politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The true purpose of GE2017 will be confirmed in the CON candid

@Morris_Dancer. Thanks for the welcome in a thread yesterday. Kitchen sinking, is getting rid of as much bad news as you can at the beginning of your tenure as ceo so subsequent outcomes look better... Roughly what I presume Theresea will be doing in the Manifesto.

Keep up the work on the F1 pieces.

Bromptonaut said:

perdix said:

Bromptonaut said:

Meanwhile the EU quietly gets on with the job of sidelining the UK.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/854797735194746885

This is nothing new. The protectionism of France and Germany has never favoured the UK.

Economic illiteracy of PB Tories knows no bounds.

What could possibly have happened in 1973 that gave a big and long-lasting boost to the UK economy?

https://twitter.com/dexeugov/status/852534216025939968

That graph shows trade increasing before 1973.

But in any case if the EU was simply a Common Market, a single one even, there would be few objections. That's the bit most of us like. It's the political stuff which has been added on with super glue which is the problem. For some anyway.

JackW said:

HYUFD said:

May's spokesman says she May appear before a TV audience at an individual event but not head to head with other candidates in an echo of what the party leaders did in 2005
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39649119

I'm amazed the Prime Minister has time to venture into the television studios given her statement yesterday that she'll be visiting everywhere in the nation.

She will surely require some stout and sensible shoes for her countrywide perambulations.

Any word on her Glasgow date? I'm open to a well argued case..

HYUFD said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also, this is off-topic, but given the reaction to what may Tim Farron's views on homosexuality (even though he voted for Gay marriage) I wonder how the GOP are thought of on here, given that according to Pew Research, 54% of them think homosexuality is morally unacceptable.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/15/whats-morally-acceptable-it-depends-on-where-in-the-world-you-live

A majority of Tory voters opposed gay marriage when the bill legalising it was passed, most GOP voters also oppose abortion too in that poll and a plurality oppose pre marital sex as well

I'm pro-choice, but I think disliking abortion is a different kettle of fish to thinking homosexuality is wrong. Most Americans in general believe abortion is morally unacceptable so GOPers are in line with most of the American public. Where they depart is that although most Americans in polls have shown to favour restrictions on abortion, they don't want Rode v Wade overturned, and they like Planned Parenthood.

Do most Tories believe homosexuality is morally unacceptable? As far as I can see though, the GOP base seems to have way more of an influence on the national party as whole than the Tory base here does on the Conservative party. The power of talk radio and all....

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'll just leave this here:

https://twitter.com/election_data/status/854948690489987072

24% may yet be a giddy aspiration for Labour come 8 June.

Would it really make a difference? They may not know about his past but they surely already know he's a dishonest bully with a very limited intellect. If they're still willing to vote for him with that cleared up, then surely the rest will just be shrugged at?

I'd be more worried, if I were Labour, that his policy offerings on tax, housing and public spending will spook potential voters fearing an imminent Fourth Great Depression (while we're still stuck in number 3).

I think you are showing your bias. Corbyn isn't popular but it's certainly not his domestic policies dragging him down.... But i think tax rises for those over 70k is probably a very well chosen figure. Will inspire outrage in those above the number... And the big fuss they make will be good press.

How much does an MP earn? To make it personal - if they could just include them in the tax rise that would be smart politics i reckon.

Not that it matters. Electorate has formed a view on Corbyn and think it will be hard to shift that.

rottenborough said:

IanB2 said:

rogerh said:

I presume it is too late for the CONS to rush through the proposed constituency boundary changes?

I posted in detail on this early in one of yesterday's threads. The likelihood is that they will continue on the original timetable, be agreed in 2018, ready for a 2021/22 GE. But the legislation will probably need to be revisited at some point and there may well be calls for a delay, or re-start with more up-to-date data. It depends on the size of the Tory majority and how much they like the revised proposals.

One of the papers yesterday was reporting that boundary review will continue but no longer be about reduction to 600. Another piece of Cam/Osborne genius that May feels the party can survive without.

In which case surely the process needs to start over, since the current proposals are defined by reducing to 600?

The boundaries do need updating, but politicians keep moving the goalposts.

Ms. Apocalypse, not sure if you were here then (it was quite some time ago), but I seem to recall a Conservative posting that the problem with CCHQ was finding a man who wasn't gay rather than the other way around.

Mr. RC, you're welcome, and thanks for both the explanation and the F1 appreciation

Morning all

My first chance to comment on the tumultuous events of the past couple of days because there's more to life than politics or indeed commenting on here.

I was as surprised as everyone when I heard the announcement and while OGH and TSE may well be on to something it may simply be the siren calls from within the Conservative Party for an election simply grew too loud for May to ignore.

It's also interesting polling day will be June 8th which will be near enough the anniversary of the 1983 landslide - some may see imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and I do think May tries to channel her inner Thatcher a bit too often. This will in time be her undoing as it was Thatcher's as people will start calling May "TBW" as well.

I don't relish the Conservative euphoria on here - 1983 wasn't pleasant for non-Conservatives but the cocky triumphalism on here has already started without a vote having been cast. I'm sure my request to tone it down will be ignored - perhaps the voters will get tired of it as well before long.

The irony is May has probably saved the Labour Party - a heavy defeat will have consequences (they always do) and as this will be the third in succession under different leaders (happened to the Conservatives too but they got through four leaders as they didn't dare put IDS in front of the electorate), it will be impossible to ignore. I don't know what will happen but something will and that in itself will likely start the Labour Party's process of renewal and the long road back to power. Staring into the abyss does wonders for your sense of perspective.

As I returned home to East Ham last evening, I saw someone handing out leaflets - the first leaflet of the 2017 GE, Labour or the Conservatives, I mused ?

Er, no - it was a missive from Professor Kajali, "international renewed spiritual advisor and healer".

Among his many claims were his ability to help with family problems, depression, losing weight, court cases, anti-social behaviour, stress, addiction, impotency, infertility, family problems, marriage and job interviews.

I assume he'll be standing for the Conservative Party.

MaxPB said:

Sean_F said:

hamiltonace said:

TM seems to have calculated that enough remain Tories will stay with her to target UKIP and Labour leavers with her Brexit policy.

I am not one of those who will stay. I may be a Conservative party member but I am voting Lib Dem this election after the Daily Mail headlines today. My seat is SNP solid so it will make little difference but it is the principle.

I never thought I would see the split up of the UK but today is the first day that I can imagine it happening.

What are Mail saying?

"Shoot the Traitors?"

When do we start?

When we can catch those who have fled the country?

stodge said:

Morning all

My first chance to comment on the tumultuous events of the past couple of days because there's more to life than politics or indeed commenting on here.

Low blow, mr stodge, we have feelings.

CarlottaVance said:

Kevin Schofield‏ @PolhomeEditor
Emily Thornberry says there are "a lot of similarities" between Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Miliband.

Tory majorities?

He's about to stab his brother in the back?

I kid, ed, I liked that you took him on - younger brothers don't have to wait in line.

I have to say if and when Lab lose under Jezza, every single Lab MP will have to look at their consciences and ask themselves whether they really fulfilled their brief of seeking to make society a better place, which was presumably what made them become an MP in the first place.

By whatever margin they lose, it is simply not good enough for them to go into this election as they are now approaching it.

ydoethur said:

rkrkrk said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'll just leave this here:

https://twitter.com/election_data/status/854948690489987072

24% may yet be a giddy aspiration for Labour come 8 June.

Would it really make a difference? They may not know about his past but they surely already know he's a dishonest bully with a very limited intellect. If they're still willing to vote for him with that cleared up, then surely the rest will just be shrugged at?

I'd be more worried, if I were Labour, that his policy offerings on tax, housing and public spending will spook potential voters fearing an imminent Fourth Great Depression (while we're still stuck in number 3).

I think you are showing your bias. Corbyn isn't popular but it's certainly not his domestic policies dragging him down.... But i think tax rises for those over 70k is probably a very well chosen figure. Will inspire outrage in those above the number... And the big fuss they make will be good press.

How much does an MP earn? To make it personal - if they could just include them in the tax rise that would be smart politics i reckon.

Not that it matters. Electorate has formed a view on Corbyn and think it will be hard to shift that.

That's a policy that might be moderately popular from a sane leader. His policies on VAT, of which private school fees were just the start, might be rather less so.

Similarly his policy on rail nationalisation might be popular, his threats to ban petrol cars much less so.

Overall, even allowing for his poor quality and personal unpleasantness, it is his policy offering that will sink him. The problem is that the Labour left are too grossly unselfaware to realise this.

Hmm... Certainly agree on cars.
Its what 7% in private schools - i can see that being popular actually.

I don't know what his policy is on VAT otherwise...
I think the idea that tax take will remain constant is pretty clever.

Maybe it would be better for labour if good ideas didn't get proposed and then tarred with the label that Corbyn said that!

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

IanB2 said:

rogerh said:

I presume it is too late for the CONS to rush through the proposed constituency boundary changes?

I posted in detail on this early in one of yesterday's threads. The likelihood is that they will continue on the original timetable, be agreed in 2018, ready for a 2021/22 GE. But the legislation will probably need to be revisited at some point and there may well be calls for a delay, or re-start with more up-to-date data. It depends on the size of the Tory majority and how much they like the revised proposals.

One of the papers yesterday was reporting that boundary review will continue but no longer be about reduction to 600. Another piece of Cam/Osborne genius that May feels the party can survive without.

In which case surely the process needs to start over, since the current proposals are defined by reducing to 600?

The boundaries do need updating, but politicians keep moving the goalposts.

As per earlier posts, the BC will continue unless told to stop by Parliament.

It is just possible that a very large victory by the Tories may make them re-start with more sensible criteria. Most people involved know that the criteria set by the 2011 Act are not working out well, even if relatively few Tories were prepared to admit it back when the review was seen as the difference between losing and winning.

rottenborough said:

IanB2 said:

rogerh said:

I presume it is too late for the CONS to rush through the proposed constituency boundary changes?

I posted in detail on this early in one of yesterday's threads. The likelihood is that they will continue on the original timetable, be agreed in 2018, ready for a 2021/22 GE. But the legislation will probably need to be revisited at some point and there may well be calls for a delay, or re-start with more up-to-date data. It depends on the size of the Tory majority and how much they like the revised proposals.

One of the papers yesterday was reporting that boundary review will continue but no longer be about reduction to 600. Another piece of Cam/Osborne genius that May feels the party can survive without.

The boundary review is in progress based on 600 seats and will report in 2018. To postpone it now requires Parliamentary approval.
http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2018-review/

@Sir_Geoff - which bookies is that with?

CarlottaVance said:

Cyclefree said:

Bromptonaut said:

perdix said:

Bromptonaut said:

Meanwhile the EU quietly gets on with the job of sidelining the UK.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/854797735194746885

This is nothing new. The protectionism of France and Germany has never favoured the UK.

Economic illiteracy of PB Tories knows no bounds.

What could possibly have happened in 1973 that gave a big and long-lasting boost to the UK economy?

https://twitter.com/dexeugov/status/852534216025939968

That graph shows trade increasing before 1973.

But in any case if the EU was simply a Common Market, a single one even, there would be few objections. That's the bit most of us like. It's the political stuff which has been added on with super glue which is the problem. For some anyway.

The British people were asked if they wanted to be in a Common Market - they said Yes

The British people were asked if they wanted to be in a European Union - they said No

It's really very simple.

The British people were asked to choose a government. They said ok sometimes it will be a Lab government and sometimes a Conservative one.

And elections were held.

And the thereby democratically-elected governments decided to participate in some EU initiatives, and to opt out of others.

You are right, it really is very simple.

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

IanB2 said:

rogerh said:

I presume it is too late for the CONS to rush through the proposed constituency boundary changes?

I posted in detail on this early in one of yesterday's threads. The likelihood is that they will continue on the original timetable, be agreed in 2018, ready for a 2021/22 GE. But the legislation will probably need to be revisited at some point and there may well be calls for a delay, or re-start with more up-to-date data. It depends on the size of the Tory majority and how much they like the revised proposals.

One of the papers yesterday was reporting that boundary review will continue but no longer be about reduction to 600. Another piece of Cam/Osborne genius that May feels the party can survive without.

In which case surely the process needs to start over, since the current proposals are defined by reducing to 600?

The boundaries do need updating, but politicians keep moving the goalposts.

As per earlier posts, the BC will continue unless told to stop by Parliament.

It is just possible that a very large victory by the Tories may make them re-start with more sensible criteria. Most people involved know that the criteria set by the 2011 Act are not working out well, even if relatively few Tories were prepared to admit it back when the review was seen as the difference between losing and winning.

I also wonder if they will re-start the review. If TM wins a big majority it makes it easier to get the boundaries passed BUT it means more Tory MPs would lose their seats in the reduction of 50 and makes it harder to find new seats for those who lose out.

Mr. Alistair, indeed, and another change (decline in the trend) around 2007.

Sir_Geoff said:

Not quite alphabetical order on the constituencies. Lancaster and Fleetwood is now up. unsure who the Cons are putting up, but 4-7 seems somewhat generous to me. Of course, if you rate Cat Smith's chances in selling Corbynism on the doorstep, she's 2-1.

I think that't not the most generous of those that are up (the Birmingham ones are better). Cat Smith made a gain against the tide in 2015, and has been prominent since (which voters tend to like). I think blues are justified favourites, but she has somewhat more chance than most in a Lab/Con marginal.

Mr. Stodge, that's a bit unfair.

Whilst I do post a lot of concise daftness, no other PBer posts tips on such a regular basis as my wonderful (ahem) F1 predictions.

Novo said:

RE Gorton by-election - my bookie has declared the bet void and refunded my £50. Shame really as I thought the 6- I got for the LDs was good value!

Still active on BF.

Novo said:

RE Gorton by-election - my bookie has declared the bet void and refunded my £50. Shame really as I thought the 6- I got for the LDs was good value!

I assume this lot will get voided

Back
Liberal Democrats1.09 £0.38 £0.03
x Matched: 12:10 18-Apr-17
Liberal Democrats1.2 £4.33 £0.87
x Matched: 22:07 27-Mar-17
Liberal Democrats1.19 £10.52 £2.00
x Matched: 22:07 27-Mar-17
Liberal Democrats1.19 £451.15 £85.72

Lay
x Matched: 22:07 27-Mar-17
Liberal Democrats1.11 £500.00 £55.00

stodge said:

kle4 said:

stodge said:

Morning all

My first chance to comment on the tumultuous events of the past couple of days because there's more to life than politics or indeed commenting on here.

Low blow, mr stodge, we have feelings.

I've been here since the start and as with one or two others, this is my fourth PB General Election. I've not reached 3000 posts in the new order and you, and some others, are over 20,000.

The golden rule here is the quality of posts is inversely proportional to their quantity and your first post is always the best.

Ok, I was just kidding before but now my feelings really are hurt - you could have left that unsaid - your excellent and thought provoking posts make your point for you.

I would also point out not all posts are comparable - some are to make quality points, but some are not even attempting to do so, but add to the flow, engage quickly. Different strokes for different folks.

But now off to work.

The_Apocalypse said:

Re Corbyn, not surprised about the Indy report, although that report seems to be based on three sources saying what they think he might do. What Corbyn doesn't seem to get is that even if he doesn't step down, he will get challenged very soon after June 8th by several MPs, meaning he'll have to fight the leadership election on current rules. This idiot really thought that he could push through the reselection of MP several days ago and got slapped down by the NEC and Unite.

He'll find that in the event of a crushing election loss, the unions will turn against him. Even amongst the membership, most think he should stand down in the event of an election loss.

Of course, there is a wishful thinking klaxon here because both you and I desperately want this to be the case. That all said, your argument is cogent. It would seem to be the key analysis. Let's hope so!

ToryJim said:

stodge said:

Morning all

My first chance to comment on the tumultuous events of the past couple of days because there's more to life than politics or indeed commenting on here.

I was as surprised as everyone when I heard the announcement and while OGH and TSE may well be on to something it may simply be the siren calls from within the Conservative Party for an election simply grew too loud for May to ignore.

It's also interesting polling day will be June 8th which will be near enough the anniversary of the 1983 landslide - some may see imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and I do think May tries to channel her inner Thatcher a bit too often. This will in time be her undoing as it was Thatcher's as people will start calling May "TBW" as well.

I don't relish the Conservative euphoria on here - 1983 wasn't pleasant for non-Conservatives but the cocky triumphalism on here has already started without a vote having been cast. I'm sure my request to tone it down will be ignored - perhaps the voters will get tired of it as well before long.

The irony is May has probably saved the Labour Party - a heavy defeat will have consequences (they always do) and as this will be the third in succession under different leaders (happened to the Conservatives too but they got through four leaders as they didn't dare put IDS in front of the electorate), it will be impossible to ignore. I don't know what will happen but something will and that in itself will likely start the Labour Party's process of renewal and the long road back to power. Staring into the abyss does wonders for your sense of perspective.

As I returned home to East Ham last evening, I saw someone handing out leaflets - the first leaflet of the 2017 GE, Labour or the Conservatives, I mused ?

Er, no - it was a missive from Professor Kajali, "international renewed spiritual advisor and healer".

Among his many claims were his ability to help with family problems, depression, losing weight, court cases, anti-social behaviour, stress, addiction, impotency, infertility, family problems, marriage and job interviews.

I assume he'll be standing for the Conservative Party.

Labour aren't just staring into the abyss, they are pitching headlong into it

Well whatever happens I guarantee they'll always have East Ham!

ydoethur said:

rkrkrk said:

<
Hmm... Certainly agree on cars.
Its what 7% in private schools - i can see that being popular actually.

I don't know what his policy is on VAT otherwise...
I think the idea that tax take will remain constant is pretty clever.

Maybe it would be better for labour if good ideas didn't get proposed and then tarred with the label that Corbyn said that!

It's not that one that's the problem - it's the threat of rolling it out further. Supposing he put it on domestic fuel to fund his investment bank, as has allegedly been canvassed? That would go down well, wouldn't it?

Moreover his VAT on school fees policy is risible and if enacted would be a catastrophe for state education. Let's assume that it instantly puts two thirds of private schools out of business, as seems likely given their tight margins. That means at one and the same time the revenue to pay for free school meals vanishes and a roughly 5% increase in places is needed at once - AS WELL AS free school meals for the children of some of the wealthiest parents.

London and Bristol, which have an especially large private school cohort (20% each) would suffer particularly badly. Coincidentally those are also where the most acute shortages of places already are.

Only a complete lunatic would put that forward as a serious education policy. None of it adds up. It could not be more obvious why Corbyn and Rayner have 2 Es at A-level between them (I know Rayner had a sort of excuse, but given her abject performance I have wondered how many exams she would have passed anyway). It is in fact naked class warfare by a dim witted posh boy desperately trying to reject his wealthy and privileged past by being politically right on, without a thought for the disastrous consequences.

(Disclaimer - I do not like Holocaust deniers or serial killers and Corbyn's position on them may colour my views on him, which as some of the more acute of you may have realised are somewhat negative.)

Does it even count as education policy so much as a free school meals policy? Labour would do better to hammer home the shortage of places after seven years of Conservative EdSecs pursuing irrelevant hobby-horses like free schools.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Stodge, that's a bit unfair.

Whilst I do post a lot of concise daftness, no other PBer posts tips on such a regular basis as my wonderful (ahem) F1 predictions.

I'm sure you know your motoring onions, Mr Dancer, but I prefer my horsepower with a jockey not a driver.

At least with the coming of evening racing I can enjoy some of the sport on offer on the way home via one of the many bookmakers establishments in the City.

david_herdson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

If the lost UKIP votes are ex-Tories returning to the fold, doesn't that mainly mean much bigger Tory majorities in seats they already hold? Obviously, the Tories are going to win a number of Labour-held marginals, but I suspect that a lot if their extra votes are going to come in seats they already hold. That may mean Labour closer to 170/180 seats than 140/150.

I think there is an element of truth in that. I banged on and on in 2015 about how the UKIP vote was likely to make the Tory vote more efficient than it had been in 2010 and an unwind of it is not likely to help in a lot of seats. But some Tories with smallish majorities facing Lib Dems will be glad of it as will some Tory challengers hunting down Labour majorities smaller than the UKIP vote in their constituencies last time out.

The best constituency bets are likely to be in Labour held seats with a strong vote for both Con and UKIP. I have just had a punt on Tories take Dagenham on Sportsbook. 11/4 seemed good odds.

I appreciate that I have a huge vested interest in it as the constituency's Conservative Association's chairman but let me mention Hemsworth. This used to be absolutely rock-solid Labour - it had a 70% Lab share in 1997 and as high as 85% in the 1960s - but times have changed. Trickett only won 51% in 2015, with Con and UKIP in the low 20s a piece. It was heavily Leave and ticks the boxes matching the other demographics that have seen disproportional swings since the last GE. I'm not saying it'll be a gain. It probably won't be a target and will have such activist support as is willing asked to help out in Wakefield, Dewsbury and Morley & Outwood. But it's the sort of seat which if the 20+ poll leads remain, might come onto the radar.

You're years behind DH.

I mentioned in 2009 that Hemsworth was trending Conservatives and would be winnable one day.

And got a derisive response from a certain Bradford Conservative who's name I forget.

I remember driving through the constituency in 2015 and being struck by the number of new housing developments - is that still happening ?

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Sir_Geoff said:

Not quite alphabetical order on the constituencies. Lancaster and Fleetwood is now up. unsure who the Cons are putting up, but 4-7 seems somewhat generous to me. Of course, if you rate Cat Smith's chances in selling Corbynism on the doorstep, she's 2-1.

I think that't not the most generous of those that are up (the Birmingham ones are better). Cat Smith made a gain against the tide in 2015, and has been prominent since (which voters tend to like). I think blues are justified favourites, but she has somewhat more chance than most in a Lab/Con marginal.

Against that:

Cat Smith is a hardcore Corbynite, & the seat looks a bit "Copelandy" to me. I think she has less chance than Woodcock up there, and he doesn't have all that much.

Good morning, saboteurs and patriots.

foxinsoxuk said:

Bromptonaut said:

Meanwhile the EU quietly gets on with the job of sidelining the UK.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/854797735194746885

Brexit means Brexit. We sidelined ourselves.

We sidelined ourselves years ago when the Gus O'Donnell mentality of maximising worldwide benefit instead of maximising British benefit became dominant.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

John McDonnell has said anyone earning £70,000 + are in labour's sights for increased taxes.

Labour really do want to snuff out aspiration - interesting how media journalists will react as most will be in or near that range

In some ways it's a bit worse than the figures alone. Yesterday on Radio 4 McDonnell was invited to define the rich — because he wanted them to pay a lot more tax — and he gave a figure of £70k to £80k as the level of income where someone becomes rich. Now I would certainly agree that they are well off, but I doubt many people on £70k consider themselves rich. And many people earning less than £70k will think "if that's rich, I must be well off and they will be coming for me next".

Pulpstar said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Sir_Geoff said:

Not quite alphabetical order on the constituencies. Lancaster and Fleetwood is now up. unsure who the Cons are putting up, but 4-7 seems somewhat generous to me. Of course, if you rate Cat Smith's chances in selling Corbynism on the doorstep, she's 2-1.

I think that't not the most generous of those that are up (the Birmingham ones are better). Cat Smith made a gain against the tide in 2015, and has been prominent since (which voters tend to like). I think blues are justified favourites, but she has somewhat more chance than most in a Lab/Con marginal.

Against that:

Cat Smith is a hardcore Corbynite, & the seat looks a bit "Copelandy" to me. I think she has less chance than Woodcock up there, and he doesn't have all that much.

Also against that - she has a high profile which gives her constituents a chance to see how much of a mindless and barely coherent sycophant she is to the car crash that is Corbyn.

I'm getting too angry. I voted for these buggers in 2015. Never, ever again.

I'll go and dig the garden and calm down a bit.

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Still can't get over that ludicrous poll last night. Labour on 24%? Who could believe that?

and thats when all the Con voters are supposedly on hols skiing or sunning themselves

Surely they are back by now?

I mentioned to my wife that it looks like I would be spending time up in Blairgowrie again this election as it is a target Tory seat. She suggested I pop into the High School and teach some maths whilst I was there. The High School in John Swinney's seat (Minister for Education) wrote to parents asking if they could help as the exams approached as they didn't have enough maths teachers. Not sure about Salmond but the SNP's obsession with constitutional matters, as opposed to, you know, running the country, just might bite them this time.

we.re still on hols in the Midlands

Ive a bet with malc and JPJ2 re Salmond. More on the "brave" end of the spectrum but should provide 7 weeks of crack as I try to get malc to cough up early :-)

Pity TGOHF was not as good at putting his money where his mouth is, he ran away when asked to back his position.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Sir_Geoff said:

Not quite alphabetical order on the constituencies. Lancaster and Fleetwood is now up. unsure who the Cons are putting up, but 4-7 seems somewhat generous to me. Of course, if you rate Cat Smith's chances in selling Corbynism on the doorstep, she's 2-1.

I think that't not the most generous of those that are up (the Birmingham ones are better). Cat Smith made a gain against the tide in 2015, and has been prominent since (which voters tend to like). I think blues are justified favourites, but she has somewhat more chance than most in a Lab/Con marginal.

Point taken; I suppose I've a soft spot for seeing a Corbyn cheerleader taken down. Her 2015 victory was as much part of a massive collapse in the Liberal vote, down 7,000, and UKIP being up by 3,000, so I'm confident she will fall.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour's platform of wealth taxes, higher other taxes on those over £70k and the Ozil law. Totally anti-aspiarational.

And that's just for starters as it won't cover all their crazy spending plans.

Corbyn isn't just an old plonker, his ideas are dangerous.

It is certainly more Melenchon than Macron

ydoethur said:

rkrkrk said:

<
Hmm... Certainly agree on cars.
Its what 7% in private schools - i can see that being popular actually.

I don't know what his policy is on VAT otherwise...
I think the idea that tax take will remain constant is pretty clever.

Maybe it would be better for labour if good ideas didn't get proposed and then tarred with the label that Corbyn said that!

It's not that one that's the problem - it's the threat of rolling it out further. Supposing he put it on domestic fuel to fund his investment bank, as has allegedly been canvassed? That would go down well, wouldn't it?

Moreover his VAT on school fees policy is risible and if enacted would be a catastrophe for state education. Let's assume that it instantly puts two thirds of private schools out of business, as seems likely given their tight margins. That means at one and the same time the revenue to pay for free school meals vanishes and a roughly 5% increase in places is needed at once - AS WELL AS free school meals for the children of some of the wealthiest parents.

London and Bristol, which have an especially large private school cohort (20% each) would suffer particularly badly. Coincidentally those are also where the most acute shortages of places already are.

Only a complete lunatic would put that forward as a serious education policy. None of it adds up. It could not be more obvious why Corbyn and Rayner have 2 Es at A-level between them (I know Rayner had a sort of excuse, but given her abject performance I have wondered how many exams she would have passed anyway). It is in fact naked class warfare by a dim witted posh boy desperately trying to reject his wealthy and privileged past by being politically right on, without a thought for the disastrous consequences.

(Disclaimer - I do not like Holocaust deniers or serial killers and Corbyn's position on them may colour my views on him, which as some of the more acute of you may have realised are somewhat negative.)

I think you have to judge on what the policy is not on what it might be...
Allegedly been canvassed is about as thin as it gets.

There's no way VAT on schools would put two thirds out of business.
Either parents would pay more, schools would cut costs or some combination of the two.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

John McDonnell has said anyone earning £70,000 + are in labour's sights for increased taxes.

Labour really do want to snuff out aspiration - interesting how media journalists will react as most will be in or near that range

I imagine very few media journalists are on £70k+. Perhaps a select few with with side income/publishing royalties etc, but i'd guess 99% of journos are on somewhere between 15k and 50k.

glw said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

John McDonnell has said anyone earning £70,000 + are in labour's sights for increased taxes.

Labour really do want to snuff out aspiration - interesting how media journalists will react as most will be in or near that range

In some ways it's a bit worse than the figures alone. Yesterday on Radio 4 McDonnell was invited to define the rich — because he wanted them to pay a lot more tax — and he gave a figure of £70k to £80k as the level of income where someone becomes rich. Now I would certainly agree that they are well off, but I doubt many people on £70k consider themselves rich. And many people earning less than £70k will think "if that's rich, I must be well off and they will be coming for me next".

I suspect someone in the South East on £70-80k would by no means think they were rich, or that their neighbours would think they were so.

Go up to the North East or North West, or indeed much of Wales and the South West and I think things might seem different.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour's platform of wealth taxes, higher other taxes on those over £70k and the Ozil law. Totally anti-aspiarational.

And that's just for starters as it won't cover all their crazy spending plans.

Corbyn isn't just an old plonker, his ideas are dangerous.

Thankfully the policies of this deranged fool have no chance of ever being enacted.

CarlottaVance said:

Alleged SCon hitlist:

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/409311/conservative-election-target-snp-deputy-leader/

Fantasy land

Bromptonaut said:

Thatcher was wrong to prioritise the establishment of the Single Market, was she?

You are doing it again. How can you look at a single graph that dramatically over simplifies something as complicated as trade and then attribute growth to one factor? The are hundreds of things that affect trade, many of them outside the remit of government.

Saying EU membership is responsible for UK trade growth is like saying the Merlin engine is why we won the Second World War.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

John McDonnell has said anyone earning £70,000 + are in labour's sights for increased taxes.

Labour really do want to snuff out aspiration - interesting how media journalists will react as most will be in or near that range

I think you've got this wrong. 70k is about 5% of the population i think.
To many people that sounds like big big money... Remember the fuss about MPs pay?

bobajobPB said:

HYUFD said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Novo, welcome to pb.com.

Ms. Apocalypse, well, quite. It's a huge and disconcerting cultural difference.

I don't have the link, alas, but some time ago (maybe 3-4 years) a friend from the US who lives in the UK, and has done for some time, shared a study of attitudes towards atheism.

I think the question people (theists from America) were asked was regarding the sort of people with whom they'd like to accept a lift. Rapists and atheists came equal last.

Yes. Thankfully, in this country I think we are much less judgemental of atheists. More polling showed that while we don't think you have to be religious to be a good person (many European countries thought the same) Americans had a different view. Still, among the younger generation in America atheism is growing - so hopefully it becomes more acceptable to the American public as a whole. Sadly the religious right in the US appear to be desperate to drag the country back to the 1950s with evangelicals at the forefront of this.

You are forgetting that a comfortable majority of the global population are still Christian or Muslim, atheism is still very much a minority view worldwide and the US is closer to the worldview on that than secular western Europe. Indeed Eastern Europe is as religious as the non coastal US

She is not forgetting it at all. She is merely pointing out that humanism/atheism (a belief in loving your fellow human, rather than a cloud in the sky) is growing. Which it is. She makes a good point.

Though still very much a minority view globally and of course plenty of hospitals, hostels and schools worldwide are still provided by religious bodies

Pong said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

John McDonnell has said anyone earning £70,000 + are in labour's sights for increased taxes.

Labour really do want to snuff out aspiration - interesting how media journalists will react as most will be in or near that range

I imagine very few media journalists are on £70k+. Perhaps a select few with with side income/publishing royalties etc, but i'd guess 99% of journos are on somewhere between 15k and 50k.

I'm sure a minority numerically are on £70k (clearly juniors and regionals are well below that), but that wouldn't at all be a ludicrous salary for a seasoned journo on a national title. And there will be a sizable cohort who aren't on that level but seriously aspire to be well before retirement.

bobajobPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour's platform of wealth taxes, higher other taxes on those over £70k and the Ozil law. Totally anti-aspiarational.

And that's just for starters as it won't cover all their crazy spending plans.

Corbyn isn't just an old plonker, his ideas are dangerous.

Thankfully the policies of this deranged fool have no chance of ever being enacted.

One thing is for certain, his beloved arsenal wont be winning the champions league!

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

hamiltonace said:

TM seems to have calculated that enough remain Tories will stay with her to target UKIP and Labour leavers with her Brexit policy.

I am not one of those who will stay. I may be a Conservative party member but I am voting Lib Dem this election after the Daily Mail headlines today. My seat is SNP solid so it will make little difference but it is the principle.

I never thought I would see the split up of the UK but today is the first day that I can imagine it happening.

Unionist parties may actually gain some seats from the SNP

Unfortunately that does not really speak to the longer term chances of the union. They did better than coukd have been dreamed last time, losing a handful of seats doesn't make them not the most popular party in Scotland and a few percentage points from victory.

If the SNP lose any seats though May will use that as an excuse to ignore Sturgeon's indyref2 demands for the foreseeable future

I'm glad you see it as a mere excuse.

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour's platform of wealth taxes, higher other taxes on those over £70k and the Ozil law. Totally anti-aspiarational.

And that's just for starters as it won't cover all their crazy spending plans.

Corbyn isn't just an old plonker, his ideas are dangerous.

It is certainly more Melenchon than Macron

I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if he proposed a 4 day or max 30hr week. Probably with some bonkers you definitely have to have Monday off if you work for even an hour on Sunday.

Indeed the LDs are closer to Macron than Corbyn Labour

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

If the lost UKIP votes are ex-Tories returning to the fold, doesn't that mainly mean much bigger Tory majorities in seats they already hold? Obviously, the Tories are going to win a number of Labour-held marginals, but I suspect that a lot if their extra votes are going to come in seats they already hold. That may mean Labour closer to 170/180 seats than 140/150.

I think there is an element of truth in that. I banged on and on in 2015 about how the UKIP vote was likely to make the Tory vote more efficient than it had been in 2010 and an unwind of it is not likely to help in a lot of seats. But some Tories with smallish majorities facing Lib Dems will be glad of it as will some Tory challengers hunting down Labour majorities smaller than the UKIP vote in their constituencies last time out.

The best constituency bets are likely to be in Labour held seats with a strong vote for both Con and UKIP. I have just had a punt on Tories take Dagenham on Sportsbook. 11/4 seemed good odds.

I backed Labour at 1/2!