the 'Little Englanders' jibe are proving it with their insular views on DfID.

Yes, some DfID programs are stupid, and should be reduced or cut. But that's almost a symptom of the task: it changes and the programs should constantly evolve - something bureaucracies are rarely good at. However there are many other programs that are vital internationally and, if you only want to take a fiscal perspective, may even save us money in the medium and long term.

As an example, does anyone really begrudge the money we spend on polio eradication (£300 million over six years) ?

If the other 99.5% of the budget was being spent on things as worthwhile as polio eradication I don't think there would be as many complaints.

67.1m kids vaccinated.
11.3m kids on primary/secondary education.
Family planning to 9.9m women
30m kids and pregnant women through nutrition programmes
13.4m given emergency food assistance etc...

It's all on devtracker if you want to look. Way more transparent than any other department i think.

The 0.7% of GDP for overseas aid is something we can and should be very proud of.

There will always be issues about how these things are administered and who gets the money but that is a question of reviewing and revising our criteria for overseas aid, not getting rid of or reducing it. I hope that leaving the EU might help this as significant amounts of overseas aid was channelled through them and the convoluted way in which it was administered made the whole thing rather opaque.

But the basic principle that rich countries should help poor ones for the long term benefit of everyone seems very sensible and admirable to me.

Matthew Goodwin‏ @GoodwinMJ
To be clear there are 49 Lab seats with majority less than 10 pts, 42 that wd be lost to Cons on 5% swing, 81 that wd likely go on 10% swing

Matthew Goodwin‏ @GoodwinMJ
There are around 50 Lab seats that wd fall to Cons on just a 5% swing -which underlines how easy it would be for Lab to fall under 200 mark

HYUFD said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

HYUFD said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

kle4 said:

Tissue_Price said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Edinburgh South: 2015 result — Lab 39%, SNP 34%, Con 17.5%. Applying latest Scottish polls gives something like SNP 31%, Con 30%, Lab 29%. But the SNP are probably not doing as well in this constituency as the average across Scotland.

Tasty. Please please let there be an atypical LD surge there too, for a juicy four way.

But the SNP had a very deflated 2015 result because of their unsuitable candidate (I forget the details, but Ian Murray was a very lucky man).

I recall chatter to that effect. Oh well. Any ideas where the tightest contests are expected to be? Presumably somewhere that was traditionally a Lab/LD contest with a solid Tory finish.

The SNP candidate had disgraced himself on social media and was disowned by NS. I doubt SNP vetting will be so slack this time.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13214140.Edinburgh_South__why_Labour_held_on_against_the_SNP_tide/

Plus, the genteel retirees like Ruth D and are unlikely to vote for Mr. Corbyn's Red Labour, even tactically, leaving Ian Murray well exposed.

Scottish Labour will pile resources into Edinburgh South with leaflets and barcharts from 2015 and 2016 saying 'only Murray can beat the SNP here' (Labour in tiny writing down the bottom) while SNP resources will have to be shared more elsewhere, I expect it to still be the only Labour seat in Scotland with the LDs getting 2 MPs and the Tories 4 or 5

As they've got little else on the go, I agree - they gave it their all to win Edinburgh Southern at the Holyrood election. However, they did rely on activist help from down south in 2016, which won't be available this time around.

Edin South, Edin West and Mundell's seat will be the most interesting contests in Scotland.

The first 2 certainly (I think the SNP could fail to win either) but Mundell's seat should be a solid Tory hold

I think it will depend on the campaigns on the ground. If the Tories are targeting resources at Edinburgh South then it might end up as an SNP gain. At the same time you could end up seeing Labour picking up somewhere like East Lothian.

I'd expect the Lib Dems to win in Edinburgh West, North East Fife & Orkney & Shetland. Jo Swinson should be favourite in East Dunbartonshire and a Highland constituency isn't beyond the realms of possibility if the air war goes well for the party

AndyJS said:

East Lothian looks interesting to me. The result in 2015 was SNP 42.5%, Lab 31.0%, Con 19.5%. If you apply the latest Scottish opinion polls you get something like SNP 39%, Con 32%, Lab 21%. Tories within striking distance.

Nope

IanB2 said:

Alistair said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

MarkSenior said:

rcs1000 said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Alistair said:

Patrick said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/854676091675582464

SNP 50 is interesting. Borders losses?

BRS, Edinbugh West, Fife NE. After that I'd need to check my spreadsheets.

East Dunbartonshire, East Ren are the next most vulnerable. John Nicolson has been quite high profile, would be interesting to see if Jo Swinson fancies another go at her old constituency.

The Scottish Parliament seats that make up East Dumbartonshire have not shown (big) moves to the LDs. Jo Swinson also saw her vote hold up remarkably well in 2015.

I suspect that the LDs will fall back in East Dumbartonshire in June. My view; comfortable SNP hold.

Im pretty sure Jo Swinson wants her seat back and will be the Lib Dem candidate

Everyone I know who's met Jo has been extremely impressed with her. But. I simply don't see the LibDem strength in East Dumbartonshire. My guess is that Jo will end up in the low 30s, against 40 odd for the SNP.

It'll be an interesting contest, for sure. The seat was first out of 650 for highest turnout in 2015, which shows the ground game both LDs and Nats played last time. As a straight re-match between the two of them, the 20% of the vote that the Tories and Labour got between them is surely going to come under pressure, which will work in Jo's favour.

But the Tories are surging - they got 15.5% in 2010 and 16.5% in 2005. They clearly leant their vote to LD as anti-SNP tactical votes. Are they really going to want to miss out on the glorious Scon revolution?

Who would ever have bet on Dumbarton East having the highest turnout of any UK seat? Discount the ground game at your peril.

Besides, SNP activists have tons of seats to defend. Scotland's growing LD membership won't be taking the ferry to O&S; where else are they going to go?

Are they in double figures yet

CarlottaVance said:

Seems fair enough:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/media/may-rules-out-tv-debate-because-her-voters-only-like-the-wireless-20170419126280

Fine for cowards