It'd be interesting if the Tories had been somewhere even remotely close in the last 20 years (they last won it in 1992). at the last election the libdems got 1525 votes. If it is to stop the tories winning the seat it feels like a pointless effort. The tories would need to pick up a lot of (ie most) the labour votes for it to even be close. Caroline Lucas must be popular there...
I suspect this deal was done some time back.
Bleh, I reckon we should have negotiated a stand down in Lewes for it.
There was a very good article about this in the FT the weekend before last. A Baptist pastor-cum-Academic from the Deep South reckons that the "cultural Christian" vote there is nothing of the sort, but that a religious label is ostentatiously displayed like a fig-leaf. He is appalled by the American voters' fascination for the sins they are NOT LIKELY to commit (such as abortion and homosexuality) but don't care two bits for the ones that they do commit on a very regular basis - such as gluttony and divorce. Apparently, divorce is more prevalent amongst protestant Christians in the US than in any other religious group. He is also appalled by the intemperate attacks on Mrs Clinton, which he regards as the exact opposite of both Christianity and Southern Charm.
Sorry, I can't post the article because it is behind a paywall, and I don't subscribe - but it is worth seeking out.
The Vote Leave argument was never that the EU was not worth the US making a deal with. It was that the EU was incapable of reaching a comprehensive agreement with the US due to the interests of French farmers etc and the need to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
I don't see anything in the link to suggest that was wrong. It doesn't matter whether we're first, second or third in the queue, if we are only capable of actually getting through the gates by ourselves then that is irrelevant.
So the Vote Leave argument is that the EU is incapable of concluding comprehensive trade agreements? A bizarre position since the feasibility of Brexit relies on it being totally wrong.
The EU has been capable of concluding comprehensive agreements with its European neighbours but has struggled with major agreements from other continents yes. Thus we can leave and seek a neighbours agreement, while capable of then seeking our own agreements for those further afield.
Presumably because as a strong, centralised state, we can tell "farmers in Wales" to get stuffed?
That much is obvious. A free trade deal with Oz, NZ or Canada is going to mean cheap imported food. Good for consumers, less good for our farmers and landscape.
Managing the landscape will be a vital source of incomes going forward for framers-every farmer i know says that CAP has hopelessly failed all but the Barely barons and their ilk. That said they have no great confidence in the NFU or the politicians to get it right going forwards.
That's an odd one. Did the local party move without authorization or something? If they felt on principle that, notwithstanding convention (which has not been universally applied anyway) that the people of Buckinghamshire deserve more of a choice, odd that they've changed tack. A shame, it's one convention I don't think adds much.
If the Speaker sticks to convention and acts non-partisanly, then it is a convention that adds a lot.
Otherwise if you make the Speaker fight for his seat then the Speaker will have to become a partisan himself in order to fight his opponents and win his seat.
How is a Speaker supposed to fight opposition parties through an election campaign but not before or after it? The American Speaker is a leader of his party and one of the most partisan figures there is in American politics, is that how we want our politics to be ran?
It feels like it limits part of the role of an MP that someone may have wanted from them, and means they have no way of expressing their preferential politics, can that be balanced against the benefits of a non-partisan Speaker. The first comment on LDV about it suggests 'He/she should be chosen at the end of a Parliament to serve in the next Parliament without a geographical constituency', which is intriguing if not without issue, but I think more thought needs to go into it. For one thing 'little' parties still stand, so they still have to fight a campaign, just not as hard as they would have had to otherwise.(The SNP stood against Martin and are now a big party in the area)
More to the point, even big parties have stood against Speakers before, so despite your scenario apparently they have managed it before, therefore we know it can be done again. (Labour and the Liberals stood against Selwyn Lloyd in 74, twice, and against Hylton-Foster in 64)
I thought the argument here was that Bercow has pre-announced he will step down as speaker in 2018 and therefore the snap election means that for the majority of the coming parliament he will, if elected, be another Tory MP. That he gets elected without residents of the seat having any real choice is clearly wrong. What reason the LibDems have for suddenly changing their mind, I don't know.
Labour's only chance: copy Australian Labor Party 1983 and get new Leader BEFORE campaign #GeneralElection"
Given Lab's currently murderous family dynamic, HTF do they do that?
My mischievous side is wondering if Tom Watson might be in trouble in West Bromwich East. He's defending a 9,500 majority, just over 50% of the vote, but UKIP and the Tories combined were nudging 45%. Moreover, there are rumours Labour are doing much worse than West Midlands than elsewhere (which to judge from their abject performance in Wales, would be pretty bloody awful).
In which case, Corbyn might legitimately point out that if he resigned, Labour would be left completely leaderless - and therefore he had to stay on at least until a new deputy leader was elected.
Mind you, even allowing for that watching everyone's least favourite bully and the most inept political fixer of all time getting hammered would be delicious. It would be like Putney '97 only much funnier because David Mellor may like Watson be a graceless buffoon, a complete political failure and a serial adulterer but he has some good points.
Sadly, Watson is a relatively unlikely casualty. Even if two-thirds of the entire Ukip vote defected to the Tories, they would still need something like a 5.6% swing against Labour on top of that to defeat him.
Even if Labour is - let us fervently hope - reduced to a rump, Watson would probably be part of it.
Didn't TSE indicate here recently that he was seriously considering giving up his Tory party membership? - I wouldn't imagine that would go down too well with the Tatton faithful.
I thought the argument here was that Bercow has pre-announced he will step down as speaker in 2018 and therefore the snap election means that for the majority of the coming parliament he will, if elected, be another Tory MP. That he gets elected without residents of the seat having any real choice is clearly wrong. What reason the LibDems have for suddenly changing their mind, I don't know.
The convention is for speakers to immediately stand down as an MP when standing down as speaker (and becoming a crossbench peer). so if/when Bercow steps down in this parliament he will trigger a by-election in his seat
Yet another compelling reason not to vote Lib Dem for me. Prasinus delenda est.
Did you consult you Spectator 'Unionist voting guide' first?
No. But their being useful idiots to the SNP certainly pushed them even further off the end of a disappointingly short pier than they were already.
I usually vote LD, but there's an alarming number of LDs who seem quite eager not to have some people vote for them. Endorsing the Greens, far more extreme than most Tories (not all Tories, admittedly), is one example, MarkS losing his mind and attacking anyone questioning the politics of Farron's behaviour over the last few days as hating the LDs is a minor example of another.
They've got the LD Leavers to hold onto, they don't need to put off others. But in fairness endorsing the Greens, and Lucas in particular, probably costs them very little even if it is in the service of the only cause that matters, anti-Toryism (why not just have one big anti-tory party if that's so?) - the neighbouring Tory MP was praiseworthy of her too as I recall, and she is well regarded, even if the party should be less so in my eyes (their manifesto was well presented last time though - had tables in the back and everything, which made me more at ease regardless of content, and they had the best PPB).
Didn't TSE indicate here recently that he was seriously considering giving up his Tory party membership? - I wouldn't imagine that would go down too well with the Tatton faithful.
oh he's just teasing, it's as likely as malcolm having underwear
Yet another compelling reason not to vote Lib Dem for me. Prasinus delenda est.
Did you consult you Spectator 'Unionist voting guide' first?
No. But their being useful idiots to the SNP certainly pushed them even further off the end of a disappointingly short pier than they were already.
I usually vote LD, but there's an alarming number of LDs who seem quite eager not to have some people vote for them. Endorsing the Greens, far more extreme than most Tories (not all Tories, admittedly), is one example, MarkS losing his mind and attacking anyone questioning the politics of Farron's behaviour over the last few days as hating the LDs is a minor example of another.
They've got the LD Leavers to hold onto, they don't need to put off others. But in fairness endorsing the Greens, and Lucas in particular, probably costs them very little even if it is in the service of the only cause that matters, anti-Toryism (why not just have one big anti-tory party if that's so?) - the neighbouring Tory MP was praiseworthy of her too as I recall, and she is well regarded, even if the party should be less so in my eyes (their manifesto was well presented last time though - had tables in the back and everything, which made me more at ease regardless of content, and they had the best PPB).
Having already confessed to be surprised at Labour's resilience and the size of the Tory share I can admit to being perplexed that the Lib Dems seem to be making so little progress in the polls. Rather than concentrating on anti-Toryism (particularly when they are doing so well) they really should be looking to feed on Labour's carcass. Both tactically and strategically this seems the only game in town if they are to become relevant again and standing aside for a party well to the left of even Corbyn doesn't seem to me to be a particularly clever way to go about it.
The Tory supporters now can be compared to Trump supporters.
Not true, Tories lead with graduates and Hillary won graduates in the US (Romney won them in 2012). Trump's coalition was closer to that of the Leave vote, though he did win the richest voters unlike Leave his biggest lead was with middle income voters
Did the USA have a dramatic expansion of university attendance in a similar way to our own?
Didn't TSE indicate here recently that he was seriously considering giving up his Tory party membership? - I wouldn't imagine that would go down too well with the Tatton faithful.
oh he's just teasing, it's as likely as malcolm having underwear
Yet another compelling reason not to vote Lib Dem for me. Prasinus delenda est.
Did you consult you Spectator 'Unionist voting guide' first?
No. But their being useful idiots to the SNP certainly pushed them even further off the end of a disappointingly short pier than they were already.
I usually vote LD, but there's an alarming number of LDs who seem quite eager not to have some people vote for them. Endorsing the Greens, far more extreme than most Tories (not all Tories, admittedly), is one example, MarkS losing his mind and attacking anyone questioning the politics of Farron's behaviour over the last few days as hating the LDs is a minor example of another.
They've got the LD Leavers to hold onto, they don't need to put off others. But in fairness endorsing the Greens, and Lucas in particular, probably costs them very little even if it is in the service of the only cause that matters, anti-Toryism (why not just have one big anti-tory party if that's so?) - the neighbouring Tory MP was praiseworthy of her too as I recall, and she is well regarded, even if the party should be less so in my eyes (their manifesto was well presented last time though - had tables in the back and everything, which made me more at ease regardless of content, and they had the best PPB).
Having already confessed to be surprised at Labour's resilience and the size of the Tory share I can admit to being perplexed that the Lib Dems seem to be making so little progress in the polls. Rather than concentrating on anti-Toryism (particularly when they are doing so well) they really should be looking to feed on Labour's carcass. Both tactically and strategically this seems the only game in town if they are to become relevant again and standing aside for a party well to the left of even Corbyn doesn't seem to me to be a particularly clever way to go about it.
There'll be some of that, to be sure - there was this story just today on David Ward for Bradford about Labour's over promising spending they cannot deliver, and it seems all over other places too.
Great news about Esther Mcvey - heading back to government as well.
On another note playing around on EC for NE England is extraordinary for the number of potential Labour losses there. I know there's a long way to go but....
Labour's only chance: copy Australian Labor Party 1983 and get new Leader BEFORE campaign #GeneralElection"
Given Lab's currently murderous family dynamic, HTF do they do that?
My mischievous side is wondering if Tom Watson might be in trouble in West Bromwich East. He's defending a 9,500 majority, just over 50% of the vote, but UKIP and the Tories combined were nudging 45%. Moreover, there are rumours Labour are doing much worse than West Midlands than elsewhere (which to judge from their abject performance in Wales, would be pretty bloody awful).
In which case, Corbyn might legitimately point out that if he resigned, Labour would be left completely leaderless - and therefore he had to stay on at least until a new deputy leader was elected.
Mind you, even allowing for that watching everyone's least favourite bully and the most inept political fixer of all time getting hammered would be delicious. It would be like Putney '97 only much funnier because David Mellor may like Watson be a graceless buffoon, a complete political failure and a serial adulterer but he has some good points.
Sadly, Watson is a relatively unlikely casualty. Even if two-thirds of the entire Ukip vote defected to the Tories, they would still need something like a 5.6% swing against Labour on top of that to defeat him.
Even if Labour is - let us fervently hope - reduced to a rump, Watson would probably be part of it.
Labour's only chance: copy Australian Labor Party 1983 and get new Leader BEFORE campaign #GeneralElection"
Given Lab's currently murderous family dynamic, HTF do they do that?
My mischievous side is wondering if Tom Watson might be in trouble in West Bromwich East. He's defending a 9,500 majority, just over 50% of the vote, but UKIP and the Tories combined were nudging 45%. Moreover, there are rumours Labour are doing much worse than West Midlands than elsewhere (which to judge from their abject performance in Wales, would be pretty bloody awful).
In which case, Corbyn might legitimately point out that if he resigned, Labour would be left completely leaderless - and therefore he had to stay on at least until a new deputy leader was elected.
Mind you, even allowing for that watching everyone's least favourite bully and the most inept political fixer of all time getting hammered would be delicious. It would be like Putney '97 only much funnier because David Mellor may like Watson be a graceless buffoon, a complete political failure and a serial adulterer but he has some good points.
Sadly, Watson is a relatively unlikely casualty. Even if two-thirds of the entire Ukip vote defected to the Tories, they would still need something like a 5.6% swing against Labour on top of that to defeat him.
Even if Labour is - let us fervently hope - reduced to a rump, Watson would probably be part of it.
I think Watson could be the shock of the night.
You have no idea how much I want that to be true.
Nothing could be Alan winning his bet with Malcolm. Nothing.
Yet another compelling reason not to vote Lib Dem for me. Prasinus delenda est.
Did you consult you Spectator 'Unionist voting guide' first?
No. But their being useful idiots to the SNP certainly pushed them even further off the end of a disappointingly short pier than they were already.
I usually vote LD, but there's an alarming number of LDs who seem quite eager not to have some people vote for them. Endorsing the Greens, far more extreme than most Tories (not all Tories, admittedly), is one example, MarkS losing his mind and attacking anyone questioning the politics of Farron's behaviour over the last few days as hating the LDs is a minor example of another.
They've got the LD Leavers to hold onto, they don't need to put off others. But in fairness endorsing the Greens, and Lucas in particular, probably costs them very little even if it is in the service of the only cause that matters, anti-Toryism (why not just have one big anti-tory party if that's so?) - the neighbouring Tory MP was praiseworthy of her too as I recall, and she is well regarded, even if the party should be less so in my eyes (their manifesto was well presented last time though - had tables in the back and everything, which made me more at ease regardless of content, and they had the best PPB).
Having already confessed to be surprised at Labour's resilience and the size of the Tory share I can admit to being perplexed that the Lib Dems seem to be making so little progress in the polls. Rather than concentrating on anti-Toryism (particularly when they are doing so well) they really should be looking to feed on Labour's carcass. Both tactically and strategically this seems the only game in town if they are to become relevant again and standing aside for a party well to the left of even Corbyn doesn't seem to me to be a particularly clever way to go about it.
Theory: the Lib Dems have maxed out the available supply of distraught Europhiles. 8% (Lib bedrock vote) + 3% (weeping Continuity Remainers) = 11% (all they've got.)
Labour's only chance: copy Australian Labor Party 1983 and get new Leader BEFORE campaign #GeneralElection"
Given Lab's currently murderous family dynamic, HTF do they do that?
My mischievous side is wondering if Tom Watson might be in trouble in West Bromwich East. He's defending a 9,500 majority, just over 50% of the vote, but UKIP and the Tories combined were nudging 45%. Moreover, there are rumours Labour are doing much worse than West Midlands than elsewhere (which to judge from their abject performance in Wales, would be pretty bloody awful).
In which case, Corbyn might legitimately point out that if he resigned, Labour would be left completely leaderless - and therefore he had to stay on at least until a new deputy leader was elected.
Mind you, even allowing for that watching everyone's least favourite bully and the most inept political fixer of all time getting hammered would be delicious. It would be like Putney '97 only much funnier because David Mellor may like Watson be a graceless buffoon, a complete political failure and a serial adulterer but he has some good points.
Sadly, Watson is a relatively unlikely casualty. Even if two-thirds of the entire Ukip vote defected to the Tories, they would still need something like a 5.6% swing against Labour on top of that to defeat him.
Even if Labour is - let us fervently hope - reduced to a rump, Watson would probably be part of it.
I think Watson could be the shock of the night.
You have no idea how much I want that to be true.
Nothing could be Alan winning his bet with Malcolm. Nothing.
(Sorry, DavidL, but what exactly is Alan's bet with Malcolm?)
Yet another compelling reason not to vote Lib Dem for me. Prasinus delenda est.
Did you consult you Spectator 'Unionist voting guide' first?
No. But their being useful idiots to the SNP certainly pushed them even further off the end of a disappointingly short pier than they were already.
I usually vote LD, but there's an alarming number of LDs who seem quite eager not to have some people vote for them. Endorsing the Greens, far more extreme than most Tories (not all Tories, admittedly), is one example, MarkS losing his mind and attacking anyone questioning the politics of Farron's behaviour over the last few days as hating the LDs is a minor example of another.
They've got the LD Leavers to hold onto, they don't need to put off others. But in fairness endorsing the Greens, and Lucas in particular, probably costs them very little even if it is in the service of the only cause that matters, anti-Toryism (why not just have one big anti-tory party if that's so?) - the neighbouring Tory MP was praiseworthy of her too as I recall, and she is well regarded, even if the party should be less so in my eyes (their manifesto was well presented last time though - had tables in the back and everything, which made me more at ease regardless of content, and they had the best PPB).
Having already confessed to be surprised at Labour's resilience and the size of the Tory share I can admit to being perplexed that the Lib Dems seem to be making so little progress in the polls. Rather than concentrating on anti-Toryism (particularly when they are doing so well) they really should be looking to feed on Labour's carcass. Both tactically and strategically this seems the only game in town if they are to become relevant again and standing aside for a party well to the left of even Corbyn doesn't seem to me to be a particularly clever way to go about it.
Theory: the Lib Dems have maxed out the available supply of distraught Europhiles. 8% (Lib bedrock vote) + 3% (weeping Continuity Remainers) = 11% (all they've got.)
Then again, there are still six weeks to go...
They should be going for the "we need a bloody opposition capable of stringing a sentence together" bloc. It is a large target rich environment.
Yet another compelling reason not to vote Lib Dem for me. Prasinus delenda est.
Did you consult you Spectator 'Unionist voting guide' first?
No. But their being useful idiots to the SNP certainly pushed them even further off the end of a disappointingly short pier than they were already.
I usually vote LD, but there's an alarming number of LDs who seem quite eager not to have some people vote for them. Endorsing the Greens, far more extreme than most Tories (not all Tories, admittedly), is one example, MarkS losing his mind and attacking anyone questioning the politics of Farron's behaviour over the last few days as hating the LDs is a minor example of another.
They've got the LD Leavers to hold onto, they don't need to put off others. But in fairness endorsing the Greens, and Lucas in particular, probably costs them very little even if it is in the service of the only cause that matters, anti-Toryism (why not just have one big anti-tory party if that's so?) - the neighbouring Tory MP was praiseworthy of her too as I recall, and she is well regarded, even if the party should be less so in my eyes (their manifesto was well presented last time though - had tables in the back and everything, which made me more at ease regardless of content, and they had the best PPB).
Having already confessed to be surprised at Labour's resilience and the size of the Tory share I can admit to being perplexed that the Lib Dems seem to be making so little progress in the polls. Rather than concentrating on anti-Toryism (particularly when they are doing so well) they really should be looking to feed on Labour's carcass. Both tactically and strategically this seems the only game in town if they are to become relevant again and standing aside for a party well to the left of even Corbyn doesn't seem to me to be a particularly clever way to go about it.
Theory: the Lib Dems have maxed out the available supply of distraught Europhiles. 8% (Lib bedrock vote) + 3% (weeping Continuity Remainers) = 11% (all they've got.)
Then again, there are still six weeks to go...
The LibDem bedrock is about 5%.
Of the 8% the LibDems had in 2015 they've lost annoyed Leavers and tactical / incumbency votes for their defeated MPs.
Labour's only chance: copy Australian Labor Party 1983 and get new Leader BEFORE campaign #GeneralElection"
Given Lab's currently murderous family dynamic, HTF do they do that?
My mischievous side is wondering if Tom Watson might be in trouble in West Bromwich East. He's defending a 9,500 majority, just over 50% of the vote, but UKIP and the Tories combined were nudging 45%. Moreover, there are rumours Labour are doing much worse than West Midlands than elsewhere (which to judge from their abject performance in Wales, would be pretty bloody awful).
In which case, Corbyn might legitimately point out that if he resigned, Labour would be left completely leaderless - and therefore he had to stay on at least until a new deputy leader was elected.
Mind you, even allowing for that watching everyone's least favourite bully and the most inept political fixer of all time getting hammered would be delicious. It would be like Putney '97 only much funnier because David Mellor may like Watson be a graceless buffoon, a complete political failure and a serial adulterer but he has some good points.
Sadly, Watson is a relatively unlikely casualty. Even if two-thirds of the entire Ukip vote defected to the Tories, they would still need something like a 5.6% swing against Labour on top of that to defeat him.
Even if Labour is - let us fervently hope - reduced to a rump, Watson would probably be part of it.
I think Watson could be the shock of the night.
You have no idea how much I want that to be true.
Nothing could be Alan winning his bet with Malcolm. Nothing.
(Sorry, DavidL, but what exactly is Alan's bet with Malcolm?)
That Salmond is going to lose his seat. I think it started as a gentle wind up but....
Re Exeter - many commentators on here seems to be think Ben Bradshaw will be able to fight the national tide. I'm not so sure. It is certainly true that Labour are superbly organised there (I fought the seat years ago) but quite a few of the leading lights seem to have dropped out. Any personal support he has is already encoded in his majority surely.. not obvious why he would outperform a national swing. Another relevant factor: look at a map. He is surrounded by an army of Tories who are not going to have to work too hard in their own seats and have been keen to get rid of him for years.
Might well be a bet worth having. I'd say if the Tories take the vast majority of seats with majorities less than 10k Exeter will be one.
Labour's only chance: copy Australian Labor Party 1983 and get new Leader BEFORE campaign #GeneralElection"
Given Lab's currently murderous family dynamic, HTF do they do that?
My mischievous side is wondering if Tom Watson might be in trouble in West Bromwich East. He's defending a 9,500 majority, just over 50% of the vote, but UKIP and the Tories combined were nudging 45%. Moreover, there are rumours Labour are doing much worse than West Midlands than elsewhere (which to judge from their abject performance in Wales, would be pretty bloody awful).
In which case, Corbyn might legitimately point out that if he resigned, Labour would be left completely leaderless - and therefore he had to stay on at least until a new deputy leader was elected.
Mind you, even allowing for that watching everyone's least favourite bully and the most inept political fixer of all time getting hammered would be delicious. It would be like Putney '97 only much funnier because David Mellor may like Watson be a graceless buffoon, a complete political failure and a serial adulterer but he has some good points.
Sadly, Watson is a relatively unlikely casualty. Even if two-thirds of the entire Ukip vote defected to the Tories, they would still need something like a 5.6% swing against Labour on top of that to defeat him.
Even if Labour is - let us fervently hope - reduced to a rump, Watson would probably be part of it.
I think Watson could be the shock of the night.
You have no idea how much I want that to be true.
Nothing could be Alan winning his bet with Malcolm. Nothing.
(Sorry, DavidL, but what exactly is Alan's bet with Malcolm?)
That Salmond is going to lose his seat. I think it started as a gentle wind up but....
I was going to double up and go for a 10000 majority for the Tory candidate, but then jacob Rees Mogg decided not to stand in Gordon
a man more in touch with the Scottish electorate than Salmond
Labour's only chance: copy Australian Labor Party 1983 and get new Leader BEFORE campaign #GeneralElection"
Given Lab's currently murderous family dynamic, HTF do they do that?
My mischievous side is wondering if Tom Watson might be in trouble in West Bromwich East. He's defending a 9,500 majority, just over 50% of the vote, but UKIP and the Tories combined were nudging 45%. Moreover, there are rumours Labour are doing much worse than West Midlands than elsewhere (which to judge from their abject performance in Wales, would be pretty bloody awful).
In which case, Corbyn might legitimately point out that if he resigned, Labour would be left completely leaderless - and therefore he had to stay on at least until a new deputy leader was elected.
Mind you, even allowing for that watching everyone's least favourite bully and the most inept political fixer of all time getting hammered would be delicious. It would be like Putney '97 only much funnier because David Mellor may like Watson be a graceless buffoon, a complete political failure and a serial adulterer but he has some good points.
Sadly, Watson is a relatively unlikely casualty. Even if two-thirds of the entire Ukip vote defected to the Tories, they would still need something like a 5.6% swing against Labour on top of that to defeat him.
Even if Labour is - let us fervently hope - reduced to a rump, Watson would probably be part of it.
I think Watson could be the shock of the night.
You have no idea how much I want that to be true.
Nothing could be Alan winning his bet with Malcolm. Nothing.
(Sorry, DavidL, but what exactly is Alan's bet with Malcolm?)
That Salmond is going to lose his seat. I think it started as a gentle wind up but....
OK, thanks. I will add that to my list - it's number 5 of things I want to happen to specific candidates, preferably by a very large margin!
I've always voted Lib Dem and I've been a member for 45 years but their increasingly illiberal approach is starting to really piss me off. Seems to me that Pickles is in charge, not Farron.
Looks like Sarah Olney's still going to be an MP on June 9th.
There's a difference between a by-election and a general election here. in the by-election the libdems could concentrate their resources but at the general their resources are more thinly spread. that could make the 2% ish swing from the by-election. especially as he got over 50% in 2015
The Tory supporters now can be compared to Trump supporters.
Not true, Tories lead with graduates and Hillary won graduates in the US (Romney won them in 2012). Trump's coalition was closer to that of the Leave vote, though he did win the richest voters unlike Leave his biggest lead was with middle income voters
Did the USA have a dramatic expansion of university attendance in a similar way to our own?
Thanks, that's interesting. Probably I just missed it, but I don't recollect any comment on that aspect of education/age voting intentions during the recent US election.
Comments
Sorry, I can't post the article because it is behind a paywall, and I don't subscribe - but it is worth seeking out.
[joke]
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/857326751915139072
but I visualise him as Mr Potato head with red shoes :-)
They've got the LD Leavers to hold onto, they don't need to put off others. But in fairness endorsing the Greens, and Lucas in particular, probably costs them very little even if it is in the service of the only cause that matters, anti-Toryism (why not just have one big anti-tory party if that's so?) - the neighbouring Tory MP was praiseworthy of her too as I recall, and she is well regarded, even if the party should be less so in my eyes (their manifesto was well presented last time though - had tables in the back and everything, which made me more at ease regardless of content, and they had the best PPB).
The last thing Labour needs is for UKIP not to run in a whole bunch of places !
Totally unrelated, you're looking at the new political editor of The Evening Standard, nice consolation
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/
Similes yes, smilies no.
What does wear on his head ?
http://www.davidwardforbradford.org.uk/_labour_payrise_for_nhs_staff_has_already_been_spent_10_times_over
On another note playing around on EC for NE England is extraordinary for the number of potential Labour losses there. I know there's a long way to go but....
avatar JK = young Brad Pitt
reality JK = Jabba the Nat
Monika still made the best summary
PBer " Monika stop being so personal, play the ball not the man"
Monika " but what if I cant tell the difference ? "
https://twitter.com/Number10gov/status/857332523185168385
LOVE
CHRISTIAN
You heard it here first
Cheap labour.
Then again, there are still six weeks to go...
I'm working on a deal atm and getting out the balaclava and baseball bat is fast becoming the only solution
Zac back for another crack.
The sort who'd quite happily bill you whilst he was visiting a lap dancing club.
Of the 8% the LibDems had in 2015 they've lost annoyed Leavers and tactical / incumbency votes for their defeated MPs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fASN9oYGdw
it's cheaper
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/857335897875939328
Why on earth would you want someone committed to inflicting maximum damage on the Party?
May should veto this.
It does look like a hostage situation.
'SNP Out - the Ruth against Ind Ref II forevah & evah party in' much more likely.
Anyone at all?
Might well be a bet worth having. I'd say if the Tories take the vast majority of seats with majorities less than 10k Exeter will be one.
a man more in touch with the Scottish electorate than Salmond