politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s one local by-election
Comments
-
This Harry Cole Tweet.. doubt its a poll more like the Tory ad campaign gets underway.0
-
But that doesn't mean it's won votes.HYUFD said:
The polls actually backed means testing winter fuelSeanT said:
The polls barely budged after the fox hunting announcement. It was Dementia and Winter Fuel, as we all know.Cookie said:
My wife probably isn't going to vote Tory, purely because of fox hunting. It may or may not be the right thing to do, but I don't think it's helped electorally. There aren't many people going to shift into the blue column because the Tories have announced a free vote on fox hunting.Danny565 said:
Fox hunting isn't new for the Tories, but it's new for May -- she had cast herself, with some success, as being a new type of Tory who cared about the NHS, the working class, taking on rich people's privileges, etc. My sense now is that, since the fox-hunting statement, the public's image of her has morphed more into a "typical Tory toff", with all the negative associations people have with that type of image on other issues. Women especially are mentioning it a lot, as an example of how their opinion on May has changed.woody662 said:
Fox hunting is hardly new, probably never Tories.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
It's a bit like Corbyn not singing the national anthem -- the reason that's such a big deal is not just because of the national anthem issue itself, it's about what it says to the public about Corbyn as a person generally, and the prism through which they view his stances on other issues.
(I will add that I'm still expecting the Tories to win the election with an increased majority, just in case anyone is planning to quote this post back at me in a few weeks!)
More people may support it to a minor degree than oppose it to a large degree.
So it can shift votes away without gaining votes.0 -
I really hope not. I fear his true believers combined with those who think the overwhelming negatives about him must be overblown and so discount it when the Tories perform crappy, will enable him to at least stay on as Labour leader, to their detriment.SeanT said:
I confess I am worried. I thought a solid Tory lead was nailed on.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
But the mood music is still bad on Dementia: those YouGov supplementals were horrible for the Tories.
Would they, could they are, can they, will they.... really vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister??0 -
I can't speak for the campaign which has clearly had some low points - personally Dianne Abbott was the worst... But the manifesto seems to have been well received by the public.leomckinstry said:I think some of this hype about the supposed brilliance of the Labour campaign is wildly exaggerated. Let's just remember some of the highlights: Diane Abbott's maths, Angela Rayner's maths, shambles over Trident renewal, McDonnell's rant in front of Stalinist flags at May Day, Corbyn's confusion over the benefits freeze, Burnham refusing to be present for Corbyn's post-poll victory rally to Manchester, Labour candidates refusing to feature their own leader on their campaign material because of his toxicity, the appointment of ultra-leftist Andrew Murray as camaign co-ordinator, Corbyn's refusal to condemn the IRA. If any of these things had happened to previous Labour leaders, they would have been crucified. But we have become so desensitized to Corbyn's extremism and incompetence that none of this seems to matter. Expectations are so low that he is being given an easy ride. Moreover, the very fact that he is not thought likely to win frees his party to be utterly irresponsible about the costs of its policies, breezily announcing £9 billion here (abolition of tuition fees) or £8 billion there (annual increase for the NHS). No previous Labour campaign could have away with such fiscal recklessness. But Corbyn is able to spout profligate, spendthrift nonsense precisely because he is not seen as a likely Prime Minister.
And you won't like this but the idea that it is fiscally reckless isnt accurate.
Labour are proposing more spending and more taxes and one pays for the other. It's a political choice to abolish tuition fees, spend more on the NHS and raise taxes and they are perfectly entitled to make the case for it.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/but-do-numbers-add-up.html?m=10 -
Over 60% of Tory voters backed itMikeL said:
But that doesn't mean it's won votes.HYUFD said:
The polls actually backed means testing winter fuelSeanT said:
The polls barely budged after the fox hunting announcement. It was Dementia and Winter Fuel, as we all know.Cookie said:
My wife probably isn't going to vote Tory, purely because of fox hunting. It may or may not be the right thing to do, but I don't think it's helped electorally. There aren't many people going to shift into the blue column because the Tories have announced a free vote on fox hunting.Danny565 said:
Fox hunting isn't new for the Tories, but it's new for May -- she had cast herself, with some success, as being a new type of Tory who cared about the NHS, the working class, taking on rich people's privileges, etc. My sense now is that, since the fox-hunting statement, the public's image of her has morphed more into a "typical Tory toff", with all the negative associations people have with that type of image on other issues. Women especially are mentioning it a lot, as an example of how their opinion on May has changed.woody662 said:
Fox hunting is hardly new, probably never Tories.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
It's a bit like Corbyn not singing the national anthem -- the reason that's such a big deal is not just because of the national anthem issue itself, it's about what it says to the public about Corbyn as a person generally, and the prism through which they view his stances on other issues.
(I will add that I'm still expecting the Tories to win the election with an increased majority, just in case anyone is planning to quote this post back at me in a few weeks!)
More people may support it to a minor degree than oppose it to a large degree.
So it can shift votes away without gaining votes.0 -
I found it really strange that the stabbing in the back thing got traction. I don't remember the campaign that well - but it wasn't especially nasty was it?kle4 said:
I like that he challenged him. If David was better he would have won, and as a younger brother I approve of not waiting his turn.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
0 -
If in your view the Labour campaign has been poor, the Tory one so far has to be judged as truly dire, given the change in the polls since things kicked off.leomckinstry said:If any of these things had happened to previous Labour leaders, they would have been crucified. But we have become so desensitized to Corbyn's extremism and incompetence that none of this seems to matter. Expectations are so low that he is being given an easy ride.
The Labour decision to publish a fully costed manifesto in terms of current spending (not what you describe as "breezily announcing" things at all) is a sound decision and looks all the better given the failure of the Conservatives to follow suit. It doesn't mean it's ever going to be a winning hand given the current leadership but it's being played pretty well overall in terms of making the best of a bad job.
Anyway, having just sent off for printing the last of 13 separate pieces of election literature for Labour over the past four weeks, in none of which there is any mention whatsoever of Corbyn, I'm feeling quite content and demob happy, thank you very much, and have time to post a few comments here. Nothing wrong at all with focusing on local candidates rather than playing the Tories' game. Likewise I was gratified by Andy Burnham's refusal. Those sort of things do Labour quite a bit of good, because they send an implicit message that the candidates people are being asked to actually elect are not by and large in the grip of the far left. If people want to make a fuss about the absence of Corbyn from election literature (which is more a tactical decision in practice) then fine, it just reinforces the message.
Likewise, specific issues over whether or not Labour is going to fully halt continuing benefit cuts is all grist to the mill. Yes, Corbyn made another gaffe, but it matters not and may have inadvertently helped because what it does is just reinforce the message that the Tories really are going to have a go at the living standards of a large part of the population over the next five years. It's a bit like the £350m figure in the referendum - it means you have the agenda where you want it, not where your opponents would like it to be. What was striking prior to the truce of the last couple of days was how much the agenda had moved away from Brexit and "strong and stable" over the past month, such that it was starting to look as though the Tories had next to nothing to offer in terms of anything else and there was a risk that the public would tire of a one trick pony and start to ask whether the Empress had any clothes.0 -
A free vote on fox hunting in Government time - Blair's policy, too. Of course, it's more likely to be reinstated after a Tory landslide, but more thoughtful "pro" MPs might conclude that the current unworkable law is better for their cause than civil unrest all over the countryside every winter. Otherwise Jeremy Corbyn, the foxes' friend, could be in with a shout in 2022.0
-
It hasn't been a feature of May's campaign either except that she gave a straight answer to a direct question.Cookie said:
I don't think it was ever a feature of Cameron's campaign, though. As I said, it's an emotioanl reaction rather than an attempt to be consistent. Also, her visceral loathing of Ed Miliband was far more than her baffled contempt for Jeremy Corbyn. Also the Tories are so far ahead it doesn't really seem to matter!alex. said:
So why did she vote for Cameron? Foxhunting toff that he was?Cookie said:HYUFD said:
baseCookie said:Danny565 said:
Fox hunting isn't new for the Tories, but it's new for May -- she had cast herself, with some success, as being a new type of Tory who cared about the NHS, the working class, taking on rich people's privileges, etc. My sense now is that, since the fox-hunting statement, the public's image of her has morphed more into a "typical Tory toff", with all the negative associations people have with that type of image on other issues. Women especially are mentioning it a lot, as an example of how their opinion on May has changed.woody662 said:
Fox hunting is hardly new, probably never Tories.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
It's a bit like Corbyn not singing the national anthem -- the reason that's such a big deal is not just because of the national anthem issue itself, it's about what it says to the public about Corbyn as a person generally, and the prism through which they view his stances on other issues.
(I will add that I'm still expecting the Tories to win the election with an increased majority, just in case anyone is planning to quote this post back at me in a few weeks!)
I'm just confirming that fox-hunting is having an impact. I'm not attempting to justify a position one way or another.0 -
Yes, I phoned on Monday entirely post 'dementia tax' in the West Midlands and got not one switcher from Labour to the Tories but a number from Labour and UKIP to the Tories, the West Midlands will see probably the biggest swing to the Tories in the UK, London barely any swing, London was the only region of the UK yougov had more than double digit opposition to the dementia plans (and that was pre u turn)Pulpstar said:
Have you done any phone polling post dementia tax tho ?HYUFD said:
From phoning I have done up to Monday there is movement from Labour and especially UKIP to the Tories in the Midlands and North and virtually none from Tory to Labour, the LD vote is holding up in posh Remainier and even winning a few Tories there, Labour also doing better in Remain urban areas so I expect little swing if any to the Tories in Remain parts of London and the South but a big swing to the Tories in industrial Leave areas north of WatfordSeanT said:
I confess I am worried. I thought a solid Tory lead was nailed on.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
But the mood music is still bad on Dementia: those YouGov supplementals were horrible for the Tories.
Would they, could they are, can they, will they.... really vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister??0 -
I thought the last GE campaign against him was in horrendous taste. I have to say this one is beginning to have a few of the very negative tactics against Theresa May that were used against Miliband, namely facial tics. It was in poor taste in 2015, and its in poor taste now.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
0 -
How many times do I have to say this? Andrew Murray is not an "ultra-leftist". Until recently he was a tankie, and for all I know he may well still be one, although certainly Labour is not standing on a tankie platform. Ultra-leftists oppose Leninism in all of its variants (Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.), and they oppose parliamentarism and usually national liberation too. They are nothing like tankies, and their attitude towards the Labour party is totally different from the tankie attitude.leomckinstry said:the appointment of ultra-leftist Andrew Murray as camaign co-ordinator
And you, Leo, praised Gerry Adams in the notoriously spooked-up Prospect magazine in 1999 as a "hero of the peace process".
0 -
The circumstances conspired against Ed M.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
1. His brother was the favourite
2. He won because of union votes
3. At the time (seems crazy now) he was considered more radical and leftist.
All that created a narrative that he snatched the leadership away from the frontrunner and therefore usurped him.
Probably unfair, but it stuck.
0 -
It's been a strange campaign. I've heard virtually nothing from the Tories, and little from anyone else. But Labour are clearly winning the facebook war - I've seen nothing from the Tories on facebook this time - they were quite effective last time - and meanwhile there's a steady drip-drip-drip of very anti-Tory links being posted from the Canary and Anotherangryvoice from the various true believers. And I consume virtually no news through the mainstream news channels nowadays, so if I was an uninterested observer the impression that I'd get were that the Tories were absolutely unelectable. They're either not trying very hard, or not trying very effectively.kle4 said:
I really hope not. I fear his true believers combined with those who think the overwhelming negatives about him must be overblown and so discount it when the Tories perform crappy, will enable him to at least stay on as Labour leader, to their detriment.SeanT said:
I confess I am worried. I thought a solid Tory lead was nailed on.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
But the mood music is still bad on Dementia: those YouGov supplementals were horrible for the Tories.
Would they, could they are, can they, will they.... really vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister??0 -
He's always been Labour.Theuniondivvie said:I wonder how Fergie will be voting?
https://twitter.com/AamerAnwar/status/867828024267374592
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-alex-ferguson-supports-labour-2174740 -
Got a lot of coverage though. That's the point.ThreeQuidder said:
It hasn't been a feature of May's campaign either except that she gave a straight answer to a direct question.Cookie said:
I don't think it was ever a feature of Cameron's campaign, though. As I said, it's an emotioanl reaction rather than an attempt to be consistent. Also, her visceral loathing of Ed Miliband was far more than her baffled contempt for Jeremy Corbyn. Also the Tories are so far ahead it doesn't really seem to matter!alex. said:
So why did she vote for Cameron? Foxhunting toff that he was?Cookie said:HYUFD said:
baseCookie said:Danny565 said:
Fox hunting isn't new for the Tories, but it's new for May -- she had cast herself, with some success, as being a new type of Tory who cared about the NHS, the working class, taking on rich people's privileges, etc. My sense now is that, since the fox-hunting statement, the public's image of her has morphed more into a "typical Tory toff", with all the negative associations people have with that type of image on other issues. Women especially are mentioning it a lot, as an example of how their opinion on May has changed.woody662 said:
Fox hunting is hardly new, probably never Tories.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
It's a bit like Corbyn not singing the national anthem -- the reason that's such a big deal is not just because of the national anthem issue itself, it's about what it says to the public about Corbyn as a person generally, and the prism through which they view his stances on other issues.
(I will add that I'm still expecting the Tories to win the election with an increased majority, just in case anyone is planning to quote this post back at me in a few weeks!)
I'm just confirming that fox-hunting is having an impact. I'm not attempting to justify a position one way or another.0 -
Its curious how all these people who talk about solidarity with the miners were so quiet about all the pits shut by every Labour government.Theuniondivvie said:I wonder how Fergie will be voting?
https://twitter.com/AamerAnwar/status/867828024267374592
Or for that matter that manufacturing employment fell in every successive quarter from 1998q1 to 2010q2.
Perhaps they were different sorts of miners and factory workers to the ones they talked so much about before 1997 and after 2010.0 -
Went to Shoeburyness a couple of months ago, although first did the train station 10 years ago.0
-
Show me the calculations for how many jobs get lost by raising Corporation Tax, and the consequential loss of Income Tax - and I will be prepared to revise my considered opinion that Labour's economic offering is a pile of shite.rkrkrk said:
I can't speak for the campaign which has clearly had some low points - personally Dianne Abbott was the worst... But the manifesto seems to have been well received by the public.leomckinstry said:I think some of this hype about the supposed brilliance of the Labour campaign is wildly exaggerated. Let's just remember some of the highlights: Diane Abbott's maths, Angela Rayner's maths, shambles over Trident renewal, McDonnell's rant in front of Stalinist flags at May Day, Corbyn's confusion over the benefits freeze, Burnham refusing to be present for Corbyn's post-poll victory rally to Manchester, Labour candidates refusing to feature their own leader on their campaign material because of his toxicity, the appointment of ultra-leftist Andrew Murray as camaign co-ordinator, Corbyn's refusal to condemn the IRA. If any of these things had happened to previous Labour leaders, they would have been crucified. But we have become so desensitized to Corbyn's extremism and incompetence that none of this seems to matter. Expectations are so low that he is being given an easy ride. Moreover, the very fact that he is not thought likely to win frees his party to be utterly irresponsible about the costs of its policies, breezily announcing £9 billion here (abolition of tuition fees) or £8 billion there (annual increase for the NHS). No previous Labour campaign could have away with such fiscal recklessness. But Corbyn is able to spout profligate, spendthrift nonsense precisely because he is not seen as a likely Prime Minister.
And you won't like this but the idea that it is fiscally reckless isnt accurate.
Labour are proposing more spending and more taxes and one pays for the other. It's a political choice to abolish tuition fees, spend more on the NHS and raise taxes and they are perfectly entitled to make the case for it.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/but-do-numbers-add-up.html?m=10 -
Other than a bounce when May called the GE, the Tory rating has been remarkably stable. As ever, look at the share, not the lead.Wulfrun_Phil said:
If in your view the Labour campaign has been poor, the Tory one so far has to be judged as truly dire, given the change in the polls since things kicked off.leomckinstry said:If any of these things had happened to previous Labour leaders, they would have been crucified. But we have become so desensitized to Corbyn's extremism and incompetence that none of this seems to matter. Expectations are so low that he is being given an easy ride.
0 -
You are obviously not their target demographic.Cookie said:
It's been a strange campaign. I've heard virtually nothing from the Tories, and little from anyone else. But Labour are clearly winning the facebook war - I've seen nothing from the Tories on facebook this time - they were quite effective last time - and meanwhile there's a steady drip-drip-drip of very anti-Tory links being posted from the Canary and Anotherangryvoice from the various true believers. And I consume virtually no news through the mainstream news channels nowadays, so if I was an uninterested observer the impression that I'd get were that the Tories were absolutely unelectable. They're either not trying very hard, or not trying very effectively.kle4 said:
I really hope not. I fear his true believers combined with those who think the overwhelming negatives about him must be overblown and so discount it when the Tories perform crappy, will enable him to at least stay on as Labour leader, to their detriment.SeanT said:
I confess I am worried. I thought a solid Tory lead was nailed on.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
But the mood music is still bad on Dementia: those YouGov supplementals were horrible for the Tories.
Would they, could they are, can they, will they.... really vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister??
0 -
That wasn't the stitch-up.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
Apparently Ed talked David out of challenging Gordo when he might have won.0 -
I'm an only child, so I'm not the best authority - but some I know with siblings said there's no way they'd compete with their sibling for a job. They'd find the idea utterly unthinkable. And David was the one who was most obvisouly interested, so he gets first dibs.numbertwelve said:
The circumstances conspired against Ed M.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
1. His brother was the favourite
2. He won because of union votes
3. At the time (seems crazy now) he was considered more radical and leftist.
All that created a narrative that he snatched the leadership away from the frontrunner and therefore usurped him.
Probably unfair, but it stuck.0 -
Should that be not one switcher from Tory to Labour?HYUFD said:
Yes, I phoned on Monday entirely post 'dementia tax' in the West Midlands and got not one switcher from Labour to the Tories but a number from Labour and UKIP to the Tories, the West Midlands will see probably the biggest swing to the Tories in the UK, London barely any swing, London was the only region of the UK yougov had more than double digit opposition to the dementia plans (and that was pre u turn)0 -
As I have said before it depends on the level of the means test . The Conservatives wont say the level and how many will be hit by it .HYUFD said:
The polls actually backed means testing winter fuelSeanT said:
The polls barely budged after the fox hunting announcement. It was Dementia and Winter Fuel, as we all know.Cookie said:
My wife probably isn't going to vote Tory, purely because of fox hunting. It may or may not be the right thing to do, but I don't think it's helped electorally. There aren't many people going to shift into the blue column because the Tories have announced a free vote on fox hunting.Danny565 said:
Fox hunting isn't new for the Tories, but it's new for May -- she had cast herself, with some success, as being a new type of Tory who cared about the NHS, the working class, taking on rich people's privileges, etc. My sense now is that, since the fox-hunting statement, the public's image of her has morphed more into a "typical Tory toff", with all the negative associations people have with that type of image on other issues. Women especially are mentioning it a lot, as an example of how their opinion on May has changed.woody662 said:
Fox hunting is hardly new, probably never Tories.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
It's a bit like Corbyn not singing the national anthem -- the reason that's such a big deal is not just because of the national anthem issue itself, it's about what it says to the public about Corbyn as a person generally, and the prism through which they view his stances on other issues.
(I will add that I'm still expecting the Tories to win the election with an increased majority, just in case anyone is planning to quote this post back at me in a few weeks!)0 -
yep labour are buggered . whilst the tories have made some schoolboy errors with their manifesto labour are still seen and corbyn in particular by the silent majority as too big a risk too dangerous . the only question mark is the size of TM majorityHYUFD said:
From phoning I have done up to Monday there is movement from Labour and especially UKIP to the Tories in the Midlands and North and virtually none from Tory to Labour, the LD vote is holding up in posh Remainier and even winning a few Tories there, Labour also doing better in Remain urban areas so I expect little swing if any to the Tories in Remain parts of London and the South but a big swing to the Tories in industrial Leave areas north of WatfordSeanT said:
I confess I am worried. I thought a solid Tory lead was nailed on.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
But the mood music is still bad on Dementia: those YouGov supplementals were horrible for the Tories.
Would they, could they are, can they, will they.... really vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister??0 -
I've never heard the term, but google says 'A Tankie is an apologist for the violence and crimes against humanity perpetrated by twentieth-century Marxist-Leninist regimes, particularly the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin'.Cyan said:
How many times do I have to say this? Andrew Murray is not an "ultra-leftist". Until recently he was a tankie, and for all I know he may well still be one, although certainly Labour is not standing on a tankie platform. Ultra-leftists oppose Leninism in all of its variants (Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.), and they oppose parliamentarism and usually national liberation too. They are nothing like tankies, and their attitude towards the Labour party is totally different from the tankie attitude.leomckinstry said:the appointment of ultra-leftist Andrew Murray as camaign co-ordinator
Seems pretty ultra-lefty to me - just that like all people on the extremes of any side, they argue over minute differences and claim fellow travellers wrong in just one area are not true followers.
0 -
Lots of people had always been SLAB......The_Apocalypse said:
He's always been Labour.Theuniondivvie said:I wonder how Fergie will be voting?
https://twitter.com/AamerAnwar/status/867828024267374592
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-alex-ferguson-supports-labour-2174740 -
So did Cameron's in 2015.Cookie said:
Got a lot of coverage though. That's the point.ThreeQuidder said:
It hasn't been a feature of May's campaign either except that she gave a straight answer to a direct question.Cookie said:
I don't think it was ever a feature of Cameron's campaign, though. As I said, it's an emotioanl reaction rather than an attempt to be consistent. Also, her visceral loathing of Ed Miliband was far more than her baffled contempt for Jeremy Corbyn. Also the Tories are so far ahead it doesn't really seem to matter!alex. said:
So why did she vote for Cameron? Foxhunting toff that he was?Cookie said:HYUFD said:
baseCookie said:Danny565 said:
Fox hunting isn't new for the Tories, but it's new for May -- she had cast herself, with some success, as being a new type of Tory who cared about the NHS, the working class, taking on rich people's privileges, etc. My sense now is that, since the fox-hunting statement, the public's image of her has morphed more into a "typical Tory toff", with all the negative associations people have with that type of image on other issues. Women especially are mentioning it a lot, as an example of how their opinion on May has changed.woody662 said:
Fox hunting is hardly new, probably never Tories.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
It's a bit like Corbyn not singing the national anthem -- the reason that's such a big deal is not just because of the national anthem issue itself, it's about what it says to the public about Corbyn as a person generally, and the prism through which they view his stances on other issues.
(I will add that I'm still expecting the Tories to win the election with an increased majority, just in case anyone is planning to quote this post back at me in a few weeks!)
I'm just confirming that fox-hunting is having an impact. I'm not attempting to justify a position one way or another.0 -
Do 'phone bankers' only call landlines?0
-
Tbf an event commemorating something that happened 50 years ago might tend to be a tad retrospective.DeClare said:
He likes to keep up with current events doesn't he?Theuniondivvie said:I wonder how Fergie will be voting?
https://twitter.com/AamerAnwar/status/8678280242673745920 -
Facebook is an echo chamber. It is not representative of the public at large.Cookie said:
It's been a strange campaign. I've heard virtually nothing from the Tories, and little from anyone else. But Labour are clearly winning the facebook war - I've seen nothing from the Tories on facebook this time - they were quite effective last time - and meanwhile there's a steady drip-drip-drip of very anti-Tory links being posted from the Canary and Anotherangryvoice from the various true believers. And I consume virtually no news through the mainstream news channels nowadays, so if I was an uninterested observer the impression that I'd get were that the Tories were absolutely unelectable. They're either not trying very hard, or not trying very effectively.kle4 said:
I really hope not. I fear his true believers combined with those who think the overwhelming negatives about him must be overblown and so discount it when the Tories perform crappy, will enable him to at least stay on as Labour leader, to their detriment.SeanT said:
I confess I am worried. I thought a solid Tory lead was nailed on.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
But the mood music is still bad on Dementia: those YouGov supplementals were horrible for the Tories.
Would they, could they are, can they, will they.... really vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister??
People brag about voting Labour on social media. They are vocal about it. Tories? Less so.0 -
How does she think EdM 'stiched his brother up' ?Cookie said:
Yes, because she ABSOLUTELY LOATHED Ed MIliband after the way he stitched his brother up. And in 2010, because Gordon Brown. But she voted Labour 97-05, because Tony Blair. She's not going to vote for Corbyn, though, obviously, and we live in a safe Labour seat even at this election, so it's not going to have any effect, but it might be the first time she ever hasn't voted for the winner.HYUFD said:
Did she vote Tory in 2015 though? Cameron actually went foxhunting unlike May so I can't see the Tories losing many votes over it either, it is more something for the rural baseCookie said:
My wife probably isn't going to vote Tory, purely because of fox hunting. It may or may not be the right thing to do, but I don't think it's helped electorally. There aren't many people going to shift into the blue column because the Tories have announced a free vote on fox hunting.Danny565 said:
Fox hunting isn't new for the Tories, but it's new for May -- she had cast herself, with some success, as being a new type of Tory who cared about the NHS, the working class, taking on rich people's privileges, etc. My sense now is that, since the fox-hunting statement, the public's image of her has morphed more into a "typical Tory toff", with all the negative associations people have with that type of image on other issues. Women especially are mentioning it a lot, as an example of how their opinion on May has changed.woody662 said:
Fox hunting is hardly new, probably never Tories.
It's a bit like Corbyn not singing the national anthem -- the reason that's such a big deal is not just because of the national anthem issue itself, it's about what it says to the public about Corbyn as a person generally, and the prism through which they view his stances on other issues.
(I will add that I'm still expecting the Tories to win the election with an increased majority, just in case anyone is planning to quote this post back at me in a few weeks!)
She's a fascinating political bellwether, actually. She's very well-educated and has worked for the civil service - but she basically almost always votes for the party with the leader she most likes. She's a salutary reminder that most of my over-analysis is about things which most voters pay almost no heed of.
But she does notice a vote on fox hunting. She's not even particularly animal-rightsy, it's just something which instinctively feels very wrong to her.
Even though everyone in the Labour party seems to be related to each other they don't have same succession laws as the royal family.
0 -
I think it will now be closer to 100 than 150 but it will be clear majority yeskjohnw said:
yep labour are buggered . whilst the tories have made some schoolboy errors with their manifesto labour are still seen and corbyn in particular by the silent majority as too big a risk too dangerous . the only question mark is the size of TM majorityHYUFD said:
From phoning I have done up to Monday there is movement from Labour and especially UKIP to the Tories in the Midlands and North and virtually none from Tory to Labour, the LD vote is holding up in posh Remainier and even winning a few Tories there, Labour also doing better in Remain urban areas so I expect little swing if any to the Tories in Remain parts of London and the South but a big swing to the Tories in industrial Leave areas north of WatfordSeanT said:
I confess I am worried. I thought a solid Tory lead was nailed on.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
But the mood music is still bad on Dementia: those YouGov supplementals were horrible for the Tories.
Would they, could they are, can they, will they.... really vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister??
0 -
Perhaps so, but for many it is the main way they are aware of current affairs.numbertwelve said:
Facebook is an echo chamber. It is not representative of the public at large.Cookie said:
It's been a strange campaign. I've heard virtually nothing from the Tories, and little from anyone else. But Labour are clearly winning the facebook war - I've seen nothing from the Tories on facebook this time - they were quite effective last time - and meanwhile there's a steady drip-drip-drip of very anti-Tory links being posted from the Canary and Anotherangryvoice from the various true believers. And I consume virtually no news through the mainstream news channels nowadays, so if I was an uninterested observer the impression that I'd get were that the Tories were absolutely unelectable. They're either not trying very hard, or not trying very effectively.kle4 said:
I really hope not. I fear his true believers combined with those who think the overwhelming negatives about him must be overblown and so discount it when the Tories perform crappy, will enable him to at least stay on as Labour leader, to their detriment.SeanT said:
I confess I am worried. I thought a solid Tory lead was nailed on.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
But the mood music is still bad on Dementia: those YouGov supplementals were horrible for the Tories.
Would they, could they are, can they, will they.... really vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister??
People brag about voting Labour on social media. They are vocal about it. Tories? Less so.0 -
Yes, apologiesMarqueeMark said:
Should that be not one switcher from Tory to Labour?HYUFD said:
Yes, I phoned on Monday entirely post 'dementia tax' in the West Midlands and got not one switcher from Labour to the Tories but a number from Labour and UKIP to the Tories, the West Midlands will see probably the biggest swing to the Tories in the UK, London barely any swing, London was the only region of the UK yougov had more than double digit opposition to the dementia plans (and that was pre u turn)0 -
Are you in a marginal?Cookie said:
Perhaps so, but for many it is the main way they are aware of current affairs.numbertwelve said:
Facebook is an echo chamber. It is not representative of the public at large.Cookie said:
It's been a strange campaign. I've heard virtually nothing from the Tories, and little from anyone else. But Labour are clearly winning the facebook war - I've seen nothing from the Tories on facebook this time - they were quite effective last time - and meanwhile there's a steady drip-drip-drip of very anti-Tory links being posted from the Canary and Anotherangryvoice from the various true believers. And I consume virtually no news through the mainstream news channels nowadays, so if I was an uninterested observer the impression that I'd get were that the Tories were absolutely unelectable. They're either not trying very hard, or not trying very effectively.kle4 said:
I really hope not. I fear his true believers combined with those who think the overwhelming negatives about him must be overblown and so discount it when the Tories perform crappy, will enable him to at least stay on as Labour leader, to their detriment.SeanT said:
I confess I am worried. I thought a solid Tory lead was nailed on.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
But the mood music is still bad on Dementia: those YouGov supplementals were horrible for the Tories.
Would they, could they are, can they, will they.... really vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister??
People brag about voting Labour on social media. They are vocal about it. Tories? Less so.0 -
However voters support the principleMarkSenior said:
As I have said before it depends on the level of the means test . The Conservatives wont say the level and how many will be hit by it .HYUFD said:
The polls actually backed means testing winter fuelSeanT said:
The polls barely budged after the fox hunting announcement. It was Dementia and Winter Fuel, as we all know.Cookie said:
My wife probably isn't going to vote Tory, purely because of fox hunting. It may or may not be the right thing to do, but I don't think it's helped electorally. There aren't many people going to shift into the blue column because the Tories have announced a free vote on fox hunting.Danny565 said:
Fox hunting isn't new for the Tories, but it's new for May -- she had cast herself, with some success, as being a new type of Tory who cared about the NHS, the working class, taking on rich people's privileges, etc. My sense now is that, since the fox-hunting statement, the public's image of her has morphed more into a "typical Tory toff", with all the negative associations people have with that type of image on other issues. Women especially are mentioning it a lot, as an example of how their opinion on May has changed.woody662 said:
Fox hunting is hardly new, probably never Tories.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
It's a bit like Corbyn not singing the national anthem -- the reason that's such a big deal is not just because of the national anthem issue itself, it's about what it says to the public about Corbyn as a person generally, and the prism through which they view his stances on other issues.
(I will add that I'm still expecting the Tories to win the election with an increased majority, just in case anyone is planning to quote this post back at me in a few weeks!)0 -
Which ballot papers do you believe will have that question on them?woody662 said:When they have the ballot paper in front if them, May or Corbyn is the only question.
0 -
If Ed thought he would do a better job, David getting the job would probably lock him out of a chance forever, why should let him have first dibs? Depending on whether he talked David out of challenging Gordon, or said he wouldn't do it or whatever, that might not reflect well on him, but choosing to do it despite the inevitable family tension it would cause, showed some guts and confidence. I've nothing but older brothers, and I'd feel awkward competing with them for a job, but it's politics, the country comes before familial top trumps.Cookie said:
I'm an only child, so I'm not the best authority - but some I know with siblings said there's no way they'd compete with their sibling for a job. They'd find the idea utterly unthinkable. And David was the one who was most obvisouly interested, so he gets first dibs.numbertwelve said:
The circumstances conspired against Ed M.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
1. His brother was the favourite
2. He won because of union votes
3. At the time (seems crazy now) he was considered more radical and leftist.
All that created a narrative that he snatched the leadership away from the frontrunner and therefore usurped him.
Probably unfair, but it stuck.0 -
From the point of view of some Labour supporters, May's backing for foxhunting sums up the Tory brand:Cookie said:
Got a lot of coverage though. That's the point.ThreeQuidder said:
It hasn't been a feature of May's campaign either except that she gave a straight answer to a direct question.Cookie said:
I don't think it was ever a feature of Cameron's campaign, though. As I said, it's an emotioanl reaction rather than an attempt to be consistent. Also, her visceral loathing of Ed Miliband was far more than her baffled contempt for Jeremy Corbyn. Also the Tories are so far ahead it doesn't really seem to matter!alex. said:
So why did she vote for Cameron? Foxhunting toff that he was?Cookie said:HYUFD said:
baseCookie said:Danny565 said:
Fox hunting isn't new for the Tories, but it's new for May -- she had cast herself, with some success, as being a new type of Tory who cared about the NHS, the working class, taking on rich people's privileges, etc. My sense now is that, since the fox-hunting statement, the public's image of her has morphed more into a "typical Tory toff", with all the negative associations people have with that type of image on other issues. Women especially are mentioning it a lot, as an example of how their opinion on May has changed.woody662 said:
Fox hunting is hardly new, probably never Tories.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
It's a bit like Corbyn not singing the national anthem -- the reason that's such a big deal is not just because of the national anthem issue itself, it's about what it says to the public about Corbyn as a person generally, and the prism through which they view his stances on other issues.
(I will add that I'm still expecting the Tories to win the election with an increased majority, just in case anyone is planning to quote this post back at me in a few weeks!)
I'm just confirming that fox-hunting is having an impact. I'm not attempting to justify a position one way or another.
0 -
As people celebrate and lament on Brexit and other referendums, people are perfectly capable of voting for reasons not entirely connect to the specific question on the ballot paper. The leader's of each party are hugely relevant for how many people choose to vote in their constituency, if they are a swing voter at least, that is uncontroversial.oldpolitics said:
Which ballot papers do you believe will have that question on them?woody662 said:When they have the ballot paper in front if them, May or Corbyn is the only question.
0 -
Those people were always voting Labour anyway.Cyan said:
From the point of view of some Labour supporters, May's backing for foxhunting sums up the Tory brand:Cookie said:
Got a lot of coverage though. That's the point.ThreeQuidder said:
It hasn't been a feature of May's campaign either except that she gave a straight answer to a direct question.Cookie said:
I don't think it was ever a feature of Cameron's campaign, though. As I said, it's an emotioanl reaction rather than an attempt to be consistent. Also, her visceral loathing of Ed Miliband was far more than her baffled contempt for Jeremy Corbyn. Also the Tories are so far ahead it doesn't really seem to matter!alex. said:
So why did she vote for Cameron? Foxhunting toff that he was?Cookie said:HYUFD said:
baseCookie said:Danny565 said:
Fox hunting isn't new for the Tories, but it's new for May -- she had cast herself, with some success, as being a new type of Tory who cared about the NHS, the working class, taking on rich people's privileges, etc. My sense now is that, since the fox-hunting statement, the public's image of her has morphed more into a "typical Tory toff", with all the negative associations people have with that type of image on other issues. Women especially are mentioning it a lot, as an example of how their opinion on May has changed.woody662 said:
Fox hunting is hardly new, probably never Tories.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
It's a bit like Corbyn not singing the national anthem -- the reason that's such a big deal is not just because of the national anthem issue itself, it's about what it says to the public about Corbyn as a person generally, and the prism through which they view his stances on other issues.
(I will add that I'm still expecting the Tories to win the election with an increased majority, just in case anyone is planning to quote this post back at me in a few weeks!)
I'm just confirming that fox-hunting is having an impact. I'm not attempting to justify a position one way or another.
0 -
-
Many on the left think the Tories will privatise the NHS.0
-
Oh you may not like it - but if you want to increase public spending the responsible thing to do is to raise taxes and specify which taxes.MarqueeMark said:
Show me the calculations for how many jobs get lost by raising Corporation Tax, and the consequential loss of Income Tax - and I will be prepared to revise my considered opinion that Labour's economic offering is a pile of shite.rkrkrk said:
I can't speak for the campaign which has clearly had some low points - personally Dianne Abbott was the worst... But the manifesto seems to have been well received by the public.leomckinstry said:I think some of this hype about the supposed brilliance of the Labour campaign is wildly exaggerated. Let's just remember some of the highlights: Diane Abbott's maths, Angela Rayner's maths, shambles over Trident renewal, McDonnell's rant in front of Stalinist flags at May Day, Corbyn's confusion over the benefits freeze, Burnham refusing to be present for Corbyn's post-poll victory rally to Manchester, Labour candidates refusing to feature their own leader on their campaign material because of his toxicity, the appointment of ultra-leftist Andrew Murray as camaign co-ordinator, Corbyn's refusal to condemn the IRA. If any of these things had happened to previous Labour leaders, they would have been crucified. But we have become so desensitized to Corbyn's extremism and incompetence that none of this seems to matter. Expectations are so low that he is being given an easy ride. Moreover, the very fact that he is not thought likely to win frees his party to be utterly irresponsible about the costs of its policies, breezily announcing £9 billion here (abolition of tuition fees) or £8 billion there (annual increase for the NHS). No previous Labour campaign could have away with such fiscal recklessness. But Corbyn is able to spout profligate, spendthrift nonsense precisely because he is not seen as a likely Prime Minister.
And you won't like this but the idea that it is fiscally reckless isnt accurate.
Labour are proposing more spending and more taxes and one pays for the other. It's a political choice to abolish tuition fees, spend more on the NHS and raise taxes and they are perfectly entitled to make the case for it.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/but-do-numbers-add-up.html?m=1
Personally I doubt that raising corporation tax but still leaving it lower than it was in 2010 will have that much of an effect but it's debatable. As the article I linked to said there is a multiplier effect to public investment in the current circumstances which would have the opposite effect to the increase in corporation tax on investment.
I'd be keen to have the OBR assess manifestos but Osborne said no to that.0 -
They do a poor job of it.The_Apocalypse said:Many on the left think the Tories will privatise the NHS.
0 -
did he say they need us more than we need them?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Hasn't private provision increased more under Labour?The_Apocalypse said:Many on the left think the Tories will privatise the NHS.
Oh wait, that was the New Labour (war criminal) party. My mistake.
0 -
Surely paging all those Leavers/Trumpers who said Trump would be great for free trade?RobD said:0 -
Unfortunately they are wrong.The_Apocalypse said:Many on the left think the Tories will privatise the NHS.
0 -
Looks like that 10pm story is a Labour attack on the Tories.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/8678368534451200010 -
If Labour blame the bombing on May, then that is shameless.0
-
Attacking on national security?TheScreamingEagles said:Looks like that 10pm story is a Labour attack on the Tories.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/8678368534451200010 -
Harry Cole now teasing on twitter re 10 o'clock smear. Looks definitely Labour at it0
-
Complete crap.Cookie said:
I'm an only child, so I'm not the best authority - but some I know with siblings said there's no way they'd compete with their sibling for a job. They'd find the idea utterly unthinkable. And David was the one who was most obvisouly interested, so he gets first dibs.numbertwelve said:
The circumstances conspired against Ed M.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
1. His brother was the favourite
2. He won because of union votes
3. At the time (seems crazy now) he was considered more radical and leftist.
All that created a narrative that he snatched the leadership away from the frontrunner and therefore usurped him.
Probably unfair, but it stuck.
David Miliband had had at least four opportunities to challenge Brown for the Labour leadership and lost his bottle each time.
He was a complacent coward who thought all he had to do was wait and he would be offered the Labour leadership on a plate.
When the time came he ran an ineffective leadership campaign and was beaten by a better politician.0 -
Looks like German car makers will want to avoid tariffs from the UK thenTheScreamingEagles said:0 -
If only. At least I'd have a reason to vote for them other than "not Jez".The_Apocalypse said:Many on the left think the Tories will privatise the NHS.
0 -
And an enormous political mistake. For as long as Labour are talking about national security, they've lost. It's that simple.Razedabode said:If Labour blame the bombing on May, then that is shameless.
0 -
It is no secret that most GP practices are private businesses.The_Apocalypse said:Many on the left think the Tories will privatise the NHS.
Also mosr drugs are discovered and made by proivate businesses.
Also the hospital surgeons' equipment is provided by private businesses
Also ..........
What's not to like?0 -
The rumour is that David Miliband was going to follow James Purcell out of the cabinet in June 2009.another_richard said:
Complete crap.Cookie said:
I'm an only child, so I'm not the best authority - but some I know with siblings said there's no way they'd compete with their sibling for a job. They'd find the idea utterly unthinkable. And David was the one who was most obvisouly interested, so he gets first dibs.numbertwelve said:
The circumstances conspired against Ed M.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
1. His brother was the favourite
2. He won because of union votes
3. At the time (seems crazy now) he was considered more radical and leftist.
All that created a narrative that he snatched the leadership away from the frontrunner and therefore usurped him.
Probably unfair, but it stuck.
David Miliband had had at least four opportunities to challenge Brown for the Labour leadership and lost his bottle each time.
He was a complacent coward who thought all he had to do was wait and he would be offered the Labour leadership on a plate.
When the time came he ran an ineffective leadership campaign and was beaten by a better politician.
But Ed Miliband persuaded him not to do so, told him to think he should think about the greater good of the Labour party, and that if Brown lost in 2010, then Ed would back David for the leadership.
That's why David Miliband felt betrayed by Ed.0 -
They've had 25 years under Thatcher, Major, Cameron and May to do so.The_Apocalypse said:Many on the left think the Tories will privatise the NHS.
So if that is the plan they're being bloody slow about it.0 -
@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)0 -
Thank God it wasn't the Tories going on the offensive.0
-
I really doubt that would be what they do - the discipline of their campaign to date shows they still have sense. Attacking May's record, maybe.Razedabode said:If Labour blame the bombing on May, then that is shameless.
0 -
You'd be surprised at how many people don't know that most GP practices are private businesses.David_Evershed said:
It is no secret that most GP practices are private businesses.The_Apocalypse said:Many on the left think the Tories will privatise the NHS.
0 -
If so it looks like the 2017 "Ed Stone" I have been awaiting is about to be delivered. But even I don't think they would be so stupid.TheWhiteRabbit said:
And an enormous political mistake. For as long as Labour are talking about national security, they've lost. It's that simple.Razedabode said:If Labour blame the bombing on May, then that is shameless.
0 -
An incredible risk. If they are going for national security then I feel like Labour have given up.SeanT said:
Massively risky. Implies that their canvassing/private polling shows that the surge has ended, and TMay is heading for a big win. So they might as well roll the dice.numbertwelve said:
Attacking on national security?TheScreamingEagles said:Looks like that 10pm story is a Labour attack on the Tories.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/8678368534451200010 -
-
If you say so, but most people don't know that detail, so wouldn't think Ed M particularly shady for that I would hope.TheScreamingEagles said:
The rumour is that David Miliband was going to follow James Purcell out of the cabinet in June 2009.another_richard said:
Complete crap.Cookie said:
I'm an only child, so I'm not the best authority - but some I know with siblings said there's no way they'd compete with their sibling for a job. They'd find the idea utterly unthinkable. And David was the one who was most obvisouly interested, so he gets first dibs.numbertwelve said:
The circumstances conspired against Ed M.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
1. His brother was the favourite
2. He won because of union votes
3. At the time (seems crazy now) he was considered more radical and leftist.
All that created a narrative that he snatched the leadership away from the frontrunner and therefore usurped him.
Probably unfair, but it stuck.
David Miliband had had at least four opportunities to challenge Brown for the Labour leadership and lost his bottle each time.
He was a complacent coward who thought all he had to do was wait and he would be offered the Labour leadership on a plate.
When the time came he ran an ineffective leadership campaign and was beaten by a better politician.
But Ed Miliband persuaded him not to do so, told him to think he should think about the greater good of the Labour party, and that if Brown lost in 2010, then Ed would back David for the leadership.
That's why David Miliband felt betrayed by Ed.0 -
Taken at height of dementia-gate.Scott_P said:@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)0 -
Labour Majority has come in from 42 to 30 in the last hour.
Though Con maj and NOM unmoved.0 -
Aye, but I just wondered how the current Corbasm was going down with folk like him. Labour goes incredibly deep with these guys, I'm just wondering how deep.The_Apocalypse said:
He's always been Labour.Theuniondivvie said:I wonder how Fergie will be voting?
https://twitter.com/AamerAnwar/status/867828024267374592
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-alex-ferguson-supports-labour-2174740 -
Possibly taken at peak Tory crapness and still 8 points aheadScott_P said:@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)0 -
Not good for lab, but not relevant now.Scott_P said:@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)
Con really did take a hit with that manifesto.0 -
You know, I really hope that's what Labour's up to. The Tories need to get some fucking fire in their bellies and grind Corbyn's cuddly old man reputation into dust. Why the hell are they on the defensive against Corbyn, of all Labour leaders in history?SeanT said:
Massively risky. Implies that their canvassing/private polling shows that the surge has ended, and TMay is heading for a big win. So they might as well roll the dice.numbertwelve said:
Attacking on national security?TheScreamingEagles said:Looks like that 10pm story is a Labour attack on the Tories.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/8678368534451200010 -
I hope that's as close as they get, for their own sake. Not expecting later fielddates to do more than edge back to Tories. Lead in the low tens now looking probable, given Labour surge is real.(or at least uniform).Scott_P said:@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)0 -
Hmm. Labour bump continues to be borne out. Of course, fieldwork ended on the 22nd..Scott_P said:@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)0 -
That makes sense as a reason for bitterness.TheScreamingEagles said:
The rumour is that David Miliband was going to follow James Purcell out of the cabinet in June 2009.another_richard said:
Complete crap.Cookie said:
I'm an only child, so I'm not the best authority - but some I know with siblings said there's no way they'd compete with their sibling for a job. They'd find the idea utterly unthinkable. And David was the one who was most obvisouly interested, so he gets first dibs.numbertwelve said:
The circumstances conspired against Ed M.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
1. His brother was the favourite
2. He won because of union votes
3. At the time (seems crazy now) he was considered more radical and leftist.
All that created a narrative that he snatched the leadership away from the frontrunner and therefore usurped him.
Probably unfair, but it stuck.
David Miliband had had at least four opportunities to challenge Brown for the Labour leadership and lost his bottle each time.
He was a complacent coward who thought all he had to do was wait and he would be offered the Labour leadership on a plate.
When the time came he ran an ineffective leadership campaign and was beaten by a better politician.
But Ed Miliband persuaded him not to do so, told him to think he should think about the greater good of the Labour party, and that if Brown lost in 2010, then Ed would back David for the leadership.
That's why David Miliband felt betrayed by Ed.
Seems strange to me that I've never heard that explanation until now.
I always thought it was very poor of David to leave for the states and not stay to help his brother.0 -
Yes I would expect that most people are unaware of that.Rhubarb said:
You'd be surprised at how many people don't know that most GP practices are private businesses.David_Evershed said:
It is no secret that most GP practices are private businesses.The_Apocalypse said:Many on the left think the Tories will privatise the NHS.
0 -
And @kle4another_richard said:
They've had 25 years under Thatcher, Major, Cameron and May to do so.The_Apocalypse said:Many on the left think the Tories will privatise the NHS.
So if that is the plan they're being bloody slow about it.
Well, exactly.
Labour have said so many times the Tories are going to privatise the NHS - the ironic thing is, a lot of people on my side don't know they've won the argument on healthcare being something that should be provided for by the state.0 -
I really can't see DM resigning in June 2009.TheScreamingEagles said:
The rumour is that David Miliband was going to follow James Purcell out of the cabinet in June 2009.another_richard said:
Complete crap.Cookie said:
I'm an only child, so I'm not the best authority - but some I know with siblings said there's no way they'd compete with their sibling for a job. They'd find the idea utterly unthinkable. And David was the one who was most obvisouly interested, so he gets first dibs.numbertwelve said:
The circumstances conspired against Ed M.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
1. His brother was the favourite
2. He won because of union votes
3. At the time (seems crazy now) he was considered more radical and leftist.
All that created a narrative that he snatched the leadership away from the frontrunner and therefore usurped him.
Probably unfair, but it stuck.
David Miliband had had at least four opportunities to challenge Brown for the Labour leadership and lost his bottle each time.
He was a complacent coward who thought all he had to do was wait and he would be offered the Labour leadership on a plate.
When the time came he ran an ineffective leadership campaign and was beaten by a better politician.
But Ed Miliband persuaded him not to do so, told him to think he should think about the greater good of the Labour party, and that if Brown lost in 2010, then Ed would back David for the leadership.
That's why David Miliband felt betrayed by Ed.
That would have taken some courage and the ability to make a decisive decision.
I think he was hoping that the various anti-Brown resignations which took place between 2008 and 2010 would bring down Gordon but wanted to play the 'loyal man'.0 -
Peak dementia tax, mostly before the events in Manchester too
Kantar-TNS poll
Westminster voting intention:
Con 42% (-5) Lab 34% (+5) LD 9% (+1) UKIP 4% (-2) Greens 4% (nc)
Fieldwork 18th - 22nd May0 -
The correct actions were followed in reporting him. Sadly the correct actions don't always lead to the best outcome. In fact it is inevitable that this will happen.TheScreamingEagles said:
I for one thank all those who did report their suspicions.0 -
All the way.Theuniondivvie said:
Aye, but I just wondered how the current Corbasm was going down with folk like him. Labour goes incredibly deep with these guys, I'm just wondering how deep.The_Apocalypse said:
He's always been Labour.Theuniondivvie said:I wonder how Fergie will be voting?
https://twitter.com/AamerAnwar/status/867828024267374592
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-alex-ferguson-supports-labour-2174740 -
Depends if Corbyn actually has ambitions to win. If he's just looking to stay in position then it is in his interests to polarise the electorate as much as possible. A polarised electorate will minimise the effect of other parties (I think this is the main reason for the "Labour surge" - they are taking benefiting from the two party share of the vote increasing). And going on something like this is definitely polarising - especially if the Tories respond in kind.TheWhiteRabbit said:
And an enormous political mistake. For as long as Labour are talking about national security, they've lost. It's that simple.Razedabode said:If Labour blame the bombing on May, then that is shameless.
0 -
Wow - that would probably be a small, maybe even reduced majority for TM right?Scott_P said:@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)0 -
Really makes you worry if there are 500 people that MI5 have judged to be a higher security risk.Pulpstar said:
The correct actions were followed in reporting him. Sadly the correct actions don't always lead to the best outcome. In fact it is inevitable that this will happen.TheScreamingEagles said:
I for one thank all those who did report their suspicions.0 -
He went on an almighty sulk that made Brown and Heath look positively magnanimous.rkrkrk said:
That makes sense as a reason for bitterness.TheScreamingEagles said:
The rumour is that David Miliband was going to follow James Purcell out of the cabinet in June 2009.another_richard said:
Complete crap.Cookie said:
I'm an only child, so I'm not the best authority - but some I know with siblings said there's no way they'd compete with their sibling for a job. They'd find the idea utterly unthinkable. And David was the one who was most obvisouly interested, so he gets first dibs.numbertwelve said:
The circumstances conspired against Ed M.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
1. His brother was the favourite
2. He won because of union votes
3. At the time (seems crazy now) he was considered more radical and leftist.
All that created a narrative that he snatched the leadership away from the frontrunner and therefore usurped him.
Probably unfair, but it stuck.
David Miliband had had at least four opportunities to challenge Brown for the Labour leadership and lost his bottle each time.
He was a complacent coward who thought all he had to do was wait and he would be offered the Labour leadership on a plate.
When the time came he ran an ineffective leadership campaign and was beaten by a better politician.
But Ed Miliband persuaded him not to do so, told him to think he should think about the greater good of the Labour party, and that if Brown lost in 2010, then Ed would back David for the leadership.
That's why David Miliband felt betrayed by Ed.
Seems strange to me that I've never heard that explanation until now.
I always thought it was very poor of David to leave for the states and not stay to help his brother.
I do think he felt the leadership should have been his and took his toys home when he lost.0 -
Doubt it. It's still an 8% lead, so increased majority.rkrkrk said:
Wow - that would probably be a small, maybe even reduced majority for TM right?Scott_P said:@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)
Is this poll new btw ?0 -
I recall Paddy power paid out on "Brown is toast" at the height of the speculation (I think just after Purnell had jumped)another_richard said:
I really can't see DM resigning in June 2009.TheScreamingEagles said:
The rumour is that David Miliband was going to follow James Purcell out of the cabinet in June 2009.another_richard said:
Complete crap.Cookie said:
I'm an only child, so I'm not the best authority - but some I know with siblings said there's no way they'd compete with their sibling for a job. They'd find the idea utterly unthinkable. And David was the one who was most obvisouly interested, so he gets first dibs.numbertwelve said:
The circumstances conspired against Ed M.spire2 said:I'm no ed miliband fan but I've never understood this stitching his brother up idea. He beat him in an election when he thought he had the better ideas. Should he have deferred to his brother just because david is older?
1. His brother was the favourite
2. He won because of union votes
3. At the time (seems crazy now) he was considered more radical and leftist.
All that created a narrative that he snatched the leadership away from the frontrunner and therefore usurped him.
Probably unfair, but it stuck.
David Miliband had had at least four opportunities to challenge Brown for the Labour leadership and lost his bottle each time.
He was a complacent coward who thought all he had to do was wait and he would be offered the Labour leadership on a plate.
When the time came he ran an ineffective leadership campaign and was beaten by a better politician.
But Ed Miliband persuaded him not to do so, told him to think he should think about the greater good of the Labour party, and that if Brown lost in 2010, then Ed would back David for the leadership.
That's why David Miliband felt betrayed by Ed.
That would have taken some courage and the ability to make a decisive decision.
I think he was hoping that the various anti-Brown resignations which took place between 2008 and 2010 would bring down Gordon but wanted to play the 'loyal man'.
So it clearly was looking dire for Brown at that point.
I remember because I was arbing the Brown exit date market and won both sides of the bet.
'appy days0 -
Corbyn is holding up better in London because people here are used to him, same thing would have happened if Ken Livingstone had become Labour leader.kjohnw said:
yep labour are buggered . whilst the tories have made some schoolboy errors with their manifesto labour are still seen and corbyn in particular by the silent majority as too big a risk too dangerous . the only question mark is the size of TM majorityHYUFD said:
From phoning I have done up to Monday there is movement from Labour and especially UKIP to the Tories in the Midlands and North and virtually none from Tory to Labour, the LD vote is holding up in posh Remainier and even winning a few Tories there, Labour also doing better in Remain urban areas so I expect little swing if any to the Tories in Remain parts of London and the South but a big swing to the Tories in industrial Leave areas north of WatfordSeanT said:
I confess I am worried. I thought a solid Tory lead was nailed on.Danny565 said:Hmm. Canvassing session today was the most negative for the Tories yet. Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, Dementia Tax, fox-hunting, the entire time.
(Now I'll wait to be embarrassed by a mega Tory lead in a poll this evening....)
But the mood music is still bad on Dementia: those YouGov supplementals were horrible for the Tories.
Would they, could they are, can they, will they.... really vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister??
On the other hand, if a left wing firebrand with a northern accent took over, say someone like Arthur Scargill, they would do less well in London.0 -
Mostly before u turn too, in line with other weekend polls, still a clear Tory lead but only a small pro Tory swing from 2015TheScreamingEagles said:Peak dementia tax, mostly before the events in Manchester too
Kantar-TNS poll
Westminster voting intention:
Con 42% (-5) Lab 34% (+5) LD 9% (+1) UKIP 4% (-2) Greens 4% (nc)
Fieldwork 18th - 22nd May0 -
New in that we've not seen it before. Fieldwork 18-22nd MayPulpstar said:
Doubt it. It's still an 8% lead, so increased majority.rkrkrk said:
Wow - that would probably be a small, maybe even reduced majority for TM right?Scott_P said:@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)
Is this poll new btw ?0 -
Outlier Klaxon!!TheScreamingEagles said:Peak dementia tax, mostly before the events in Manchester too
Kantar-TNS poll
Westminster voting intention:
Con 42% (-5) Lab 34% (+5) LD 9% (+1) UKIP 4% (-2) Greens 4% (nc)
Fieldwork 18th - 22nd May0 -
Yes, although I don't think that's 'privatisation.'RobD said:
Hasn't private provision increased more under Labour?The_Apocalypse said:Many on the left think the Tories will privatise the NHS.
Oh wait, that was the New Labour (war criminal) party. My mistake.
Many on the Left saw it that way though.
I remember them being critical of private provision under New Labour.
If Labour weren't led by Corbyn, they'd be heading for Number 10 right now.Scott_P said:@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)
How can you possibly be only eight points head against the current Labour party? I would not trust Diane Abbott to look after my handbag for a few minutes, let alone run the Home Office!
0
