politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Take Care. The implications of the Conservative policy on soci

Theuniondivvie said:

It's him.

https://twitter.com/JimDOfficial/status/864783997636939777

Who remembers Jim Davidson's number one fan on here - Coldstone aka GrumpOldMan?

Sandpit said:

kle4 said:

Paristonda said:

Jason said:

Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.

Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?

At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.

I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.

I think there is a risk of the accusations that Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathizers being dismissed by many as fake news..

For a lot of people it will be. 'Sympathiser' is probably too strong a word in any case, but most people who are inclined to like him will instantly dismiss it as fake, even though there are serious points there, and those who already disliked him will already know about it or it will reinforce a premade decision.

This certainly isn't fake:

As we learned from when he was elected, quoting him verbatim can be dismissed as a smear. If someone likes him after all this time, they will dismiss anything on the matter as fake, whether or not it is. If they disliked him because of it but are coming back to Labour, they've decided to look past it, so there's only the group who dislike him for other reasons, but if that is the case its odd they don't know about this.

Jason said:

Recidivist said:

Jason said:

Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.

Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?

At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.

I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.

I don't think the IRA story is anywhere near as watertight as you seem to think, and even if it were it is likely to resonate most strongly with the groups that are already voting Tory. And on top of that, as Project Fear showed in the referendum campaign, there is a level of hysteria that simply isn't credible. Speaking for myself, the personal attacks on Corbyn make me more likely to vote Labour, not less. It's what the man himself says that makes me think twice.

Well, you can describe them as 'personal attacks' on Corbyn, I describe them as statements of fact regarding a man who overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation that murdered women and children. Those are the facts.

Here's what Corbyn himself says. "The violence was wrong on all sides and I have said so all along. My whole point was if we are to bring about a peace process, you weren't going to achieve it by military means." I wouldn't say the same myself, and I'd be much happier if Corbyn had spent the time he has on Ireland tending his allotment instead. But he simply has not overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation. Claiming that he has is simply electioneering.

Recidivist said:

Jason said:

Recidivist said:

Jason said:

Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.

Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?

At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.

I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.

I don't think the IRA story is anywhere near as watertight as you seem to think, and even if it were it is likely to resonate most strongly with the groups that are already voting Tory. And on top of that, as Project Fear showed in the referendum campaign, there is a level of hysteria that simply isn't credible. Speaking for myself, the personal attacks on Corbyn make me more likely to vote Labour, not less. It's what the man himself says that makes me think twice.

Well, you can describe them as 'personal attacks' on Corbyn, I describe them as statements of fact regarding a man who overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation that murdered women and children. Those are the facts.

Here's what Corbyn himself says. "The violence was wrong on all sides and I have said so all along. My whole point was if we are to bring about a peace process, you weren't going to achieve it by military means." I wouldn't say the same myself, and I'd be much happier if Corbyn had spent the time he has on Ireland tending his allotment instead. But he simply has not overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation. Claiming that he has is simply electioneering.

To say he didn't overtly associate with the IRA is quite simply deluded. I do not know how much more evidence is required.

dr_spyn said:

Pulpstar said:

dr_spyn said:

steve_garner said:

Morning Morris Dancer. We've received some stuff from Dawson. No mention of Corbyn and barely any of Labour's policies. He seems to be fighting a personal and locally focused campaign.

No mention of Corbyn by name or on a photograph on the two Labour leaflets in Bristol West. My wife had a targeted NHS in peril card today, no mention of Corbyn, but 4 quotes from newspapers. No sign of Tory leaflet. LDs plenty on Europe with Trump, Farage & Corbyn on leaflets.

I do wonder how many other Labour MPs haven't included Corbyn on their literature.

I think Bristol West will be held comfortably by Labour. Its precisely the sort of place the vote will hold up, and could even increase.

Haven't seen much activity by the Tory on Twitter feeds. Will check if she has been Tweeting later, last time round the Con candidate was off helping Chris Skidmore. Greens seem to be hanging around the University of Bristol, but are supposed to be bussing in activists today. The Green candidate gives a Bristol address, but has been living there for about a month. Comparisons with Dr Nuttall have been made. Greens appear to be stuck in pen, paper and clipboard mode re canvassing. Suspect Lab will hold.

There are some, erm, interesting odds of 2.75 on both the Labour and Green parties. But Ladbrokes are greatly limiting the size of Labour bets.

this is well worth watching....

https://twitter.com/iankatz1000/status/865704524627025920

Scott_P said:

Even if the dementia tax shifts a few votes, it's remarkable that Tezza has apparently outflanked Jezza, from the left

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/865866746951081987

I'm not surprised - those most opposed to universal benefits I've ever met have been poorer and/or working class, who would be 'expected' to be traditional Labour voters (and probably are, regardless of agreement on an issue like this)

YBarddCwsc said:

Floater said:

I stand to be directly affected by this - As I also said on the thread last night no one at work (affluent South East) is remotely bothered by this.

As my mother in law was until recently in a care home suffering from dementia we fully expected that the estate would be wittled down to 23k paying for the care costs.

We would also have been paying a higher rate once her house sale had completed.

So, from the perspective of a family that has actually first hand experience of this - our feelings are is that this is a step in the right direction.

It may not be the optimum way but someone has at least tried to grasp the nettle.

Personally I am more pissed off at people who want to use cheap slogans to attack rather than a party that at least is trying even though they must have known how it would be spun.

Just another thought - when my father tries to talk to my brother and I about inheritance and how he doesn't want to spend X on himself as that is "for you" we both tell him to spend it on himself.

He was also shocked to find out my experience with mother in law that the State could take his asset to pay for care down to 23k - so another one who sees this as a step forward.

Because of the outcry here, I read the Labour and LibDem manifestos carefully on social care. They have noble ideas, but they do not have proposals.

True enough. They promise more money, which is welcome (LDs even say where the money will come from, Labour will 'seek consensus' on a cross party basis on how it could, and offer a number of potential options), but what does 'lay the foundations of a National Care Service for England' mean in labour's? And that is in their 'first term'. Some seem to think the Tories should likewise have avoided proposals because they could have gotten away with doing so and it would be politically convenient (there are also some who think they are a bad idea of course).

Recidivist said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

Even if the dementia tax shifts a few votes, it's remarkable that Tezza has apparently outflanked Jezza, from the left

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/865866746951081987

I'm not surprised - those most opposed to universal benefits I've ever met have been poorer and/or working class, who would be 'expected' to be traditional Labour voters (and probably are, regardless of agreement on an issue like this)

Yes exactly so. And can often be won round in a few minutes by simply pointing out that it is much easier and cheaper to administer a universal benefit and the rich pay more tax.

Except is there any evidence that is true?

Scott_P said:

Compare and contrast...

https://twitter.com/milesbriggsmsp/status/865891698483789824

I feel like standing next to a sign that says 'enough' could be easily misinterpreted or played with online.

Ishmael_Z said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

this is well worth watching....

https://twitter.com/iankatz1000/status/865704524627025920

I like Nia. Not come across her before.

I confess while the name was familiar (if only because a few weeks ago someone was 'Do you know the Labour shadow defence secretary is Nia Griffith'?), I don't think I've ever seen her before in my life.

Any news on polling today? Or are they out tomorrow? Nervousness for all three main parties I would suggest.

Even if there is a narrowing, the Tories have to hold their nerve and stick to their guns. Selling reality before an election is a tough gig, but the difference could not be more stark with Labour, who are trying to sell a fantasy. Actually, a nightmare in reality.

Strong & Stable vs Terrorist Sympathisers.

No Green, No UKIP, just straight four way fight in Edinburgh South West with the SNP starting out over 8000 ahead and SCON 3500 behind SLAB. Good bet that any tactical voters would be somewhat undermined by uncertainty on the best placed to beat the SNP, and so they SNP hold on even if they drop a bit. (Rallings and Thrasher show that even at a 30.8% rise in SNP vote there, that was only the 28th largest SNP rise - gods, what a tsunami that was in 2015)

Jason said:

Any news on polling today? Or are they out tomorrow? Nervousness for all three main parties I would suggest.

Tories have to know that they would have bad polls in the campaign and not overreact if it happens now. Labour need to hope momentum has been maintained to keep hope going. Lib Dems just want to stop the rot.

Jason said:

Dura_Ace said:

Jason said:

I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.

Anybody who would care about the IRA craic already knows about it. As an attack it's completely fucked out.

...and those who don't know about it - the majority I would say - soon will.

The Tories have been supposedly 'keeping their powder dry' on going after Corbyn hard for weeks now, I am far from convinced springing it now will work, even if people really do not know.

Jason said:

Dura_Ace said:

Jason said:

I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.

Anybody who would care about the IRA craic already knows about it. As an attack it's completely fucked out.

...and those who don't know about it - the majority I would say - soon will. If Mr Corbyn says he did what he did in the interests of peace, he can explain why he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. We all know why - he wanted the IRA to WIN. Simple as that.

He also voted against Iraq and Libya You know why because you dislike him.Others might not see it that way.

kle4 said:

No Green, No UKIP, just straight four way fight in Edinburgh South West with the SNP starting out over 8000 ahead and SCON 3500 behind SLAB. Good bet that any tactical voters would be somewhat undermined by uncertainty on the best placed to beat the SNP, and so they SNP hold on even if they drop a bit. (Rallings and Thrasher show that even at a 30.8% rise in SNP vote there, that was only the 28th largest SNP rise - gods, what a tsunami that was in 2015)

The local voters are in no doubt who they need to vote for to beat the SNP in ESW

And the tsunami delivered Michelle Thomson... Once bitten and all that

SimonStClare said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

this is well worth watching....

https://twitter.com/iankatz1000/status/865704524627025920

Good grief, Nia Griffith MP for Llanelli actually comes across quite well in that interview, so why do Labour keep trundling out the useless Abbott, Thornberry and Angela Rayner?

She took a first class degree in modern languages at Oxford. Kind of trounces all the afore- mentioned plus Corbyn himself added together.

Pulpstar said:

dr_spyn said:

steve_garner said:

Morning Morris Dancer. We've received some stuff from Dawson. No mention of Corbyn and barely any of Labour's policies. He seems to be fighting a personal and locally focused campaign.

No mention of Corbyn by name or on a photograph on the two Labour leaflets in Bristol West. My wife had a targeted NHS in peril card today, no mention of Corbyn, but 4 quotes from newspapers. No sign of Tory leaflet. LDs plenty on Europe with Trump, Farage & Corbyn on leaflets.

I do wonder how many other Labour MPs haven't included Corbyn on their literature.

I think Bristol West will be held comfortably by Labour. Its precisely the sort of place the vote will hold up, and could even increase.

I agree 100%, I reckon Labour has a great chance and in a four horse race Baxter scores it as follows in terms of share of the vote:
Labour ..................... 34.8%
Commies Greens .... 20.3%
Tories....................... 24.9%
LibDems .................. 19.4%

Ladbrokes has this value-packed with Labour priced at a generous 7/4, a 75% better return than Paddy Power/Betfairs Sportsbook's stingy offer of Evens.
As ever, DYOR

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I see Messrs Rentoul and Finkelstein are tweeting links to Mr Meeks fine thread here.

This is a header of exceptional analysis from someone who really knows their onions about saving for old age. It is outstanding. Bravo Mr Meeks.

If I'm going to quibble, it's with So who should bear the risk that you might need long term care in the future? It is undoubtedly bad luck to become so infirm. It is not immediately apparent why others should pay for that bad luck if you have the assets to do so yourself, at least at the level that the Conservatives are seeking to set as an asset floor.

You could make a reasonable argument, on almost exactly the same grounds, for NHS treatment to be means-tested. In fact if I just cut out the words "long term care" and replace them with "complex healthcare" I think that's all it would take.

Moving even to a French or German style of health insurance system in Britain is viewed as akin to charbroiling your neighbour's beloved cat, and suggesting that your 1-in-6 unlucky dose of expensive healthcare should be paid for out of hundreds of thousands of pounds of assets is rather more like charbroiling their newborn child.

I know not all on PB would be uncomfortable with a great role for the private sector in healthcare. The peculiarly British sense of attachment and pride in our peculiar health system is sometimes derided as an essentially irrational "national religion", and I see some truth in that - many of its core principles have become firmly embedded in the public consciousness, to the extent of becoming a doctrine beyond question by right-thinking people.

Ishmael_Z said:

SimonStClare said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

this is well worth watching....

https://twitter.com/iankatz1000/status/865704524627025920

Good grief, Nia Griffith MP for Llanelli actually comes across quite well in that interview, so why do Labour keep trundling out the useless Abbott, Thornberry and Angela Rayner?

PB fan club in the making.

Simply coming across as a serious person and not a bit dim is noteworthy at the moment.

If we see fit to comply with these norms and put heresy aside, it strikes me that the distinction between healthcare and social care is a very thin one. In that case, consistent with the precepts of High NHSism, I suspect the national spirit would prefer "free" high-quality care available to all, based on needs and regardless of wealth. (The catechism helpfully explains that "free" means "paid for by taxes, preferably other people's".) The more pragmatic and individualistic doctrine of Low NHSism is intensely comfortable that the wealthy can purchase a preferred standard of care, either through insurance or stumping up wads of cash or assets, provided they don't expect deep subsidies when they do so. There may be fanatics who believe this breaches the Articles of Monopoly established by One True NHSism, but their power is generally low and in relationship to any expansion of NHSism into social care their voices are likely to be quiet ones.

I'm happy that the Tories have tried to grasp a nettle that has been repeatedly kicked (the mixed metaphor may work better as "replanted") into the long grass. And I agree with Mr Meeks that market-based insurance does does not seem to be the cure-all. But I do suspect the National Health & Care Service is the natural long-term direction of travel: not necessarily an optimal solution, but through all the meanders the political currents gently flow this way. Nor am I sure that the Tories should ultimately regret that. The requisite taxation may be despaired of, but it is at least consistent with the "striver's principle" - plenty of older blue-inclined voters dislike the idea of working and saving hard all their lives, to see it all eaten up by costs that the spendthrift or slouch next-door receives for free.

I hope this never happens again, where we have an election which isn't a proper contest and one party can take victory for granted no matter what happens. Also it makes for a very boring campaign.

numbertwelve said:

peter_from_putney said:

Until a couple of weeks ago, one bookie was offering odds on who would be the next HoC Speaker. unfortunately this market has since been taken down. My own pick was Margaret Beckett at odds of 20/1, assuming she manages to narrowly sneak in at Derby South, and that it's now Labour's turn to hold this position.
Anyone have other ideas, bearing in mind that including retirees, up to a third or more of Labour MPs may not be returning to the House after the GE?

Diane Abbot?

"The ayes to the right, 300,000"

Do you think Dianne Abbot is ill for some one with her University Education and media experience every week previously with Andrew Neill does not seem correct.Hope I am wrong .

williamglenn said:

Ishmael_Z said:

SimonStClare said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

this is well worth watching....

https://twitter.com/iankatz1000/status/865704524627025920

Good grief, Nia Griffith MP for Llanelli actually comes across quite well in that interview, so why do Labour keep trundling out the useless Abbott, Thornberry and Angela Rayner?

PB fan club in the making.

Simply coming across as a serious person and not a bit dim is noteworthy at the moment.

It is when looking at the Shadow Front Bench - she comes over EXTREMELY well and I'm a horrible PB Tory..... mind you, it's also obvious why she's not allowed out much by the Corbyn Clique.

Yorkcity said:

numbertwelve said:

peter_from_putney said:

Until a couple of weeks ago, one bookie was offering odds on who would be the next HoC Speaker. unfortunately this market has since been taken down. My own pick was Margaret Beckett at odds of 20/1, assuming she manages to narrowly sneak in at Derby South, and that it's now Labour's turn to hold this position.
Anyone have other ideas, bearing in mind that including retirees, up to a third or more of Labour MPs may not be returning to the House after the GE?

Diane Abbot?

"The ayes to the right, 300,000"

Do you think Dianne Abbot is ill for some one with her University Education and media experience every week previously with Andrew Neill does not seem correct.Hope I am wrong .

I have thought the same thing. Diane of course also has an Oxbridge education but ever since she missed that key vote a few months ago she seems to have been off form. ON TW she was always switched on - now she seems switched off.

justin124 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

That fishing story sounds disturbing.

*sighs*

May is lucky she's against Corbyn.

As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.

Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.

Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!

Well, the voters of Morley and Outwood had an opportunity to throw out a bastard last time, and took it....

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

kle4 said:

No Green, No UKIP, just straight four way fight in Edinburgh South West with the SNP starting out over 8000 ahead and SCON 3500 behind SLAB. Good bet that any tactical voters would be somewhat undermined by uncertainty on the best placed to beat the SNP, and so they SNP hold on even if they drop a bit. (Rallings and Thrasher show that even at a 30.8% rise in SNP vote there, that was only the 28th largest SNP rise - gods, what a tsunami that was in 2015)

The local voters are in no doubt who they need to vote for to beat the SNP in ESW

If you say so.

I remember reading here in 2010 that the reason Alistair Darling wasn't campaigning in Edinburgh South-West was because he knew he was going to lose and had given up.

Darling won by other 8,000 votes.

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

I agree, this will primarily impact voters in the South (and of course even the winter fuel allowance will be means tested so will not affect the less well off). As for assets of course last April the Tories took all the estates of those voters in the South out of inheritance tax (a cut which Labour has said it will largely reverse) so most voters even in the South will still be better off in terms of assets except the minority who need care. However even those who need care will be better off if they have to have residential care as care will only be reclaimed from assets above £100k including their house whereas before they were reclaimed from assets above £23k including their house. So the only voters this policy really affects are well off voters in the South who will need personal care and will now have their house included in the cost of that assessment over £100k

How many houses in UK are under £100K? Terrace house in Hull - yeh probably. But vast swathes of Midlands and North have places where all houses are in a range more like £175 - £280K.

HYUFD does seem to have a rather 'Coronation Street' view of the North and has the impression that nobody there will lose their WFA.

In the target seats the Tories need to win from Labour in the North and Midlands, in Middlesborough, Walsall,

You keep repeating that most wont lose WFA but could you tell me at what level people will lose it.

As I said you have a very 'Coronation Street' view of the North.

Above average UK wealth and assets, clearly pensioners in most marginal Labour northern seats do not have above average UK wealth and assets

So you don't actually know but yet again you are treating people as monolithic blocks - for example I know several pensioners in a marginal Labour northern seat who do have above average UK wealth and assets.

Therefore everyone who gets WFA will fear that they will lose out and will be annoyed that they are being treated worse than their Scottish equivalents.

This will cost the Conservatives votes in England and Wales.

So you know one or two wealthy pensioners in northern Labour marginal seats, so what, they are a minority, the vast majority of voters May needs to win in those Labour marginal seats are not wealthy and those that are are hardly going to vote for Corbyn anyway

Ishmael_Z said:

You are a really nasty bit of work, aren't you, calling an innocent infant a "bastard." You have serious form for this, and every time you do it my theory is reinforced that you do it to compensate for the fact that, what with political correctness gone mad, you can no longer talk about n*ggers and poofters.

LOL. Even against a very strong field packed with doughty challengers you are still the most pompous contributor here.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jakegoretzki/status/865893446300708864

LOL

The big story:

The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/its-scone-gone-not-scone-bone/

I hate jam, but if I were so inclined, I would put it on after the cream, so now I am in the 21%.

justin124 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

That fishing story sounds disturbing.

*sighs*

May is lucky she's against Corbyn.

As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.

Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.

Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!

You see yourself as a progressive don't you.

I see you as a vile little shit.

chestnut said:

Scott_P said:

Even if the dementia tax shifts a few votes, it's remarkable that Tezza has apparently outflanked Jezza, from the left

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/865866746951081987

That feedback is horrendous for Labour - and it's C2DE's in Bury, and in the Huff.

As I said this policy will cement May's gains in the North and Midlands, the only potential loss may be a few voters in the south to the LDs

MarqueeMark said:

chestnut said:

Scott_P said:

Even if the dementia tax shifts a few votes, it's remarkable that Tezza has apparently outflanked Jezza, from the left

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/865866746951081987

That feedback is horrendous for Labour - and it's C2DE's in Bury, and in the Huff.

Jeremy Corbyn protesting about the rich pensioners losing out on the winter fuel allowance just comes across as self-interest! Who says? Not me - but a lifelong Labour voter I spoke too on the door-step last night. He was completely baffled why Corbyn was "standing up for the toffs".....

Did you point out that Jeremy's a bit posh himself and has a brother called Piers.

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

That fishing story sounds disturbing.

*sighs*

May is lucky she's against Corbyn.

As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.

Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.

Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!

The parents are engaged, close enough.

There's a lot more to it than that. Would be surprised if Labour don't play it hard in both constituencies.

AndyJS said:

I hope this never happens again, where we have an election which isn't a proper contest and one party can take victory for granted no matter what happens. Also it makes for a very boring campaign.

We've had plenty of elections like this; in my memory 1979, 1983, 1987, 1997, 2001, 2005. It's really only the last two elections and 1992 that have been the exceptions. 1979 and 1997 were 'exciting' because the country expected a new regime and wanted to know what degree of change they could expect.

Sandpit said:

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

That fishing story sounds disturbing.

*sighs*

May is lucky she's against Corbyn.

As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.

Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.

Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!

The parents are engaged, close enough.

There's a lot more to it than that. Would be surprised if Labour don't play it hard in both constituencies.

I know Lopresti cheated on his wife and all that, I'm just surprised that many people would care too much. Even if they dislike infidelity enough to vote against a prospective MP, a child born out of wedlock seems an odd thing to make it any worse, since they are now engaged.

Chelyabinsk said:

Recidivist said:

You are already quoting stuff written by someone else and using sharing a platform as a proxy for sharing an opinion.

The 'sharing a platform' excuse doesn't apply here. When you're editor of a magazine, you're responsible for the opinions that come out under its byline. When you're at an event organised by terrorists to commemorate dead terrorists, talking about how you hope the terrorists get what they want, you're sharing their opinion.

It's fine to argue that the whole thing won't have much electoral impact, although I suspect Crosby has focus-grouped attack ads which will be highly targeted and come out near the end of the campaign. But let's not beat about the bush: Corbyn and McDonnell supported the terrorist campaign to unify Ireland.

'But let's not beat about the bush: Corbyn and McDonnell supported the terrorist campaign to unify Ireland.'

Spot on. I must have read hundreds of comments from apologists all over the internet trying to absolve Corbyn of what he said and did in support of Irish Republicanism (the same with his links to anti-Semitism and his ties with Iranian propaganda outlets).

The lie that he was interested in peace must be nailed once and for all, becuase he wasn't UNLESS the IRA won their campaign. For goodness sake, he voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement because it didn't overtly favour the IRA and their cause.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

chestnut said:

Scott_P said:

Even if the dementia tax shifts a few votes, it's remarkable that Tezza has apparently outflanked Jezza, from the left

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/865866746951081987

That feedback is horrendous for Labour - and it's C2DE's in Bury, and in the Huff.

Note: Participants were habitual Labour voters who are considering voting Conservative at this election.

hmmm

Yes, it's specifically people who before the focus group said "I am a Labour voter considering voting Conservative". Statistically, one should always be careful to over-interpret focus groups (a sample of 10 people or so) but a group already leaning one way is particularly likely to say things consistent with their leaning.

That doesn't mean I don't think the Tory proposals might be popular with genuinely uncommitted voters. I don't know, but perhaps the polls this evening will tell us the snap reaction.

kle4 said:

The big story:

The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/its-scone-gone-not-scone-bone/

I hate jam, but if I were so inclined, I would put it on after the cream, so now I am in the 21%.

You should campaign for a second vote!!!

TudorRose said:

kle4 said:

The big story:

The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/its-scone-gone-not-scone-bone/

I hate jam, but if I were so inclined, I would put it on after the cream, so now I am in the 21%.

You should campaign for a second vote!!!

No, it's time to move on and just accept I live in a nation of degenerates.

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

That fishing story sounds disturbing.

*sighs*

May is lucky she's against Corbyn.

As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.

Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.

Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!

The parents are engaged, close enough.

There's a lot more to it than that. Would be surprised if Labour don't play it hard in both constituencies.

I know Lopresti cheated on his wife and all that, I'm just surprised that many people would care too much. Even if they dislike infidelity enough to vote against a prospective MP, a child born out of wedlock seems an odd thing to make it any worse, since they are now engaged.

To a lot of social conservatives, including a lot of conservative supports and activists, this sort of thing does matter. In a marginal seat, it doesn't need many of them to stay at home to change the outcome.

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

This'll get the Tory fainthearts' campaigning juices flowing.

https://twitter.com/Coldwar_Steve/status/865818765191196672

Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn

Jim Davidson isn't my favorite comedian and the Blues aren't my favorite Party but I have a lot of respect for anybody who gets out there and footslogs for their political beliefs, and that includes Jim.

Talking of footsoldiers, the Labour Party were out in force in Wanstead High Street just now. They seemed on the whole to be getting a good response, but it's a safe Labour seat, even if Wanstead is the Tory end. No sign of the Conservatives, but they are probably targeting marginal Ilford, which would be sensible.

I indicated that I wouldn't be supporting John Cryer this time because of his support for Brexit. They were sensible enough not to engage me in debate and just said they would pass the message on. I'm sure it won't worry him.