politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters continue to sell CON seats on the spreads – now down t
Comments
-
From the IFS analysis it was steady as she goes from the Tory manifesto, without many new spending commitments. I don't recall any mention of a black hole on the Tory side.IanB2 said:
The Tories have the slight problem that they didn't trouble themselves with costing their own manifesto.Norm said:
Quite. Where is Hammond btw? Surely the media don't think he's too boring to be of interest.Cyclefree said:
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.eek said:
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...bigjohnowls said:
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.MikeL said:The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.0 -
Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham says Jeremy Corbyn terror speech is wrong
Read more at http://talkradio.co.uk/news/manchester-mayor-andy-burnham-says-jeremy-corbyn-terror-speech-wrong-17052614328#GiWTvXU1htbzuUeZ.990 -
For example, net immigration back to the tens of thousands - that means £6bn.RobD said:
From the IFS analysis it was steady as she goes from the Tory manifesto, without many new spending commitments. I don't recall any mention of a black hole on the Tory side.IanB2 said:
The Tories have the slight problem that they didn't trouble themselves with costing their own manifesto.Norm said:
Quite. Where is Hammond btw? Surely the media don't think he's too boring to be of interest.Cyclefree said:
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.eek said:
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...bigjohnowls said:
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.MikeL said:The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.0 -
In one corner, we have an Old Etonian. In the other corner, we have a terrorist sympathiser and IS appeaser. Guess which one of these two outrages the Left more.Cyan said:
Yes, in one corner we have a sneering entitled Old Etonian Bullingdon Clubber who was made Foreign Secretary having never been in the cabinet before, never been in the shadow cabinet, and without any foreign policy experience whatsoever, a man sacked twice from jobs in the "real world" for telling lies, a thug who conspired to have a journalist beaten up. And in the other corner, we have a man who sticks to his principles and wants to raise taxes for the rich. The electorate may be susceptible to right wing overtures when they make use of xenophobia, but this is different. This is a rich boarding school bully against the Labour leader.blueblue said:
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! GO BORIS! AT BLOODY LAST!Carolus_Rex said:
The great thing about letting Boris do it is that if it backfires she can let everythone think he's gone off-piste even if he hasn't.rottenborough said:
Finally, the Maybot has agreed to a proper return of fire.calum said:Bojo wades in !
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/868145992708837376
Or has Boris just gone off-piste?
BRING IT ON!0 -
Despite being a dark blue Tory, I would take Corbyn over Burnham any day.Scott_P said:Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham says Jeremy Corbyn terror speech is wrong
Read more at http://talkradio.co.uk/news/manchester-mayor-andy-burnham-says-jeremy-corbyn-terror-speech-wrong-17052614328#GiWTvXU1htbzuUeZ.99
0 -
Yeah, but as Fallon said, there is no time frame on that onesurbiton said:
For example, net immigration back to the tens of thousands - that means £6bn.RobD said:
From the IFS analysis it was steady as she goes from the Tory manifesto, without many new spending commitments. I don't recall any mention of a black hole on the Tory side.IanB2 said:
The Tories have the slight problem that they didn't trouble themselves with costing their own manifesto.Norm said:
Quite. Where is Hammond btw? Surely the media don't think he's too boring to be of interest.Cyclefree said:
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.eek said:
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...bigjohnowls said:
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.MikeL said:The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.
0 -
Eh? There are barely any numbers in the Tory manifesto. Their social care proposals aren't costed. Their means-tested WFA proposal isn't costed. They haven't carried out any economic assessment of Brexit. They haven't carried out any economic assessment of their commitment to almost close off immigration. There are no costed proposals to achieve their commitment to eliminate the deficit before the Sun engulfs the Earth, or whenever was their proposed deferral, I can't remember.RobD said:
From the IFS analysis it was steady as she goes from the Tory manifesto, without many new spending commitments. I don't recall any mention of a black hole on the Tory side.IanB2 said:
The Tories have the slight problem that they didn't trouble themselves with costing their own manifesto.Norm said:
Quite. Where is Hammond btw? Surely the media don't think he's too boring to be of interest.Cyclefree said:
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.eek said:
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...bigjohnowls said:
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.MikeL said:The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.
Labour's numbers are fanciful, but at least they tried to answer the question, rather than just putting their name at the top of the exam paper as the Tories have done. The LibDems have provided the most convincing costing (and by far the fairest, according to the IFS review), for all the good it will do them.0 -
That is 100% the point. They fell over themselves to say "what a silly tweet" because they knew that, and focused on the tweeter when the tweet itself was a carbon copy of Remainer thinking.SeanT said:
He's a Leaver.Ishmael_Z said:https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/868116658174517248
Lovely to see the Remainers giving themselves both barrels point-blank in the arse over this. Post-Referendum Butthurt Disorder does cloud the judgment.0 -
A signpost rather than a weather vane.RoyalBlue said:
Despite being a dark blue Tory, I would take Corbyn over Burnham any day.Scott_P said:Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham says Jeremy Corbyn terror speech is wrong
Read more at http://talkradio.co.uk/news/manchester-mayor-andy-burnham-says-jeremy-corbyn-terror-speech-wrong-17052614328#GiWTvXU1htbzuUeZ.990 -
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.MikeL said:Any coverage of IFS review of manifestos?
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.0 -
Agreed.AlastairMeeks said:
David Cameron and Sir John Major would probably oblige. It's more than the Conservative party would deserve, given what so many headbanging Conservatives have said about each of them in the last year.ab195 said:So the PM and senior ministers are tied up in London doing COBR etc? Isn't it time for them to go on bended knee to ask Cameron and Major to do the former PM bit over the weekend?
"Being PM is a serious business".
"I know who is trust".
"Judge a man by his friends".
That sort of thing?0 -
So have we had any notable PB meltdowns while I've been doing something I'm paid to do ?
Now to give some comfort to PB Tory nervousness I've compared the lowest Conservative poll rating per election to the actual result and the worst Conservative rating against Labour compared to the actual result.
And in every election from 1974 to 2015 the Conservatives actual vote was higher than their lowest poll rating by between 1% and 7% (average 5%) and their actual vote difference against Labour was always better than their worst poll by between 4% and 21% (average 10%).
So if we assume that the pattern holds and that the lowest Conservative poll is 42% and their lowest poll lead is 5% then the actual vote should have a Conservative vote of between 43% and 49% (average 47%) and a Conservative lead of between 9% and 26% (average 15%).0 -
-
Slightly less versatileRoyalBlue said:
Despite being a dark blue Tory, I would take Corbyn over Burnham any day.Scott_P said:Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham says Jeremy Corbyn terror speech is wrong
Read more at http://talkradio.co.uk/news/manchester-mayor-andy-burnham-says-jeremy-corbyn-terror-speech-wrong-17052614328#GiWTvXU1htbzuUeZ.990 -
It might work but the problem is the Conservatives have refused to rule out tax rises, which means they might be vulnerable, though there is still two weeks for a cast-iron guarantee to be forged. I doubt Labour will have the wit to draw attention to the Tories' debt mountains or ever-shifting targets.Cyclefree said:
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.eek said:
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...bigjohnowls said:
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.MikeL said:The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.0 -
Bit too late for that kind of broadside.Scott_P said:0 -
McDonnell was doing a pretty good job of it last weekendDecrepitJohnL said:
It might work but the problem is the Conservatives have refused to rule out tax rises, which means they might be vulnerable, though there is still two weeks for a cast-iron guarantee to be forged. I doubt Labour will have the wit to draw attention to the Tories' debt mountains or ever-shifting targets.Cyclefree said:
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.eek said:
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...bigjohnowls said:
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.MikeL said:The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.0 -
Yes. Read the rest of it.MarqueeMark said:Corbyn sides with Emily Thornberry on nuclear weapons coming under review:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40065876
"I voted against the renewal, everybody knows that, because I wanted to go in a different direction. That decision has been taken, I respect that decision," said Mr Corbyn.
He added: "It's there in the programme, it's there in the manifesto, it will be carried out... it's the position we are adopting as a party and we will take into government."
He could have added the words, "I am a democrat, therefore, agree with the party policy".
0 -
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.surbiton said:
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.MikeL said:Any coverage of IFS review of manifestos?
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.0 -
There are barely any numbers because there are barely any policies in it. You would hope that the social care and WFA proposals would be a net plus for the exchequer, but agree that detail is lacking on those fronts (painfully so on the first one!)IanB2 said:
Eh? There are barely any numbers in the Tory manifesto. Their social care proposals aren't costed. Their means-tested WFA proposal isn't costed. They haven't carried out any economic assessment of Brexit. They haven't carried out any economic assessment of their commitment to almost close off immigration. There are no costed proposals to achieve their commitment to eliminate the deficit before the Sun engulfs the Earth, or whenever was their proposed deferral, I can't remember.
Labour's numbers are fanciful, but at least they tried to answer the question, rather than just putting their name at the top of the exam paper as the Tories have done. The LibDems have provided the most convincing costing (and by far the fairest, according to the IFS review), for all the good it will do them.0 -
C'mon, Serena Williams is cool! She Cripwalked at the All-England Club during the Olympics!matt said:
I struggle to see the particular skill she will bring to the board. In that sense she won't be worse than most non-execs.David_Evershed said:Serena Williams joins board of Silicon Valley firm SurveyMonkey.
Anyone dare to comment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSIs5rYG0Bk0 -
Does the LD leader have to be in the Commons?MarqueeMark said:
One last push, lads.... Clean sweep is on!bigjohnowls said:.... the Lib Dems would lose all their seats except leader Tim Farron’s.
Seriously 1 seat
(Wouldn't that 1 seat be Orkney, btw? Funniest political thing ever if The Proven Liar was all the party could put forward as Leader....)0 -
I think this is the one that inspired the mirth:Ishmael_Z said:
That is 100% the point. They fell over themselves to say "what a silly tweet" because they knew that, and focused on the tweeter when the tweet itself was a carbon copy of Remainer thinking.SeanT said:
He's a Leaver.Ishmael_Z said:https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/868116658174517248
Lovely to see the Remainers giving themselves both barrels point-blank in the arse over this. Post-Referendum Butthurt Disorder does cloud the judgment.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/867883087887249409
0 -
Bullshit ! I heard it myself in the BBC News. IanB2 covers it below.MikeL said:
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.surbiton said:
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.MikeL said:Any coverage of IFS review of manifestos?
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.0 -
It'll be loads of stealth taxes, fiddling about with the detail of the tax code, adjusting NI, reviewing tax reliefs, etc. etc., all undisclosed, as well as uncosted. Their 2015 cast iron guarantees on Tax haven't been thrown overboard for no reason.MikeL said:
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.surbiton said:
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.MikeL said:Any coverage of IFS review of manifestos?
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
0 -
The IFS said the Tories' plan will raise £10bn less than they say? And I didn't realise the Tories were also planning on raising corporation tax.surbiton said:
Bullshit ! I heard it myself in the BBC News. IanB2 covers it below.MikeL said:
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.surbiton said:
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.MikeL said:Any coverage of IFS review of manifestos?
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.0 -
Complacency is a consequence of:Cyclefree said:
Currently voters think that Labour's plans won't cost them. They will. But the Tories need to say so and how much it will cost them. If ever a manifesto needed the tax bombshell treatment, it's Labour's one.eek said:
Sadly voters don't want the truth to be told when they can have more sweets from the magic sweetie tin paid for by the magic money tree...bigjohnowls said:
I can tell you what response will go down best amongst those I have met.MikeL said:The most important moment of the campaign still to come for May is going to be when she gets questioned on social care on the BBC1 QT.
Her response won't just be heard by those watching the programme - it may well lead all news programmes and dominate the rest of the campaign.
Now she can't undo what she has already said but she absolutely has to get her response - at what is going to be the key moment - as good as she can.
Thus, right now the Conservatives should be focus grouping the issue like mad - working out exactly what response will go down best - exactly what she should emphasise, and the exact form of words she should use.
"It was a stupid idea to bring your house into HomeCare calculations and I have changed my mind.
Anything less votes haemorrhage
I simply don't understand the level of complacency on the Tory side.
1) Thinking yourself more talented than you are
2) Unwillingness to do detailed work
Its a trait very, very common among modern politicians.0 -
Four questions wasted, sadly.Scrapheap_as_was said:0 -
I am still confused. Why ? Apart from perhaps 10 nations, no other nation has nuclear weapons. Are they weak ?SouthamObserver said:
I think this is the one that inspired the mirth:Ishmael_Z said:
That is 100% the point. They fell over themselves to say "what a silly tweet" because they knew that, and focused on the tweeter when the tweet itself was a carbon copy of Remainer thinking.SeanT said:
He's a Leaver.Ishmael_Z said:https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/868116658174517248
Lovely to see the Remainers giving themselves both barrels point-blank in the arse over this. Post-Referendum Butthurt Disorder does cloud the judgment.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/8678830878872494090 -
More to the point - does protecting our security include cutting police numbers and armed police numbers specifically? Were the police really scaremongering when they said the cuts might make us less secure?surbiton said:
Unfortunately for Labour, though, whatever May has done, nobody believes Corbyn would do any better.
0 -
Ace.David_Evershed said:Serena Williams joins board of Silicon Valley firm SurveyMonkey.
Anyone dare to comment?
I'm sure we'll be served with a volley of VI polls.0 -
Yes. (Article 16.1.)ThreeQuidder said:
Does the LD leader have to be in the Commons?MarqueeMark said:
One last push, lads.... Clean sweep is on!bigjohnowls said:.... the Lib Dems would lose all their seats except leader Tim Farron’s.
Seriously 1 seat
(Wouldn't that 1 seat be Orkney, btw? Funniest political thing ever if The Proven Liar was all the party could put forward as Leader....)0 -
Good. Go and have a ****another_richard said:So have we had any notable PB meltdowns while I've been doing something I'm paid to do ?
Now to give some comfort to PB Tory nervousness I've compared the lowest Conservative poll rating per election to the actual result and the worst Conservative rating against Labour compared to the actual result.
And in every election from 1974 to 2015 the Conservatives actual vote was higher than their lowest poll rating by between 1% and 7% (average 5%) and their actual vote difference against Labour was always better than their worst poll by between 4% and 21% (average 10%).
So if we assume that the pattern holds and that the lowest Conservative poll is 42% and their lowest poll lead is 5% then the actual vote should have a Conservative vote of between 43% and 49% (average 47%) and a Conservative lead of between 9% and 26% (average 15%).0 -
Precisely. As I said below, the chance Labour is missing is to use just a proportion of the Trident saving to outflank the Tories on conventional defence, security and policing.surbiton said:
I am still confused. Why ? Apart from perhaps 10 nations, no other nation has nuclear weapons. Are they weak ?SouthamObserver said:
I think this is the one that inspired the mirth:Ishmael_Z said:
That is 100% the point. They fell over themselves to say "what a silly tweet" because they knew that, and focused on the tweeter when the tweet itself was a carbon copy of Remainer thinking.SeanT said:
He's a Leaver.Ishmael_Z said:https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/868116658174517248
Lovely to see the Remainers giving themselves both barrels point-blank in the arse over this. Post-Referendum Butthurt Disorder does cloud the judgment.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/8678830878872494090 -
This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.0
-
What if they have zero MPs?Cyan said:
Yes.ThreeQuidder said:
Does the LD leader have to be in the Commons?MarqueeMark said:
One last push, lads.... Clean sweep is on!bigjohnowls said:.... the Lib Dems would lose all their seats except leader Tim Farron’s.
Seriously 1 seat
(Wouldn't that 1 seat be Orkney, btw? Funniest political thing ever if The Proven Liar was all the party could put forward as Leader....)
0 -
Fair enough - what's the point in having it, if the PM would never use it anyway.... the only way it would seem it might be a deterrent under Corbynista Labour is if there's time for a party meeting to agree the party position on what to do and perhaps form a committee.SeanT said:
He also refused to say if the defence review would commit to renewing Trident. i.e. he's considering ditching it. And given that the leader WANTS to ditch it, we have to accept that there is a very good chance a Corbyn government will try to get rid of our deterrent.surbiton said:
Yes. Read the rest of it.MarqueeMark said:Corbyn sides with Emily Thornberry on nuclear weapons coming under review:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40065876
"I voted against the renewal, everybody knows that, because I wanted to go in a different direction. That decision has been taken, I respect that decision," said Mr Corbyn.
He added: "It's there in the programme, it's there in the manifesto, it will be carried out... it's the position we are adopting as a party and we will take into government."
He could have added the words, "I am a democrat, therefore, agree with the party policy".0 -
I noted their desire for further attacks during Ramadan.SeanT said:ISIS reply, in their in-house magazine Dabiq, to the Corbyn theory of terrorism
https://twitter.com/JimmyRushmore/status/867006494851649536
And even if we stopped bombing them, they'd just carry on bombing us; because of who we are, not what we do or say
https://twitter.com/JimmyRushmore/status/867012337320046593
Compare with Price Charles who thought bombing Al Qaeda during Ramadan might upset Muslims.0 -
LOL at PBTories complaining about the supposed "lack of scrutiny" of Labour's proposals.
Mrs May passed up the opportunity to put as much direct scrutiny on Labour as she wanted, in the TV debates. It was you guys who wanted a stage-managed campaign with no meaningful scrutiny or discussion of policy proposals, no point crying about it now because it's not working to your favour like you thought it would.0 -
Nope. The IFS did not say Con tax rises will raise £10bn less than planned - because Con has not set out any specifics re the amount of extra tax they plan to raise.surbiton said:
Bullshit ! I heard it myself in the BBC News. IanB2 covers it below.MikeL said:
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.surbiton said:
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.MikeL said:Any coverage of IFS review of manifestos?
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
If you don't give a number, your number can't be wrong.
I would agree with you that Con may do anything - they may raise direct taxes, they may do stealth taxes - sure - but that is not the point I was making.0 -
+1. Given the illiberalism rampant within both Tory and Labour, that would be the ultimate tragedy and condemnation of our broken political system.nichomar said:This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
0 -
That's quite a touching admissionRoger said:
I'm away for the election and forgot to get a postal vote. I would have voted Lib Dem but not because of Corbyn's dalliance with terrorists but because he'd bankrupt me. I try not to worry about that sort of thing normally but selling the Big Issue in winter is a job for a younger manTykejohnno said:
May i ask who you will be voting for roger ?Roger said:
One more push......CarlottaVance said:
zerohedge @zerohedge
CONSERVATIVES 44%, LABOUR 36% IN SUN/SURVEYMONKEY POLL: BBG
Here's hoping others feel the same! 0 -
Seems I'm not the only one who's been rattled today.surbiton said:
Good. Go and have a ****another_richard said:So have we had any notable PB meltdowns while I've been doing something I'm paid to do ?
Now to give some comfort to PB Tory nervousness I've compared the lowest Conservative poll rating per election to the actual result and the worst Conservative rating against Labour compared to the actual result.
And in every election from 1974 to 2015 the Conservatives actual vote was higher than their lowest poll rating by between 1% and 7% (average 5%) and their actual vote difference against Labour was always better than their worst poll by between 4% and 21% (average 10%).
So if we assume that the pattern holds and that the lowest Conservative poll is 42% and their lowest poll lead is 5% then the actual vote should have a Conservative vote of between 43% and 49% (average 47%) and a Conservative lead of between 9% and 26% (average 15%).0 -
If you just write your name at the top of the exam paper, and otherwise leave the sheets blank, none of your answers are wrong. But I wouldn't hold your breath for a pass.MikeL said:
Nope. The IFS did not say Con tax rises will raise £10bn less than planned - because Con has not set out any specifics re the amount of extra tax they plan to raise.surbiton said:
Bullshit ! I heard it myself in the BBC News. IanB2 covers it below.MikeL said:
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.surbiton said:
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.MikeL said:Any coverage of IFS review of manifestos?
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
If you don't give a number, your number can't be wrong.
I would agree with you that Con may do anything - they may raise direct taxes, they may do stealth taxes - sure - but that is not the point I was making.0 -
The Lib Dems are doing a pretty good job of wiping themselves out, and neither half of their party's name has aged terribly well.nichomar said:This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
0 -
Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.0
-
Was the strategic defence review of 2015 conducted on the assumption that Trident must be renewed?SeanT said:
He also refused to say if the defence review would commit to renewing Trident. i.e. he's considering ditching it. And given that the leader WANTS to ditch it, we have to accept that there is a very good chance a Corbyn government will try to get rid of our deterrent.surbiton said:
Yes. Read the rest of it.MarqueeMark said:Corbyn sides with Emily Thornberry on nuclear weapons coming under review:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40065876
"I voted against the renewal, everybody knows that, because I wanted to go in a different direction. That decision has been taken, I respect that decision," said Mr Corbyn.
He added: "It's there in the programme, it's there in the manifesto, it will be carried out... it's the position we are adopting as a party and we will take into government."
He could have added the words, "I am a democrat, therefore, agree with the party policy".0 -
SeanT said:
I see no liberalism in the Lib Dems. They are as fond of this stifling, PC, identitarian, illiberal new left politics as Labour. They are Labour within Union funds, and with a tiny dash of homophobic Methodism.IanB2 said:
+1. Given the illiberalism rampant within both Tory and Labour, that would be the ultimate tragedy and condemnation of our broken political system.nichomar said:This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
0 -
Very true - but not of much relevance here.IanB2 said:
If you just write your name at the top of the exam paper, and otherwise leave the sheets blank, none of your answers are wrong. But I wouldn't hold your breath for a pass.MikeL said:
Nope. The IFS did not say Con tax rises will raise £10bn less than planned - because Con has not set out any specifics re the amount of extra tax they plan to raise.surbiton said:
Bullshit ! I heard it myself in the BBC News. IanB2 covers it below.MikeL said:
No - they made no such specific comment re the Conservatives - because the Conservatives made no specific tax raising plans in their manifesto.surbiton said:
You conveniently forgot to mention that they also said the same about the Conservatives.MikeL said:Any coverage of IFS review of manifestos?
They say Lab tax raising plans will raise £10bn less than Lab say - and I think they implied that's a minimum shortfall - they also said CT rise will raise revenue short-term which will then drop off.
Certainly gave Con / broadcasters ammunition for attack.
If you don't give a number, your number can't be wrong.
I would agree with you that Con may do anything - they may raise direct taxes, they may do stealth taxes - sure - but that is not the point I was making.
The point is that Con is putting forward a status quo proposition. That might be good, it might be bad - anyone can form a view but it's status quo so there are no changes - nothing new to challenge but then nothing new to applaud either.
In contrast Lab is offering big tax and spending changes. So, in contrast, there is lots new to potentially challenge and lots new to potentially applaud.0 -
Whilst no doubt technically true , in 1983 every single poll bar 1 forecast a higher Conservative vote share than they actually achieved .another_richard said:So have we had any notable PB meltdowns while I've been doing something I'm paid to do ?
Now to give some comfort to PB Tory nervousness I've compared the lowest Conservative poll rating per election to the actual result and the worst Conservative rating against Labour compared to the actual result.
And in every election from 1974 to 2015 the Conservatives actual vote was higher than their lowest poll rating by between 1% and 7% (average 5%) and their actual vote difference against Labour was always better than their worst poll by between 4% and 21% (average 10%).
So if we assume that the pattern holds and that the lowest Conservative poll is 42% and their lowest poll lead is 5% then the actual vote should have a Conservative vote of between 43% and 49% (average 47%) and a Conservative lead of between 9% and 26% (average 15%).0 -
That last sentence should have ended with the words: "because he has consistently voted against the measures to counter terrorism and make you more secure. He has been more concerned with being friends with terrorists."Scott_P said:
Honestly, she needs to put the knife in.0 -
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
0 -
Who's hoping for a wipe out of the liberal tendency? There's been people hoping for a wipe out of the Liberal Democrats but they are not the "liberal tendency" of this country.nichomar said:This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
There's lots of MPs in different parties who are of a "liberal tendency" while the so-called Lib Dems can be both illiberal and undemocratic at times.0 -
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.SeanT said:
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCESblueblue said:
Grrr.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyJh3qKjSMkbigjohnowls said:
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
0 -
I can't vote labour because of their obsession with the unions and nationalization. I can't vote Tory because having watched them in local government they are only interested in control to the expense of all else and their continued denial about facing the real problems facing the uk. In the end I now live in Spain, pause for derision, but for many personal reasons it's better than banging your head against a brick wall. If Tasman is out there can you pm me please.0
-
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.bigjohnowls said:
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.0 -
YouGov: 67% agree with Jez that our foreign wars have led to terrorismblueblue said:
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.SeanT said:
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCESblueblue said:
Grrr.0 -
Clearly a man we can trust on defence and security when he won't even answer a straight question, or questions, about his own party's policy.SeanT said:
That's the first big mis-step by Labour in a week. But will anyone notice?Scrapheap_as_was said:
He personally doesn't want Trident, and won't say if it will be renewed under Labour. He's still what he always was: a unilateralist. He wants all our enemies to have weapons, but he wants us disarmed.
FFS CCHQ. That's an open goal.0 -
"never been in the shadow cabinet, and without any foreign policy experience whatsoever" surely applies to Corbyn?Cyan said:
Yes, in one corner we have a sneering entitled Old Etonian Bullingdon Clubber who was made Foreign Secretary having never been in the cabinet before, never been in the shadow cabinet, and without any foreign policy experience whatsoever, a man sacked twice from jobs in the "real world" for telling lies, a thug who conspired to have a journalist beaten up. And in the other corner, we have a man who sticks to his principles and wants to raise taxes for the rich. The electorate may be susceptible to right wing overtures when they make use of xenophobia, but this is different. This is a rich boarding school bully against the Labour leader.blueblue said:
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! GO BORIS! AT BLOODY LAST!Carolus_Rex said:
The great thing about letting Boris do it is that if it backfires she can let everythone think he's gone off-piste even if he hasn't.rottenborough said:
Finally, the Maybot has agreed to a proper return of fire.calum said:Bojo wades in !
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/868145992708837376
Or has Boris just gone off-piste?
BRING IT ON!0 -
Only an idiot says he won't, as that means having the cost of the deterrent without actually having any deterrent effect...bigjohnowls said:
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
0 -
No I am not a unilateralist either.Danny565 said:
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.bigjohnowls said:
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.0 -
That question is worthless without asking the follow-up: "And if so, what should we do about it?"Freggles said:
YouGov: 67% agree with Jez that our foreign wars have led to terrorismblueblue said:
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.SeanT said:
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCESblueblue said:
Grrr.
Labour's answer is appeasement, pure and simple. And no way is appeasement getting 67% approval in Britain.0 -
Is Burnham substantial enough to be classed even as a weather vane? They are pretty solid, reliable-looking things, even if their orientation is a tad stochastic.Essexit said:
A signpost rather than a weather vane.RoyalBlue said:
Despite being a dark blue Tory, I would take Corbyn over Burnham any day.Scott_P said:Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham says Jeremy Corbyn terror speech is wrong
Read more at http://talkradio.co.uk/news/manchester-mayor-andy-burnham-says-jeremy-corbyn-terror-speech-wrong-17052614328#GiWTvXU1htbzuUeZ.99
I see him more like a discarded plastic bag, bobbing along in the breeze, resting upon whichever branch it snags while waiting for the next gust to decide what position it will land on next.
(Disgust at the possibility of Andy Burnham PM was also one of the reasons I voted for Corbyn...)
Harsh, but fair. And such brevity of condemnation! I like it. Top post.Essexit said:
The Lib Dems are doing a pretty good job of wiping themselves out, and neither half of their party's name has aged terribly well.nichomar said:This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
0 -
BJO - you are wasting your time trying to explain the obvious to the PB Tories. Let's be honest, they're not the brightest peas in the pod (and they are ugly and uncool too!)bigjohnowls said:
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
Anyway, as I keep reassuring them, JC is crap and you guys are going to win, possibly even win big. Man up FFS. Reading dowthread that an 8 point Tory lead is cheered to the rafters. FFS!-1 -
The Corbyn interview is starting on BBC1.0
-
Well said. It is the adage that proves itself true time and time again - the Liberal Democrats are neither Liberal nor Democratic.Philip_Thompson said:
Who's hoping for a wipe out of the liberal tendency? There's been people hoping for a wipe out of the Liberal Democrats but they are not the "liberal tendency" of this country.nichomar said:This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
There's lots of MPs in different parties who are of a "liberal tendency" while the so-called Lib Dems can be both illiberal and undemocratic at times.0 -
Boris and May are as hard hitting as a wet blancmange , Mr and Mrs Weak and Wobblyblueblue said:
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.SeanT said:
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCESblueblue said:
Grrr.0 -
May would only press the button if Trump gave permission.SeanT said:
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacksDanny565 said:
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.bigjohnowls said:
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON-1 -
Well it's been entertaining reading todays pb Tory fearfest. Let's see how Jezza gets on...0
-
The "Scot Goes Pop" average of Scotland polls has Labour only 2% behind the Tories. The SNP out in front by more than 21%.0
-
Fair - your comparison is much better and I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to any weather vanes I may have offended.MyBurningEars said:
Is Burnham substantial enough to be classed even as a weather vane? They are pretty solid, reliable-looking things, even if their orientation is a tad stochastic.Essexit said:
A signpost rather than a weather vane.RoyalBlue said:
Despite being a dark blue Tory, I would take Corbyn over Burnham any day.Scott_P said:Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham says Jeremy Corbyn terror speech is wrong
Read more at http://talkradio.co.uk/news/manchester-mayor-andy-burnham-says-jeremy-corbyn-terror-speech-wrong-17052614328#GiWTvXU1htbzuUeZ.99
I see him more like a discarded plastic bag, bobbing along in the breeze, resting upon whichever branch it snags while waiting for the next gust to decide what position it will land on next.
(Disgust at the possibility of Andy Burnham PM was also one of the reasons I voted for Corbyn...)
Harsh, but fair. And such brevity of condemnation! I like it. Top post.Essexit said:
The Lib Dems are doing a pretty good job of wiping themselves out, and neither half of their party's name has aged terribly well.nichomar said:This isn't a one or even two party state, the voting system may result in that outcome but leave millions without representation. To hope for a wipe out of the liberal tendency in British politics shows how small minded some people can be.
0 -
Jez looking sharp at least0
-
Apart from one or two who obvious ones 'terrorism' is a very subjective judgement. Jeremy Bowen did a very interesting piece on radio 4 today about the tail end of the Lebanese conflict where Hezbollah were trying to prevent Israel incursions into Southern Lebanon. He left no listener in any doubt that he considered the Israelis to be the aggressors and Hezbollah to be the legitimate resistance.Cyclefree said:
That last sentence should have ended with the words: "because he has consistently voted against the measures to counter terrorism and make you more secure. He has been more concerned with being friends with terrorists."Scott_P said:
Honestly, she needs to put the knife in.0 -
For Bristol?SeanT said:
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacksDanny565 said:
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.bigjohnowls said:
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON
I mean, I'd press the button for London or Cambridge or St Ives. But Bristol. Hmmmm.0 -
Corbyn atleast giving a firm "no" to the question of "would you talk to ISIS" #smallmercy0
-
Jez "I didn't support the IRA"
Hmmmm. That is going to be tested to destruction.....0 -
Just keep talking Jezza...0
-
It'd destroy the SS Great Britain, and the Clifton Suspension Bridge might get damaged as well. We can't let the destruction of such industrial heritage go unpunished ...rcs1000 said:
For Bristol?SeanT said:
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacksDanny565 said:
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.bigjohnowls said:
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON
I mean, I'd press the button for London or Cambridge or St Ives. But Bristol. Hmmmm. 0 -
Does anyone in the WORLD think Boris is anything other than a moron and an idiot?MarkSenior said:
Boris and May are as hard hitting as a wet blancmange , Mr and Mrs Weak and Wobblyblueblue said:
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.SeanT said:
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCESblueblue said:
Grrr.0 -
To be fair the cathedral is quite nice.rcs1000 said:
For Bristol?SeanT said:
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacksDanny565 said:
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.bigjohnowls said:
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON
I mean, I'd press the button for London or Cambridge or St Ives. But Bristol. Hmmmm.
It'd be a shame to lose that.0 -
Thanks for this. Daesh have changed their tune in recent issues of that magazine. Earlier they published material ostensibly written by their (British) prisoner John Cantlie about a truce, saying they couldn't work with the West but a truce was a different matter. An article attributed to Cantlie quoted Jonathan Powell, who called for talks with Daesh. The "we will hate you forever" line does fit better with recruiting an army of brainwashed madmen who think they are "serving God" when they murder innocents.SeanT said:ISIS reply, in their in-house magazine Dabiq, to the Corbyn theory of terrorism
https://twitter.com/JimmyRushmore/status/867006494851649536
And even if we stopped bombing them, they'd just carry on bombing us; because of who we are, not what we do or say
https://twitter.com/JimmyRushmore/status/867012337320046593
0 -
Jez is at least answering questions, unlike Tessy0
-
Indeed - 1983 was the election where the actual Conservative vote was most under what the polls predicted. It was also the election where the Conservatives had their biggest majority.MarkSenior said:
Whilst no doubt technically true , in 1983 every single poll bar 1 forecast a higher Conservative vote share than they actually achieved .another_richard said:So have we had any notable PB meltdowns while I've been doing something I'm paid to do ?
Now to give some comfort to PB Tory nervousness I've compared the lowest Conservative poll rating per election to the actual result and the worst Conservative rating against Labour compared to the actual result.
And in every election from 1974 to 2015 the Conservatives actual vote was higher than their lowest poll rating by between 1% and 7% (average 5%) and their actual vote difference against Labour was always better than their worst poll by between 4% and 21% (average 10%).
So if we assume that the pattern holds and that the lowest Conservative poll is 42% and their lowest poll lead is 5% then the actual vote should have a Conservative vote of between 43% and 49% (average 47%) and a Conservative lead of between 9% and 26% (average 15%).
I've not looked but I would guess that there were elections - 1992 and 2015 most likely and October 1974 and 2001 possibly - where every poll had the Conservatives lower than their actual vote and / or every poll had the Conservatives in a worse position against Labour than the actual vote.
Of course its only an amusing bit of statistical analysis - patterns can change.0 -
Outright lie, I'm afraid.MarqueeMark said:Jez "I didn't support the IRA"
Hmmmm. That is going to be tested to destruction.....0 -
What's wrong with the city of Brunel ?rcs1000 said:
For Bristol?SeanT said:
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacksDanny565 said:
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.bigjohnowls said:
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON
I mean, I'd press the button for London or Cambridge or St Ives. But Bristol. Hmmmm.
And didn't the Sunday Times describe it as the best place to live in Britain ?
0 -
Neil eviscerating Corbyn here over the IRA.0
-
And now on NATOJason said:Neil eviscerating Corbyn here over the IRA.
0 -
1.1 million Londoners in 2008 and 1.05 million Londoners in 2012?murali_s said:
Does anyone in the WORLD think Boris is anything other than a moron and an idiot?MarkSenior said:
Boris and May are as hard hitting as a wet blancmange , Mr and Mrs Weak and Wobblyblueblue said:
Agreed. But the Boris + May broadsides are actually pretty hard-hitting, and a great start. Now just have every Tory MP and media outlet repeat them 100 times a day for the next 12 days.SeanT said:
The last two weeks the Tories have to focus relentlessly and loudly on Trident, security, terror, immigration and Brexit. Far, far too much of this campaign has been fought, because of Tory errors, on natural Labour issues. LIKE FUCKING DEMENTIA TAXES AND WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCESblueblue said:
Grrr.0 -
Wasn't that article on 1st April?another_richard said:
What's wrong with the city of Brunel ?rcs1000 said:
For Bristol?SeanT said:
If a rogue terrorist state like ISIS had managed to nuke, say, Bristol, and was threatening to nuke other UK cities unless we yielded, then fucking hell yes we would press the button and nuke Raqqa, hoping to wipe out their command and control, AND deter further attacksDanny565 said:
Probably true, but I do personally think we need to bluff and claim we WOULD use it to try and scare our enemies off, even if in the event we'd have no intention of actually doing so.bigjohnowls said:
Only an idiot presses the buttonJason said:Didn't Corbyn also say he would never use a nuclear deterent anyway? So it begs the obvious question, doesn't it? His line is simply incredible, and this is the idiot his apologists would like to see preside over our defence.
I don't like Jezza's position on Trident, but it's not anywhere near enough to sway my vote, mind.
Yes, you DAMN WELL PRESS THE BUTTON
I mean, I'd press the button for London or Cambridge or St Ives. But Bristol. Hmmmm.
And didn't the Sunday Times describe it as the best place to live in Britain ?0 -
Neil just lied. It's the EU which has kept the west safe for decades....MarqueeMark said:
0 -
Oh dear.....Corbyn sinking like a stone here0
-
Is it just me or has Mr Neil had a wee dram before this interview?0
-
Some thoughts on the campaign so far:
As a Tory voter, I'm rather more nervous now than I would like to be. True, the Conservatives are still some way in front but the polls have been narrowing consistently in the last two weeks thanks to a rather lazy Tory campaign, complete with social care cock-up, while Labour have not had a 1983-Foot-esque disaster of a campaign as was perhaps expected.
Being generous, I suspect the Conservative plan was to let Labour set out their stall (and fall out over it), on the basis that while there would be a movement to them of disillusioned and anti-Conservative voters, while moderate and Tory-inclined voters would either scratch their heads or grow more nervous about the possibility of a Labour led government. A couple of weeks out from the polling day, the guns of the Tories and supporters on the press would then fully turn on Corbyn and the Labour manifesto, with a focus on Labour's extravagant economic policies, Corbyn's association with various unsavoury groups and a more general "who do you trust to run the country competently? Us or them?"
However, this has not turned out as planned. Firstly, the Labour manifesto is more superficially attractive than thought and has also offloaded some of the more offputting policies that might have been in there (such as uncosted spending/heavy tax rises, failure to commit to Trident equivocation on Brexit, lack of credible immigration policy etc). Secondly, it has come with some easy-to-sell policies (abolition of tuition fees) which get their supporters enthused. Thirdly, Labour has had a much better campaign (in part because Corbyn has been kept out of the limelight, and any infighting has largely been kept out of the headlines) and finally, the Conservatives have made some significant unforced errors of their own.
This has led to Labour having a bigger surge than expected due to them sweeping up the anti-Tory odds and sods, and some previously Conservative inclined voters returning to 'don't know'.
(1/2)0 -
Andrew Neil going hard for Corbyn
The contrast with the May interview is stark
0 -
That all said, I think the Tories will still come through with a majority of around 100. Both they and the press are going to spend the next couple of week contrasting perceived Conservative competence in government and reliability on the key issues of the day, with Corbyn's own past associations and unreliability on defence and security, and Labour's lack of credibility on economic issues. Also, the Tories' VI still seems pretty securely in the mid-40s, which since 1970 has been enough for a substantial majority.
But where I expected that would be the outcome a couple of weeks ago, I now only think it is, because the Tories have shown themselves perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot this time around. We can't rule out further misfires.
In terms of black swans, while by their nature these can't be accurately predicted, these might be plausible:
1) something linking police cuts under the Conservatives directly to the Manchester bombing, like lack of resources meaning they couldn't check out the bomber/his key associates;
2) something from Corbyn's past that hasn't come up in the press coming back to haunt him (such as passing information to Eastern European security services in the 80s or IRA, that sort of thing). I should of course just make clear that I'm not alleging that he did anything of the sort, just speculating.0
