politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn to quit or not to quit on June 9th, that is the questio

All this talk about the cost of the triple lock and having to abandon the 2.5% bit of it, yet if we are heading towards a higher inflation world, dropping the 2.5% bit isn't going to save a penny.

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

Come election day, the Tories will have a result somewhere in the forties. Labour will be somewhere in the twenties. Wherever they each end up within that band, Theresa May will be Prime Minister with a majority somewhere between very handy and troublingly large. Enough to get to deliver our leaving the EU, without worrying about game-playing by those who STILL want to overturn the Referendum result. Job done.

There is absolutely no incentive for the Tories to kill off Labour whilst Corbyn (and whoever his successor might be) are still incoherent on the economy.

Neither Commons nor Lords held up Brexit plans, A50 passed both quickly and easily.

Any delay was due to poor organisation by the government, in particular in futile appeals against a very reasonable court ruling.

May wants a large majority because of internal party enemies, not the opposite benches.

But Labour said subsequently that they'd try to block it down the road - big mistake by Starmer.

No, he said that Labour would not unconditionally support what May came back with. We would not want it any other way in a democracy, would we?

Labour's stance is apparently to offer concessions with nothing in return and go into those negotiations telling the other side if the deal the other side offers isn't attractive we will stay.

Mhhh - Most would call that stupid if not criminally inept.

CarlottaVance said:

Cancer specialist blames SNP as NHS ‘heads for a precipice’
We may have lost the chance to put health on a sustainable footing, says Anna Gregor, as poll shows most voters believe service is worse
Dr Anna Gregor, formerly Scotland’s lead cancer clinician, has launched a scathing attack on the SNP government — claiming that “pork-barrel politics of the highest order” has left the NHS “hurtling over a precipice”.

Extra funding made available by the UK government to Scotland under the Barnett formula whenever it increased health investment in England was not put into the NHS in Scotland in the form of so-called “consequentials” after the SNP came to power, she said.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cancer-specialist-blames-snp-as-nhs-heads-for-a-precipice-nqzdrjnn2

She still bumping her gums about that , has been bleating since before referendum like usual Tory , one of Ruthies pals no doubt.

IanB2 said:

Floater said:

surbiton said:

saddened said:

surbiton said:

Essexit said:

surbiton said:

What is happening to the Labour vote ? Three in a row at 30% or above ?

A week ago we were talking about annihilation!

Coalition of chaos probably isn't having the desired effect, because it's not a credible threat. That said the Tories haven't really touched the IRA, Hamas, shoot-to-kill stuff yet.

What will you bring up ? Martin McGuinness was a terrorist ? Bring it on.

http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/thequeen/the-queen-sends-message-of-condolence-to-the-widow-of-martin-mcguinness-78798

Probably thinking more along the lines of his greatest hits during the hight of the IRA mainland bombing campaign. His association with Hamas, his veneration of Venezuela and his paid appearances on Russia Today, to be honest.

And, then. when he died the Queen sent a message of condolence. Mandela was a terrorist too !!!!!!!! And dare I say, before the heavy mob gets to me, so was Menachem Begin.

The people know that we had to talk to these people to finally achieve peace. Corbyn met them earlier.

The older generation may take it more seriously. They are not voting Labour anyway.

LOl - either you don't know your history or you are engaged in a major spin attempt.

Remember Corbyn hates what he sees as imperialism - he hates us, America and Israel but is ok with Hamas and Iranian press tv.

Strange if Corbyn was such a man of peace he didn't talk to all sides in the conflict eh?

I don't think it's as bad as that. He has a very old fashioned view, grounded by his party's history and ethos, of politics as the collective class struggle of the oppressed against the powerful. This view of the world no longer fits the reality of the more complex societies of western democracies; Corbyn finds it reassuring to go round the world finding places where his view of things still appears to have some relevance.

Yes, I think that's spot on, Ian.

He's not evil, he's a throwback - to the 60s and 70s when there was more of a market for his kind of Socialism. Perhaps I recognise it because I was there, and as a young man met and debated with many of that ilk. They weren't bad people. They were idealists, romantics and apt to wear their hearts on their sleeves, but politically inept and impractical.

I never expected to see them resurface to lead the Labour Party.

SeanT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

SeanT said:

SandyRentool said:

May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.

(Starting when?)

That is her reason for no TV debates.

She managed to say it with a straight face.

Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?

There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.

She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.

Yep. If the polls take amother turn for the worse, expect a strategy change.

Can we please have more Ian Lavery? He is absolutely box office barking mad.

SeanT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

SeanT said:

SandyRentool said:

May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.

(Starting when?)

That is her reason for no TV debates.

She managed to say it with a straight face.

Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?

There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.

She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.

May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/areas/114483/prime-minister-launches-maidenhead-election-campaign-in-the-high-street.html#.WQR51ahvzjk.twitter

malcolmg said:

saddened said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

MarkSenior said:

SeanT said:

murali_s said:

SeanT said:

Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.

A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.

Usual wooden rubbish from her. "Strong and stable", "Coalition of chaos" etc. etc.

To be fair, the PB Tories needn't worry. The press arm of the defacto one-party state hasn't been deployed yet so relax folks. JCICWNBPM.

Actually, she wasn't wooden. She's just slightly cold, she's never going to get the audience laughing. But she's clever in avoiding difficult questions, she deftly swerves around traps, and she has an impressive grasp of detail. She's an intelligent and capable politician with a good poker face. And she's not annoyingly posh and never gives the impression she's looking down on you.

I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.

She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .

So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?

The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.

Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.

Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?

You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.

No answer then mAlky?

FrancisUrquhart said:

This defence of jahadi jez and ira is quite incredible. It isn't just the ira it a whole range of terrorist organisations and individuals...He even wrote a reference letter for an ISIS fund raiser in attempt to get them released for christmas.

It'e the reason why the charming 'anti-racist' campaigners keep going after UKIP. They know where the media - especially the BBC - will shine their light. Corbyn's associations have not even been raised during his interviews. Why? Working for Iranian TV, sharing platforms with renowned Holocaust deniers, etc, etc, etc. If anything, the media have gone fairly soft on him so far.

This election campaign hasn't even started yet. There's been a phoney war of sorts. It's been a complete non-event so far, but I expect that to change markedly after next Thurday's elections.

***There now follows an excessively long post in several parts. Apologies. ***

On the general subject of the polls: I think a lot of us (and I'm not without sin myself on this front) are falling into the same trap that we did last time. It is assumed that they are correct, and therefore the wobbling about of a few numbers is setting the agenda. Exhibit A:

"Although the way Mrs May is blowing huge Tory leads in this campaign so far, I wouldn’t be surprised if William Hill introduce very shortly a similar market on whether she’ll announce her resignation before 11pm on June 9th as the Tory party will prove once again it is an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide if she fails to win (a majority) against Corbyn."

Leaving aside the point that @TSE appears to have a particular personal loathing of May, and that consequently he might be regarded as being vulnerable to confirmation bias, how do we know she's "blowing huge Tory leads"? Is there an actual movement in public opinion towards Corbyn/Labour, or have the pollsters been fiddling their figures so that current surveys are incomparable with those that went before (we know that this is the case for at least one of the three pollsters who reported yesterday?) And how do we know that the pollsters have successfully corrected for their chronic problem with pro-Labour/anti-Tory bias, which has been ongoing, to various degrees, for decades?

As thinking, reasoning human beings, at some point we have to look at a result that looks wrong and say "this is wrong." This is regardless of the fact that some statisticians have interviewed a non-random sample of people, applied arbitrary corrections that they made up to correct for said non-randomness, and another arbitrary set of corrections to account for whether or not they will vote, and yet another arbitrary set of corrections to account for whether or not they are lying, and then made a proclamation from on high at the end. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong about everything, but when we think they are obviously wrong we need not hold back from saying "this is a load of bollocks, isn't it?"

All of these polls showing Labour rolling around 30% of the popular vote are obviously a load of bollocks. Labour managed just shy of 31% last time around, and whatever else was wrong with the party at the time it was not shambolic, hopelessly divided, or burdened with a leader who is both transparently unfit for high office and unwanted by most of his own MPs. There is no reason to suppose that Labour will match its levels of support last time, on this basis alone.

Taking all of this into account, I'm willing to stick my neck out and make the following predictions:

1. Labour is not going to do as well as at the last two elections; however, I also believe that it has a large residual core, and that most of the habit/cultural loyalty voters who haven't already peeled off will stick with the party. They'll probably tramp down to the polling stations and vote for it, and even if they don't they'll abstain. I reckon that puts Labour's final result in a narrow band around about 26%; they might do marginally better, i.e. Michael Foot better, or marginaly worse, but they're not going to drop like a stone to 20%. There aren't any strong left-leaning alternatives to mop up the extra votes.
2. The Conservatives will ship a few Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats, but ought to mop up most of what's left of Labour's swing voters to compensate. Other than that, the rest of the 2015 Tory vote will stay put: they have nowhere else to go. Meanwhile...
3. Ukip will shed somewhere between a third and a half of its 2015 vote to the Tories. Now that Brexit has been accomplished, I predict that many Ukip voters will see the party's job as finished and swing behind Mrs May, expecting EU withdrawal to be delivered. I also think that some of the ex-Labour Ukip vote will like her repositioning of the Tory Party, and compare both her and her party with Corbyn and the current state of Labour, and make the switch. Ukip won't die, because people who distrust May over the extent of her commitment to Brexit will stick with it for the time being, and because it also appeals to much the same demographic of poorer, social conservative working class voters, who are wavering in their support of Labour or have abandoned it completely, as did the BNP. Consequently...
4. Ukip ought to hold on to no less than half its vote in whatever fraction of seats it continues to contest, and the boost created by other Ukip voters moving to the Conservatives will ensure that they finish the election somewhere in the low-to-mid 40s. My central forecast would be 43% for the Conservatives and probably, allowing for failure to contest a proportion of seats, about 5% for Ukip.

IanB2 said:

All this talk about the cost of the triple lock and having to abandon the 2.5% bit of it, yet if we are heading towards a higher inflation world, dropping the 2.5% bit isn't going to save a penny.

Who wants to make pensioners living solely on the state pension poorer again? That isn't meant to be the aim.

The problem is that company and public sector pension schemes produced a vast excess for those born between about 1930 and 1965 followed by a deficit for those born later in the 20th. C. and still in the middle of their working lives. As a result, some older pensioners, now aged 80 or so are much better off than their children, now 50.

Black_Rook said:

All of these polls showing Labour rolling around 30% of the popular vote are obviously a load of bollocks. Labour managed just shy of 31% last time around, and whatever else was wrong with the party at the time it was not shambolic, hopelessly divided, or burdened with a leader who is both transparently unfit for high office and unwanted by most of his own MPs. There is no reason to suppose that Labour will match its levels of support last time, on this basis alone.

That supposes a lot about what the public thinks. I find 30% for Lab implausible for the reasons you list, but I find the Tory leads that preceded their Lab's mini revival implausible too, and there are explanations for it - a floor of 25% who will vote Lab no matter what, and those saying they will return because they fear Tory dominance.

Either of those assumptions may be wrong, but neither can, I think, be dismissed merely as bollocks because it does not feel like Labour should be doing so well does not really hold up either, even accepting your point that polling is, as ever, not as solid as we all act like it is.

It feels like the LDs should be doing better than they are, but admirable results in local by-elections aside - and it'll be interesting to see how they do in the locals this week - there's no evidence suggesting anything more than a minor rise.

Ishmael_Z said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

CarlottaVance said:

SeanT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

SeanT said:

SandyRentool said:

May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.

(Starting when?)

That is her reason for no TV debates.

She managed to say it with a straight face.

Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?

There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.

She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.

May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/areas/114483/prime-minister-launches-maidenhead-election-campaign-in-the-high-street.html#.WQR51ahvzjk.twitter

Eh?

Isn't that her own constituency, Carlotta? Not exactly the front line, is it!

Well, they look like genuine non-bussed in members of the public to me. Let's be seeing a similar snap of Jezza. All I can recall is a pic of him on a ram-packed train, sitting on the floor glued to the New Statesman rather than chatting to his fellow ram-packees.

Yes, I understand he too is not very keen on speaking to people who might not agree with him.

Reality of the crap Tories in Scotland
The Confidence Trick
https://thecommongreen.scot/2017/04/29/the-confidence-trick/

The only person I know who openly admits to using a foodbank owns a five bedroom villa in Florida with a swimming pool.

A comment that doesn't apply to foodbank users in general.

SeanT said:

CarlottaVance said:

SeanT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

SeanT said:

SandyRentool said:

May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.

(Starting when?)

That is her reason for no TV debates.

She managed to say it with a straight face.

Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?

There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.

She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.

May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/areas/114483/prime-minister-launches-maidenhead-election-campaign-in-the-high-street.html#.WQR51ahvzjk.twitter

Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.

Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.

malcolmg said:

Reality of the crap Tories in Scotland
The Confidence Trick
https://thecommongreen.scot/2017/04/29/the-confidence-trick/

Think it might be biased Malc

malcolmg said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The interupt-aton tactics of Marr and Evan Davis are really annoying and actually you learn nothing about the interviewee. The best approach is being well briefed and let them dig a hole with pertinent questions at the right time, but that requires you to be really on top of your brief which most talking heads aren't. They instead prep something they think will be uncomfortable for the interviewee and then try and hammer that.

Yes, just letting the interviewee talk can be a very good tactic.

Not if it is just pap, you have to at least ensure they do not get away with lies throughout

LOL! Salmond just complained about Andrew Neil interrupting him on the Sunday Politics.

rural_voter said:

IanB2 said:

All this talk about the cost of the triple lock and having to abandon the 2.5% bit of it, yet if we are heading towards a higher inflation world, dropping the 2.5% bit isn't going to save a penny.

Who wants to make pensioners living solely on the state pension poorer again? That isn't meant to be the aim.

The problem is that company and public sector pension schemes produced a vast excess for those born between about 1930 and 1965 followed by a deficit for those born later in the 20th. C. and still in the middle of their working lives. As a result, some older pensioners, now aged 80 or so are much better off than their children, now 50.

Conversely so many many more pensioners who did not have that benefit have to live on the worst pension in the civilised world, worse off than everybody and anybody working or not working.

PS: Safe to assume you are not living on state pension for sure

Peter_the_Punter said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

kle4 said:

Tell that to William and Scott, who greet every demand from the EU as destined to occur because the tide of history means they will get everything.

@tnewtondunn: Theresa May holds firm on no Brexit divorce payout until EU confirms trade deal terms: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" #Marr

The most likely outcome of that stance is "nothing is agreed"

No deal.

Don't be silly. We will agree to pay X assuming we reach an agreement on everything else. Then we move on to everything else. Negotiation 101

Not really a negotiation if one party's hands are tied, is it, Charles?

No: we have a negotiation about the size of the payment first, but make the actual payment conditional on what we want.

There are no circumstances in which we will pay multiple billions to the EU without a package that is acceptable overall.

(It's basically "I will agree to this proposal provided that you agree to A, B and C")

saddened said:

malcolmg said:

saddened said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

MarkSenior said:

SeanT said:

murali_s said:

SeanT said:

Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.

A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.

Usual wooden rubbish from her. "Strong and stable", "Coalition of chaos" etc. etc.

To be fair, the PB Tories needn't worry. The press arm of the defacto one-party state hasn't been deployed yet so relax folks. JCICWNBPM.

Actually, she wasn't wooden. She's just slightly cold, she's never going to get the audience laughing. But she's clever in avoiding difficult questions, she deftly swerves around traps, and she has an impressive grasp of detail. She's an intelligent and capable politician with a good poker face. And she's not annoyingly posh and never gives the impression she's looking down on you.

I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.

She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .

So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?

The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.

Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.

Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?

You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.

No answer then mAlky?

You really are a sad little Tory creep, obviously unable to read as well.

HaroldO said:

SeanT said:

CarlottaVance said:

SeanT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

SeanT said:

SandyRentool said:

May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.

(Starting when?)

That is her reason for no TV debates.

She managed to say it with a straight face.

Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?

There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.

She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.

May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/areas/114483/prime-minister-launches-maidenhead-election-campaign-in-the-high-street.html#.WQR51ahvzjk.twitter

Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.

Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.

LOL, rewriting history now.

If the Tory election expenses scandal explodes, all bets are off I guess? We all know that it will be a negative but just how much it dents the Tories is still up for grabs!

malcolmg said:

HaroldO said:

SeanT said:

CarlottaVance said:

SeanT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

SeanT said:

SandyRentool said:

May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.

(Starting when?)

That is her reason for no TV debates.

She managed to say it with a straight face.

Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?

There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.

She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.

May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/areas/114483/prime-minister-launches-maidenhead-election-campaign-in-the-high-street.html#.WQR51ahvzjk.twitter

Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.

Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.

LOL, rewriting history now.

Uh? She was Tory party chairman if I remember rightly, that usually goes to someone who does that kind of thing. Just because she is not doing it now does not mean she never has.

On to more important matters, the locals, of 4 parties standing in my area I've still only had leaflets from two of them, so the others have a few more days or they have no chance at my vote due to lack of effort. One of the others is Lab, and I don't think even locally I can reward Lab with my vote so long as Corbyn leads them, which means the last will get the vote by default in all likelihood.

HaroldO said:

malcolmg said:

HaroldO said:

SeanT said:

CarlottaVance said:

SeanT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

SeanT said:

SandyRentool said:

May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.

(Starting when?)

That is her reason for no TV debates.

She managed to say it with a straight face.

Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?

There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.

She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.

May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/areas/114483/prime-minister-launches-maidenhead-election-campaign-in-the-high-street.html#.WQR51ahvzjk.twitter

Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.

Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.

LOL, rewriting history now.

Uh? She was Tory party chairman if I remember rightly, that usually goes to someone who does that kind of thing. Just because she is not doing it now does not mean she never has.

Yep for two years - also local councillor for 8 years and fought two unsuccessful elections in 'no hope seats' before being selected for Maidenhead. Did it the old fashioned way....unlike some other leaders of the party...

murali_s said:

If the Tory election expenses scandal explodes, all bets are off I guess? We all know that it will be a negative but just how much it dents the Tories is still up for grabs!

If they are polling back up where they were last week I think they'll be fine. If things remain static, and the campaign is as poor as to date, then even though the other parties did provably break rules as well, I can see it hitting them even if Lab are the main beneficiaries.

malcolmg said:

saddened said:

malcolmg said:

saddened said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

MarkSenior said:

SeanT said:

murali_s said:

SeanT said:

Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.

A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.

Usual wooden rubbish from her. "Strong and stable", "Coalition of chaos" etc. etc.

To be fair, the PB Tories needn't worry. The press arm of the defacto one-party state hasn't been deployed yet so relax folks. JCICWNBPM.

Actually, she wasn't wooden. She's just slightly cold, she's never going to get the audience laughing. But she's clever in avoiding difficult questions, she deftly swerves around traps, and she has an impressive grasp of detail. She's an intelligent and capable politician with a good poker face. And she's not annoyingly posh and never gives the impression she's looking down on you.

I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.

She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .

So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?

The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.

Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.

Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?

You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.

No answer then mAlky?

You really are a sad little Tory creep, obviously unable to read as well.

mAlky, still no answer. Silly addled fool. bye bye.

Jason said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

This defence of jahadi jez and ira is quite incredible. It isn't just the ira it a whole range of terrorist organisations and individuals...He even wrote a reference letter for an ISIS fund raiser in attempt to get them released for christmas.

It'e the reason why the charming 'anti-racist' campaigners keep going after UKIP. They know where the media - especially the BBC - will shine their light. Corbyn's associations have not even been raised during his interviews. Why? Working for Iranian TV, sharing platforms with renowned Holocaust deniers, etc, etc, etc. If anything, the media have gone fairly soft on him so far.

This election campaign hasn't even started yet. There's been a phoney war of sorts. It's been a complete non-event so far, but I expect that to change markedly after next Thurday's elections.

Compare and contrast vs all the bullingdon nonsense, George meeting a Russian bloke on a yacht once for dinner and most recently how overexcited the media have got over Tim farron's views on gay sex. Tiny Tim votes for gay marriage, jezza takes money from a state that kills them.

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

@chrisg000 Neil: Why have the SNP cut 4000 teachers?

Salmond: We are going to increase the numbers of teachers.

Simple, clear facts hurt!

...........................

Neil:In terms of Gov time in Holyrood, 43 hrs debating independence, how many debating education?

Salmond:don't know

Neil:Answer is 0

diverting the money for their pet projects.

You mean like the SNP and money for NHS Scotland?

What on earth is going on with the polls? There is no way Labour are on 30%.

@tnewtondunn Why are 1 in 5 Scottish children functionally illiterate? Alex Salmond, rarely on the back foot: "Er, that's just one statistic" #bbcsp

rottenborough said:

What on earth is going on with the polls? There is no way Labour are on 30%.

Says who? Is it crazier than Tories on late 40s?

Yes, but only a bit.

And isn't it 31% in one poll?

Black_Rook said:

Taking all of this into account, I'm willing to stick my neck out and make the following predictions:

1. Labour is not going to do as well as at the last two elections; however, I also believe that it has a large residual core, and that most of the habit/cultural loyalty voters who haven't already peeled off will stick with the party. They'll probably tramp down to the polling stations and vote for it, and even if they don't they'll abstain. I reckon that puts Labour's final result in a narrow band around about 26%; they might do marginally better, i.e. Michael Foot better, or marginaly worse, but they're not going to drop like a stone to 20%. There aren't any strong left-leaning alternatives to mop up the extra votes.
2. The Conservatives will ship a few Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats, but ought to mop up most of what's left of Labour's swing voters to compensate. Other than that, the rest of the 2015 Tory vote will stay put: they have nowhere else to go. Meanwhile...
3. Ukip will shed somewhere between a third and a half of its 2015 vote to the Tories. Now that Brexit has been accomplished, I predict that many Ukip voters will see the party's job as finished and swing behind Mrs May, expecting EU withdrawal to be delivered. I also think that some of the ex-Labour Ukip vote will like her repositioning of the Tory Party, and compare both her and her party with Corbyn and the current state of Labour, and make the switch. Ukip won't die, because people who distrust May over the extent of her commitment to Brexit will stick with it for the time being, and because it also appeals to much the same demographic of poorer, social conservative working class voters, who are wavering in their support of Labour or have abandoned it completely, as did the BNP. Consequently...
4. Ukip ought to hold on to no less than half its vote in whatever fraction of seats it continues to contest, and the boost created by other Ukip voters moving to the Conservatives will ensure that they finish the election somewhere in the low-to-mid 40s. My central forecast would be 43% for the Conservatives and probably, allowing for failure to contest a proportion of seats, about 5% for Ukip.

Not bad reasoning but sadly your figures do not add up

Con 43
Lab 26
LD 11
Green 3
Nats 7
UKIP 5

Who gets the other 5%

saddened said:

malcolmg said:

saddened said:

malcolmg said:

saddened said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

MarkSenior said:

SeanT said:

murali_s said:

SeanT said:

Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.

A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.

Usual wooden rubbish from her. "Strong and stable", "Coalition of chaos" etc. etc.

To be fair, the PB Tories needn't worry. The press arm of the defacto one-party state hasn't been deployed yet so relax folks. JCICWNBPM.

Actually, she wasn't wooden. She's just slightly cold, she's never going to get the audience laughing. But she's clever in avoiding difficult questions, she deftly swerves around traps, and she has an impressive grasp of detail. She's an intelligent and capable politician with a good poker face. And she's not annoyingly posh and never gives the impression she's looking down on you.

I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.

She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .

So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?

The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.

Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.

Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?

You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.

No answer then mAlky?

You really are a sad little Tory creep, obviously unable to read as well.

mAlky, still no answer. Silly addled fool. bye bye.

Don't confuse him with facts. He reacts badly. Think 'two year old temper tantrum with the vocabulary of a slightly dim 14 year old boy'

murali_s said:

another_richard said:

I think SkyBet's 7/2 on a Labour hold in Westminster North is excellent value.

The demographic trends for the Conservatives in that constituency are seriously negative.

For example there is now more social/council housing than owner-occupied and the combined Black and Muslim populations (there is some crossover between these two groups) is higher than the White British population.

These do not apply in either Hampstead or Tooting constituencies.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/westminsternorth/comment-page-1/#comments

Thanks Richard, though Tooting will still be tough for the Tories. Anway, 7/2 is great value and I am on!

Westminster North is also the type of place where May might be less popular with Conservative voters than Cameron was and it was also 67% Remain.

HaroldO said:

malcolmg said:

HaroldO said:

SeanT said:

CarlottaVance said:

SeanT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

SeanT said:

SandyRentool said:

May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.

(Starting when?)

That is her reason for no TV debates.

She managed to say it with a straight face.

Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?

There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.

She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.

May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/areas/114483/prime-minister-launches-maidenhead-election-campaign-in-the-high-street.html#.WQR51ahvzjk.twitter

Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.

Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.

LOL, rewriting history now.

Uh? She was Tory party chairman if I remember rightly, that usually goes to someone who does that kind of thing. Just because she is not doing it now does not mean she never has.

She was hardly known till recently despite being MP forever and at Home Office for 6 years. Party chairmen shake hands with other greedy gits buying favours to get money out of them , they do not talk to the public. She is hiding now when it counts.

malcolmg said:

rural_voter said:

IanB2 said:

All this talk about the cost of the triple lock and having to abandon the 2.5% bit of it, yet if we are heading towards a higher inflation world, dropping the 2.5% bit isn't going to save a penny.

Who wants to make pensioners living solely on the state pension poorer again? That isn't meant to be the aim.

The problem is that company and public sector pension schemes produced a vast excess for those born between about 1930 and 1965 followed by a deficit for those born later in the 20th. C. and still in the middle of their working lives. As a result, some older pensioners, now aged 80 or so are much better off than their children, now 50.

Conversely so many many more pensioners who did not have that benefit have to live on the worst pension in the civilised world, worse off than everybody and anybody working or not working.

PS: Safe to assume you are not living on state pension for sure

No I'm not but I'm worried about the future unless the triple lock is maintained.

Interestingly, even the USA, which doesn't have much of a welfare state, provides a state pension which seems enough to live on if you earn a low-ish income of say $1500/month

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

Mr. G, diarrhoea*.

Edited extra bit: anyway, I should be off. Just over an hour until the race.

malcolmg said:

HaroldO said:

malcolmg said:

HaroldO said:

SeanT said:

CarlottaVance said:

SeanT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

SeanT said:

SandyRentool said:

May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.

(Starting when?)

That is her reason for no TV debates.

She managed to say it with a straight face.

Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?

There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.

She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.

May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/areas/114483/prime-minister-launches-maidenhead-election-campaign-in-the-high-street.html#.WQR51ahvzjk.twitter

Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.

Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.

LOL, rewriting history now.

Uh? She was Tory party chairman if I remember rightly, that usually goes to someone who does that kind of thing. Just because she is not doing it now does not mean she never has.

She was hardly known till recently despite being MP forever and at Home Office for 6 years. Party chairmen shake hands with other greedy gits buying favours to get money out of them , they do not talk to the public. She is hiding now when it counts.

Actually Malc her whole political career has been as one of an ardent canvasser which she started when she became a local councillor. Ask anyone who knows her and door knocking in elections is in her DNA

malcolmg said:

HaroldO said:

malcolmg said:

HaroldO said:

SeanT said:

CarlottaVance said:

SeanT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

SeanT said:

SandyRentool said:

May - I want to get out and about and meet people from all sorts of communities.

(Starting when?)

That is her reason for no TV debates.

She managed to say it with a straight face.

Yes. It was a total lie, AND ridiculous, yet she brazenly said it without blushing. She's more devious and mendacious than she appears. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I would love to see some evidence for this "TMay won't meet the public" meme - it has come from nowhere, it is universally believed, and it is the "John Major tucks his shirt into his underpants" de nos jours. Someone here linked to some pics of her among what looked like genuinely random members of the public yesterday, and I can't recall seeing similar pictures of JC ever. So why do people think it's true?

There's lots of evidence of her turning up at factories AFTER the workers have all been sent home and Tory activists bussed in, etc. Of course it's standard procedure these days, Cameron did it - but Cameron also did the debates.

She is brazenly ducking scrutiny. Fact. She reckons she can get away with it, coz she's so far ahead, and the risk of debating outweighs the risk of looking evasive. Also a fact.

May avoiding voters (her own, as it happens) in Maidenhead High St yesterday:

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/areas/114483/prime-minister-launches-maidenhead-election-campaign-in-the-high-street.html#.WQR51ahvzjk.twitter

Nice. But I'd like to see her doing much more of that, on live TV, in hardcore Labour areas.

Her background is pounding the streets and meeting voters, I'm surprised they are getting her to avoid that.

LOL, rewriting history now.

Uh? She was Tory party chairman if I remember rightly, that usually goes to someone who does that kind of thing. Just because she is not doing it now does not mean she never has.

She was hardly known till recently despite being MP forever and at Home Office for 6 years. Party chairmen shake hands with other greedy gits buying favours to get money out of them , they do not talk to the public. She is hiding now when it counts.

Actually she was first elected in 1997 (ten years after Salmond...).

MarkSenior said:

Black_Rook said:

Taking all of this into account, I'm willing to stick my neck out and make the following predictions:

1. Labour is not going to do as well as at the last two elections; however, I also believe that it has a large residual core, and that most of the habit/cultural loyalty voters who haven't already peeled off will stick with the party. They'll probably tramp down to the polling stations and vote for it, and even if they don't they'll abstain. I reckon that puts Labour's final result in a narrow band around about 26%; they might do marginally better, i.e. Michael Foot better, or marginaly worse, but they're not going to drop like a stone to 20%. There aren't any strong left-leaning alternatives to mop up the extra votes.
2. The Conservatives will ship a few Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats, but ought to mop up most of what's left of Labour's swing voters to compensate. Other than that, the rest of the 2015 Tory vote will stay put: they have nowhere else to go. Meanwhile...
3. Ukip will shed somewhere between a third and a half of its 2015 vote to the Tories. Now that Brexit has been accomplished, I predict that many Ukip voters will see the party's job as finished and swing behind Mrs May, expecting EU withdrawal to be delivered. I also think that some of the ex-Labour Ukip vote will like her repositioning of the Tory Party, and compare both her and her party with Corbyn and the current state of Labour, and make the switch. Ukip won't die, because people who distrust May over the extent of her commitment to Brexit will stick with it for the time being, and because it also appeals to much the same demographic of poorer, social conservative working class voters, who are wavering in their support of Labour or have abandoned it completely, as did the BNP. Consequently...
4. Ukip ought to hold on to no less than half its vote in whatever fraction of seats it continues to contest, and the boost created by other Ukip voters moving to the Conservatives will ensure that they finish the election somewhere in the low-to-mid 40s. My central forecast would be 43% for the Conservatives and probably, allowing for failure to contest a proportion of seats, about 5% for Ukip.

Not bad reasoning but sadly your figures do not add up

Con 43
Lab 26
LD 11
Green 3
Nats 7
UKIP 5

Who gets the other 5%

2% would be Northern Ireland. The speaker and the rainbow of fringe parties must account for another 1%? Then rounding error.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, diarrhoea*.

Edited extra bit: anyway, I should be off. Just over an hour until the race.

MD, Carlotta has lots of it and spouts it regularly

saddened said:

malcolmg said:

saddened said:

malcolmg said:

saddened said:

malcolmg said:

saddened said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

MarkSenior said:

SeanT said:

murali_s said:

SeanT said:

Curious polls. Slightly encouraging for Labour. Maybe the Tory say-nothing shtick isn't working. Hmm.

A better performance from TMay on Marr today, though. Lucid, calm, measured.

.

I can see why she's popular even as people don't warm to her. She's what we want right now.

She did not avoid difficult questions just ignored them and unfortunately Marr did not press her enough to force her to answer . An example of this was the question re nurses having to use food banks at the end of a week .

So, is LibDem policy to end the wider distribution of food to the hungry? Would they close down food banks? Would they send waste food to landfill as happened under Labour, rather than admit there was poverty on their watch?

The left's political cant over food banks is sick-making.

Maybe the Government could arrange things so that nurses have enough money to use shops just like the rest of us? It's an idea worth considering.

Vast, vast majority of nurses do. Why can't the ones using food banks. Do you have an answer to that question?

You nasty arsehole, people use foodbanks because they are starving. You have to be sent there by a recognised organisation you cannot just turn up and fill your bag.

No answer then mAlky?

You really are a sad little Tory creep, obviously unable to read as well.

mAlky, still no answer. Silly addled fool. bye bye.

Go play tag on the motorway you cretin, given your thickness you will lose big time.

Wit and repartee, something else you fail miserably at. Now seriously, have to go and clean out the hamsters, I'll be throwing away biological matter that has more intelligence than you do.

Bye, bye.

Oh dear making your bed now, run away and enjoy your vegetables, they will be more interesting than you for sure. Keep taking your JSA.

Black_Rook said:

kle4 said:

Black_Rook said:

SNP: 45-50 (shedding a couple of seats to the Lib Dems, and a small handful to the Tories)
.

Wouldn't that still put them at just over that bracket, 50-51 territory?

Black_Rook said:

Con: 385-390 (i.e. a majority of 120-130; not too far off UNS based on the above percentages, factoring in an allowance for exceptional gains in Leave-leaning/strong Ukip areas in the North slightly outweighing extra Labour holds in Remain-leaning London marginals)
Lab: 170-175 (just shy of UNS, for the same reasons)
SNP: 45-50 (shedding a couple of seats to the Lib Dems, and a small handful to the Tories)
Lib Dem: 10-15 (gains in a handful of Remain-leaning marginals plus a couple of seats in Scotland, likely tempered by a small number of losses to the Tories).

I waver on the Lab score. I'd put them at slightly more if the current situation is where we end up, but I think staying above 200 would be very difficult and an excellent result all things considered, a Cat Smith might say. LDs look about right.

Re: SNP - depends on extent of Conservative recovery. My UNS estimate put the SNP at 50, but I fancy the Conservatives to do marginally better (and, consequently, the SNP just a little worse) due to the fact that the Tories ought to outperform in the far South and the North East, and underperform in much of the rest of the country. If pushed for an exact figure for the SNP, I'd go for 48 - but it's just a guessing game, isn't it?

UNS based on my central estimate of vote share puts Labour just under 185, and I've nudged them down a little for reasons previously described.

The other thing to look for is the size of the Green vote. They may be highly attractive to the ideologically pure, pro-independence far left who are not thrilled with the SNP's government record. It's hard to imagine them taking many (edit - that was meant to be 'any') seats particularly as most of their vote will surely be in Glasgow but if they're on 5% or more across Scotland it's easy to see them tipping 5/6 seats over the edge.

Just watched Sarah Olney on Sunday Politics (London bit). She was very good and quite withering about the Goldsmith reselection. I think she'll probably hold Richmond Park.

NickPalmer said:

SeanT said:

To be fair, though, I can't really remember any PMQs by anyone. It's internal political drama, family spats that are soon forgotten.

Agreed. I was in the Chamber at most of them for 13 years (sometimes didn't bother). I can remember the odd line (Hague's rueful and endearing resignation comment effectively that he'd won every one and a fat lot of good it had done him) but otherwise meh.

I can only remember one of my own, come to that. Tony Blair had announced some anti-social behaviour initiative tackling lawless adult louts. I said that in Broxtowe we were making good progress in tackling street violence by pensioners, but did he have any policies on teenagers? To be fair he laughed with the rest of the House - hut, typically, I can't remember what the reply was, except that it didn't really say anything.

There's a couple of lines that stick around - 'You were the future once' from Cameron, 'Stalin to Mr Bean' from Cable - plus some of the gaffes like 'We saved the world' by Brown or 'calm down dear' by Cameron. Few and far between though.