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

YouGov‏VERIFIED ACCOUNT @YouGov 2 mins2 minutes ago

Theresa May gains her highest ever "best Prime Minister" rating at 54% - Jeremy Corbyn on 15%, don't know 31% https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/20/voting-intention-conservatives-48-labour-24-18-19-/ …

I think we're starting to see Labour's 'floor'... yee gads. This is like Walter the Softie going up against Mike Tyson.

FrancisUrquhart said:

rkrkrk 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 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?

Hammond's proposed minor NI rise affected even fewer and people went spare.

I don't think they really did. The Tories freaked but did the country?
And that did break a promise and hit a more politically popular group?

rkrkrk said:

ydoethur said:

rkrkrk said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'll just leave this here:
Pretty much the one policy of Corbyn I agree with is to tax private education as heavily as possible.

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!

glw said:

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.

I'm sure that was in a UKIP manifesto.

MarkHopkins said:

rkrkrk 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 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?

Britain is a nation of entrepreneurs. We don't have massive natural resources; we are successful by going out there and trying stuff. If you tell the 5% of successful people that they will be punished for that success then they will not try the same, which means less jobs and then more tax on everyone else.

It's a short-sighted envy-driven self-defeating policy.

Which is presumably why Corbyn and McD love it.

If the election turns into this argument vs. Labour saying we will tax those over 70k - Labour will do a lot better than people think.

TM is smarter than that though.

Slackbladder said:

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.

Bet all those you see on screen with the Beeb are over £70k

Perhaps we should spend a bit more money on the NHS and a bit less on overpaid BBC presenters ?
Do they add value ?
I'd have been happy for them to give Clarkson a £30 million contract (Top Gear was an international cash cow) but £150k for a common or garden newsreader is too much.

Macron appears to be edging towards the presidency.

If he makes the runoff, he wins.

FrancisUrquhart said:

rkrkrk 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 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?

Hammond's proposed minor NI rise affected even fewer and people went spare.

And that was quite a reasonable measure to address a growing unfairness in NI.

hamiltonace said:

glw said:

Bromptonaut said:

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?

Are you attributing that to one thing? Because that would be truly economically illiterate.

Over the last few decades global trade barriers have come down, currencies are now generally free floating, telecommunications advances have made a huge difference to trade, containerisation and ever larger ships have dramatically cut costs, and labour costs in developing economies are tiny.

I would put EU membership quite far down the list of significant changes to UK trade.

As a manufacturer of goods, I agree global trading of goods is much easier these days. I export outside EC a third of goods I make. My technical service sales are 90% UK based and 10% EC based. Brexit is not a big deal for UK manufacturers but could be a bad day for technical services such as banking, lawyers, consultants etc.

You mean bad for the Tories chums so stuff the rest

glw said:

williamglenn said:

On a scale of 0 to 0, how significant do you think the opportunity is form signing 'our own trade deals' versus those negotiated through the EU?

I'm not interested in discussing this with a person whose posting could be automated as "X is bad for Brexit".

Coward

bobajobPB said:

Macron appears to be edging towards the presidency.

If he makes the runoff, he wins.

An historic victory for an explicitly pro-EU candidate in the middle of the GE campaign would boost the Lib Dem narrative.

rkrkrk said:

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.

FFS.

Most private schools run on margins of about 2%. I know there are exceptions like Eton and Harrow but they are unusual. It is a business with high overheads and low income streams. You think they could absorb a 20% rise in costs on that basis?

Most parents who pay for private schooling have to live right on the margins in order to do so. In Bristol, at Redland school where I used to do a lot of work in music, it was extremely rare to see a parent with a car less than four years old, and about half of all holidays were spent camping in Devon. Do you think they could afford a 20% rise? Could they heck. And remember if even half of them can't, the school shuts.

There are five significant private schools in this area plus one very small one which probably wouldn't be affected - Chase Grammar in Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Abbots Bromley, Lichfield Cathedral and Denstone in Uttoxeter. The effect of this policy would in my judgement be to shut the first three overnight, and place severe pressure on Lichfield. Denstone has a different model and would probably be unaffected. That's a cool 1500 extra school places needed in the state system here in just one term. The state system is already at breaking point. This policy with its concomitant vast rise in costs would smash it entirely. Classes of 75 would appear possible. Thanks a bunch for wishing that on me.

There is a hell of a lot of ignorance about the reality of private schooling and why it persists even though the concept is unpopular. Corbyn, for a start, doesn't get how it just about keeps the state sector afloat in this country. The majority is not based on wealthy people - it is based on middle income people for whom personal comfort is less important than the quality of their child's education. This policy would smash the model. That's clearly the intention. Well, I've no quarrel with people who oppose private education in principle. But to destroy the state sector to destroy the private sector? Criminal insanity. If by a chance in a million Corbyn wins and enacts it I'm launching a private prosecution against him for lying on his nomination papers (he still has to declare he's sane, doesn't he)?

FrancisUrquhart said:

It's dimblebore in the chair for the bbc again...Looks like it is sky and pb for me on GE then.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4427202/David-Dimbleby-BBC-election-coverage.html

Sky usually gets the results in quicker from what I've seen. BBC cuts away to too many studio guests at times.

BBC should give it to Andrew Neil.

Mr. Urquhart, a shame, but unsurprising. Neil and Raworth would be much better. I suspect we'll end up with Huw Edwards once Dimbleby stops doing it.

Pulpstar said:

isam 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 backed Labour at 1/2!

Is Cruddas standing again ?

If he's standing down the 11-4 is well worth it, no bet for me if he runs.

Not sure actually. I reckon he will run. It's 2/5 now

Labour surely can't lose Dagenham? That would be something.

FrancisUrquhart said:

It's dimblebore in the chair for the bbc again...Looks like it is sky and pb for me on GE then.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4427202/David-Dimbleby-BBC-election-coverage.html

I like the Alistair Campbell story in that piece.

Ishmael_Z 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.

Snip

I was going to say that, but I could not believe that anyone prepared to call other posters "economically illiterate" would fail to realise it. Has he posted the wrong graph, or does he have less graph-fu than the average 8 year old?

It was almost flat at the beginning and big upturn coincided with EU, methinks it is you and cyclefree in your pomposity that are the illiterate idiots. Neither are quite as smart as you think you are , by a long way.

YBarddCwsc said:

Who will be the highest profile Labour scalp?

Chris Bryant is very vulnerable, if Leanne Wood fights him (she's still thinking about it).

Owen Smith in Pontypridd only has a circa 8000 majority & is not popular locally.

Could Emily Thornberry fall in Remainer Central ? A LibDem/Labour marginal before 2015.

Might Ed Miliband be engulfed in Doncaster North (70 per cent Leave) ?

Or the Beast get bitten in Bolsover (another huge Leave vote)

Of course, most of these won't happen, but there will be a Portillo/Balls moment. For whom does the spectacle of "eating a bucketload of shit in public" await?

Islington South could be one to watch. Both teams have a very good ground game; Thornberry isn't as hard working an MP herself as her colleague over the border, and given her character she has to be high up the league table for potential gaffe-of-the-campaign. Islington is very Remain and Labour's stance won't have gone down well. One handicap for the LibDems may be the need to send activists to nearby target seats, however.

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alleged SCon hitlist:

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

Fantasy land

Note Gordon isnt on that list

its in the bag already :-)

Trying to keep your hopes up now:)

TwistedFireStopper said:

rkrkrk 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 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?

I earn under 30 grand a year. Obviously, I'm aware of people around me such as doctors and solicitors who are high earners, but no-one I know well earns anything like 70k a year. A few friends are in the construction trades and they're doing well, but not 70 grand well. I'm not the sort to be jealous and demand that the rich get squeezed until they squeak, I've made my choices in life and live comfortably enough so far, but PB.com does seem to be a bit out of touch with earnings and wealth. 70 grand would be life changing for the vast majority of the population!

My house was just over £70k in 2012

OldKingCole said:

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.

Ken Livingstone made this point when analysing Labour's surprise defeat in 1992 -- that thresholds needed to take account of people's aspirations as well as their current situations.

Theuniondivvie said:

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.

A pretty poor one too. There were good, sound reasons for delaying the demands before the GE was called, but they don't look sustainable anymore, claiming the qualitative difference between a GE and an IndyRef is so significant as to make one ok and the other not does not stack up in my view.

HYUFD said:

bobajobPB said:

HYUFD said:

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

Yes, but that wasn't the point she was making, so your self-appointed role of PB Policeman wasn't needed here!

Her point that religious thinking was now a minority view was wrong on a global perspective

Show me the post where she said that.

NickPalmer said:

Chatted to Regional Office about standing (yes I'm considering it, contrary to previous intentions - all hands to the pumps etc.). The official said drily "It's a bit quiet here really, I was preparing for World War III and all we've got is an election".

If the ball comes lose from the scrum and all that. If you go for it, then good luck to you.

Theuniondivvie said:

bobajobPB said:

Macron appears to be edging towards the presidency.

If he makes the runoff, he wins.

James Naughtie on R4 this am was pushing the odd line that Fillon v MLP in the last round was the best chance for MLP getting beaten. Not a great expert, but from what I've gathered on here that would be the best scenario for MLP?

That's a lazy argument from Naughtie on the basis that MLP's main attraction is that she's on the right, rather than that she's anti-establishment.

You're quite right that MLP's best chance is against the uber-establishment candidate with the corruption charges hanging over him.

NickPalmer said:

Chatted to Regional Office about standing (yes I'm considering it, contrary to previous intentions - all hands to the pumps etc.). The official said drily "It's a bit quiet here really, I was preparing for World War III and all we've got is an election".

Good for you Nick. Go for it.

For info the Boundary Commission has issued a statement on the GE. Basically it is wot I said - they will carry on unless/until they are told to stop.

http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/statement-on-the-general-election/

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

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.

Ken Livingstone made this point when analysing Labour's surprise defeat in 1992 -- that thresholds needed to take account of people's aspirations as well as their current situations.

Gods teeth, am I on the same side as the newt fancier! Seriously, though it was always an issue in the NHS when I was working, and now my grandchildren are facing it as teachers.

“Why don’t you move up North, Jack (and fiancee, both teachers)? You’ll easily get a place there,’
Routine family phrase lately.

ToryJim said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Urquhart, a shame, but unsurprising. Neil and Raworth would be much better. I suspect we'll end up with Huw Edwards once Dimbleby stops doing it.

Nah the 2125 election will be fronted by Dimbleby's head in a jar.

That's not entirely impossible.

By then someone could create an AI bot that provides the likely responses someone could have made, especially if there's a lot of raw material to work from (as there is in his case).

"Now let's see what the Dimblebot thinks..."

NickPalmer said:

Chatted to Regional Office about standing (yes I'm considering it, contrary to previous intentions - all hands to the pumps etc.). The official said drily "It's a bit quiet here really, I was preparing for World War III and all we've got is an election".

Compared to the disastrous result you look set for, World War III would have been considerably less destructive to Labour. There might have been survivors of that. If my interlocutor this morning is typical, a pig-headed refusal to face reality coupled with unworkable policies designed to make some obscure character point are giving you a real chance of a complete wipeout.

NickPalmer said:

Chatted to Regional Office about standing (yes I'm considering it, contrary to previous intentions - all hands to the pumps etc.). The official said drily "It's a bit quiet here really, I was preparing for World War III and all we've got is an election".

Well that's made my morning... Good luck Dr Palmer.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Always amuses me that the CPS in recent years charged and oversaw the conviction of several sitting MPs, including a cabinet minister, the DPP at the time is now a prominent shadow cabinet minister.

Glad you've downgraded from "convicted" to "oversaw the conviction" but they didn't really. That's the judge's role. The CPS is naught but the state prosecutor.

Clue's in the name...

They prosecute but they also make the charging decision.

Yes, but that's not "overseeing the conviction" - don't forget my mother and Keir Starmer had a number of run ins on the role and purpose of the CPS...!

malcolmg said:

Hear Hear , Labour are just crap. Much as I hate the Tories , how could anyone vote for these labour dullards.

If opinion polling is to be believed - a fairly big 'if' - hardly anyone will!

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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.

A pretty poor one too. There were good, sound reasons for delaying the demands before the GE was called, but they don't look sustainable anymore, claiming the qualitative difference between a GE and an IndyRef is so significant as to make one ok and the other not does not stack up in my view.

Just so.
I look forward to certain parties on here quantifying exactly what constitutes a decisive, strong mandate that allows a leader and her party to to follow through on their stated aims. I strongly suspect that the figures will differ south and north of the Tweed.

Pulpstar said:

stodge said:

May is sitting holding a Straight Flush - I mean what are the chances of anyone holding a Royal Flush ? Surely, you'd bet it all - wouldn't you ? In effect, that's what she's done.

Corbyn would probably fold the royal even if he had it.

He is a republican - it's outrageous royal cards are worth more than the hard working underclass cards, not even permitted names but numbered instead.

NickPalmer said:

Chatted to Regional Office about standing (yes I'm considering it, contrary to previous intentions - all hands to the pumps etc.). The official said drily "It's a bit quiet here really, I was preparing for World War III and all we've got is an election".

Go for it! Broxtowe again?

Soubry cannot have the Leaver vote sewn up!

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

rkrkrk said:

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.

FFS.

Most private schools run on margins of about 2%. I know there are exceptions like Eton and Harrow but they are unusual. It is a business with high overheads and low income streams. You think they could absorb a 20% rise in costs on that basis?

Most parents who pay for private schooling have to live right on the margins in order to do so. In Bristol, at Redland school where I used to do a lot of work in music, it was extremely rare to see a parent with a car less than four years old, and about half of all holidays were spent camping in Devon. Do you think they could afford a 20% rise? Could they heck. And remember if even half of them can't, the school shuts.

There are five significant private schools in this area plus one very small one which probably wouldn't be affected - Chase Grammar in Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Abbots Bromley, Lichfield Cathedral and Denstone in Uttoxeter. The effect of this policy would in my judgement be to shut the first three overnight, and place severe pressure on Lichfield. Denstone has a different model and would probably be unaffected. That's a cool 1500 extra school places needed in the state system here in just one term. The state system is already at breaking point. This policy with its concomitant vast rise in costs would smash it entirely. Classes of 75 would appear possible. Thanks a bunch for wishing that on me.

There is a hell of a lot of ignorance about the reality of private schooling and why it persists even though the concept is unpopular. Corbyn, for a start, doesn't get how it just about keeps the state sector afloat in this country. The majority is not based on wealthy people - it is based on middle income people for whom personal comfort is less important than the quality of their child's education. This policy would smash the model. That's clearly the intention. Well, I've no quarrel with people who oppose private education in principle. But to destroy the state sector to destroy the private sector? Criminal insanity. If by a chance in a million Corbyn wins and enacts it I'm launching a private prosecution against him for lying on his nomination papers (he still has to declare he's sane, doesn't he)?

Hear Hear , Labour are just crap. Much as I hate the Tories , how could anyone vote for these labour dullards.

I wish I could vote SNP down here in London! The only progressive party with any credibility at the moment.

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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.

A pretty poor one too. There were good, sound reasons for delaying the demands before the GE was called, but they don't look sustainable anymore, claiming the qualitative difference between a GE and an IndyRef is so significant as to make one ok and the other not does not stack up in my view.

Just so.
I look forward to certain parties on here quantifying exactly what constitutes a decisive, strong mandate that allows a leader and her party to to follow through on their stated aims. I strongly suspect that the figures will differ south and north of the Tweed.

Simple.

50%+ of the vote for separatist parties. That's an unanswerable demand for a second referendum.

You managed it handsomely last time - around 51.5%. Are you saying you are not confident of doing as well again?

The high probability of that figure being reached plus torpedoing her own argument that a referendum would be too disruptive is one of the reasons I am very surprised May went for an election.

kle4 said:

Pulpstar said:

stodge said:

May is sitting holding a Straight Flush - I mean what are the chances of anyone holding a Royal Flush ? Surely, you'd bet it all - wouldn't you ? In effect, that's what she's done.

Corbyn would probably fold the royal even if he had it.

He is a republican - it's outrageous royal cards are worth more than the hard working underclass cards, not even permitted names but numbered instead.

The Ace is not royalty, and is named, and is the most powerful card in the pack.

@NickPalmer Go for it

BudG said:

NickPalmer said:

BudG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

bobajobPB said:

Macron appears to be edging towards the presidency.

If he makes the runoff, he wins.

James Naughtie on R4 this am was pushing the odd line that Fillon v MLP in the last round was the best chance for MLP getting beaten. Not a great expert, but from what I've gathered on here that would be the best scenario for MLP?

Have said for some time that MLP is not the certainty to reach the runoff, as has been thought. She has lost about 5% of her support in the polls in the past month and I am pretty sure that there will be at least 2-3% of shy Fillon supporters.

Latest poll from Harris shows Macron with a 3 point lead over MLP - his biggest lead yet.

James is just wrong. It's Macron who is best placed by a clear margin (66-34), presumably because he's more transfer-friendly than Fillon (58-42 vs Le Pen). Melanchon vs Le Pen is 60-40.

Macron seems to be breaking away from the pack and should probably be odds-on again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017

Errr.. he IS odds-on. 1.89 on Betfair, last time I looked.

Is that polling ban coming in soon ?

On the £70k vs £100k thing, the point is that as soon as you get embroiled in a "who is rich?" debate, you're onto a loser.

The line has to be, "If you're doing well by doing good, that's great - we're happy for you, and you're our kind of person. We're all about people who work hard (or want to but are on zero-hours contracts, disabled, thrown out of work by heartless bosses etc) whether that hard work gives them £10k or £250k. We want everyone to pay and do their fair share, regardless of income. But some people aren't, and if you're tax dodging, or stealing benefits, or treating employees appallingly, you should indeed be worried about a Labour Government..."

It's a bit motherhood and apple pie, but "who exactly are the rich people you plan to screw?" is just a toxic conversation to get into - you can't win with it.

Catching the top of the hour sky news with jezza in full on rant mode, I have a headache after 2 minutes of it, let alone 2 months. He sounds like the nutters you get at speakers corner.

Pulpstar said:

BudG said:

NickPalmer said:

BudG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

bobajobPB said:

Macron appears to be edging towards the presidency.

If he makes the runoff, he wins.

James Naughtie on R4 this am was pushing the odd line that Fillon v MLP in the last round was the best chance for MLP getting beaten. Not a great expert, but from what I've gathered on here that would be the best scenario for MLP?

Have said for some time that MLP is not the certainty to reach the runoff, as has been thought. She has lost about 5% of her support in the polls in the past month and I am pretty sure that there will be at least 2-3% of shy Fillon supporters.

Latest poll from Harris shows Macron with a 3 point lead over MLP - his biggest lead yet.

James is just wrong. It's Macron who is best placed by a clear margin (66-34), presumably because he's more transfer-friendly than Fillon (58-42 vs Le Pen). Melanchon vs Le Pen is 60-40.

Macron seems to be breaking away from the pack and should probably be odds-on again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017

Errr.. he IS odds-on. 1.89 on Betfair, last time I looked.

Is that polling ban coming in soon ?

Based on aforementioned Naughtie piece, tomorrow I think?
Though evidently JN doesn't look at the polls anyway!

FrancisUrquhart said:

jonny83 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

It's dimblebore in the chair for the bbc again...Looks like it is sky and pb for me on GE then.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4427202/David-Dimbleby-BBC-election-coverage.html

Sky usually gets the results in quicker from what I've seen. BBC cuts away to too many studio guests at times.

BBC should give it to Andrew Neil.

In all honesty, Thrasher is why I prefer sky coverage.

They need to poach the guy at the map on CNN last year.

http://www.burnhamformayor.co.uk/message_to_leigh

Burnham not standing.

dr_spyn said:

http://www.burnhamformayor.co.uk/message_to_leigh

Burnham not standing.

Give him until this afternoon

GIN1138 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I would be really enjoying the total destruction of the Corbyn left if it did not involve the coronation of Theresa May. It's a shame that she is the price we must pay for the humiliation of the far left.

You have to destroy to rebuild. Ten years from now we'll probably be talking about an imminent Labour landslide,

Ten years from now the Tories will have been in Downing Street for just 1 year less than they were 79-97. Who would have imagine that we would be seriously considering that when they failed to win a majority in 2010 or were speaking about EICIPIM?