If Corbyn was PM with a Lab Majority Govt, could he cancel Trident?
ie would it need a vote in the Commons - on which lots of Lab backbenchers would surely rebel - thus preventing the vote passing.
Or could it be done without a vote - basically by just cutting off the funding for it?
Depending on how it was played, he could have the SNP, LDs, PC and Greens on his side. It would depend on the number of Labour rebels. If by some miracle he did get into government, he would have a healthy bank of political capital to spend with his own side, at least for a while.
The trick, as I said earlier, is to direct a wodge of the saving toward policing and the security services, and challenge the Tories to vote against.
Come on, that was a disaster, especially the terrorist and defence stuff. What will stick in your mind most - his flannel about 'hope', or the fact that he commemorated the death of IRA soldiers, and outright denied he supported the IRA? Trident?
That was a disaster for Corbyn.
LOL. And so says the most rabid of PB Tory!
You're party leader has just been exposed on national TV for commemorating the death of IRA soldiers. Now please tell me - how much more serious does it have to get?
Come on, that was a disaster, especially the terrorist and defence stuff. What will stick in your mind most - his flannel about 'hope', or the fact that he commemorated the death of IRA soldiers, and outright denied he supported the IRA? Trident?
That was a disaster for Corbyn.
No spinning here...
It's an opinion I believe will be shared by a lot of undecided and waverers. No matter, he's got paxman next week then a public grilling on QT. No need to worry, though.
HE WASN'T AN IRA SYMPATHISER, HONEST GOV.
I'm looking forward most to the public QT. Remember what they did to Ed on spending? Imagine what they will do to Corbyn on the IRA.......
I think that by focussing such a large part of the interview on security and the IRA, Neil missed a lot of opportunities to examine his economic proposals. Not enough time. The clip on borrowing vs bonds alone showed the potential for him to sound very silly.
This is an interesting point.
Over 50% was on terror / IRA / defence.
Will they do something similar on the BBC1 QT? It's a big issue for the BBC - and it will have quite a big impact.
Regardless of the spinning on here it's obvious that the Lab manifesto is very popular whilst Corbyn is highly vulnerable on IRA / defence.
So where time is focussed is bound to influence opinions of him.
Corbyn said he wouldn't borrow to fund day to day spending? Would it require immediate cuts from day one to deliver that, given the size of the deficit?
...was Theresa May's decision to refuse to debate Corbyn head to head a major error as it could blunt his momentum - or a masterstroke as it could lose her the election entirely?
I think that by focussing such a large part of the interview on security and the IRA, Neil missed a lot of opportunities to examine his economic proposals. Not enough time. The clip on borrowing vs bonds alone showed the potential for him to sound very silly.
This is an interesting point.
Over 50% was on terror / IRA / defence.
Will they do something similar on the BBC1 QT? It's a big issue for the BBC - and it will have quite a big impact.
Regardless of the spinning on here it's obvious that the Lab manifesto is very popular whilst Corbyn is highly vulnerable on IRA / defence. W
So where time is focussed is bound to influence opinions of him.
He was probably trying to compensate for the mistake he made with May, going in with too long a checklist of issues and never digging deep enough into any of them. With just half an hour, getting the balance right is proving difficult.
Meanwhile I remain concerned that we won't get to hear the Leanne interview outside the principality
...was Theresa May's decision to refuse to debate Corbyn head to head a major error as it could blunt his momentum - or a masterstroke as it could lose her the election entirely?
Pretty much! I feel for her though, I'm terrible at public speaking... although I guess I have an excuse that I am not a politician.
If Corbyn was PM with a Lab Majority Govt, could he cancel Trident?
ie would it need a vote in the Commons - on which lots of Lab backbenchers would surely rebel - thus preventing the vote passing.
Or could it be done without a vote - basically by just cutting off the funding for it?
Depending on how it was played, he could have the SNP, LDs, PC and Greens on his side. It would depend on the number of Labour rebels. If by some miracle he did get into government, he would have a healthy bank of political capital to spend with his own side, at least for a while.
The trick, as I said earlier, is to direct a wodge of the saving toward policing and the security services, and challenge the Tories to vote against.
Fair points but you haven't answered my question - would it need a vote to cancel it?
I think that by focussing such a large part of the interview on security and the IRA, Neil missed a lot of opportunities to examine his economic proposals. Not enough time. The clip on borrowing vs bonds alone showed the potential for him to sound very silly.
This is an interesting point.
Over 50% was on terror / IRA / defence.
Will they do something similar on the BBC1 QT? It's a big issue for the BBC - and it will have quite a big impact.
Regardless of the spinning on here it's obvious that the Lab manifesto is very popular whilst Corbyn is highly vulnerable on IRA / defence. W
So where time is focussed is bound to influence opinions of him.
He was probably trying to compensate for the mistake he made with May, going in with too long a checklist of issues and never digging deep enough into any of them. With just half an hour, getting the balance right is proving difficult.
Meanwhile I remain concerned that we won't get to hear the Leanne interview outside the principality
If Corbyn was PM with a Lab Majority Govt, could he cancel Trident?
ie would it need a vote in the Commons - on which lots of Lab backbenchers would surely rebel - thus preventing the vote passing.
Or could it be done without a vote - basically by just cutting off the funding for it?
Depending on how it was played, he could have the SNP, LDs, PC and Greens on his side. It would depend on the number of Labour rebels. If by some miracle he did get into government, he would have a healthy bank of political capital to spend with his own side, at least for a while.
The trick, as I said earlier, is to direct a wodge of the saving toward policing and the security services, and challenge the Tories to vote against.
Fair points but you haven't answered my question - would it need a vote to cancel it?
I don't claim any expertise but would have thought it would.
A bit of a wasted opportunity for corbyn there. He was reasonably ok on the defensive, but the counterattack wasn't great.
I thought the "we're offering the british people hope" line was alright. He could have made more of it though. Sharply contrasted it with the Cons and wrapped it up in a better prepared soundbite.
I think that by focussing such a large part of the interview on security and the IRA, Neil missed a lot of opportunities to examine his economic proposals. Not enough time. The clip on borrowing vs bonds alone showed the potential for him to sound very silly.
This is an interesting point.
Over 50% was on terror / IRA / defence.
Will they do something similar on the BBC1 QT? It's a big issue for the BBC - and it will have quite a big impact.
Regardless of the spinning on here it's obvious that the Lab manifesto is very popular whilst Corbyn is highly vulnerable on IRA / defence. W
So where time is focussed is bound to influence opinions of him.
He was probably trying to compensate for the mistake he made with May, going in with too long a checklist of issues and never digging deep enough into any of them. With just half an hour, getting the balance right is proving difficult.
Meanwhile I remain concerned that we won't get to hear the Leanne interview outside the principality
I have to be honest and admit I'm warming to him. That said, he is facing an utterly shite opponent in the shape of Theresa May. Yet she is so feeble I actually think he'd be better, as PM.
One of the surprises of this election is that Jeremy Corbyn turns out to be an adept of spin. You would think the old Marxist would be as homespun as his jumpers. But, no.
Acquiring those industries that make a decent return isn't necessarily a mistake in purely financial terms.
But Labour aren't planning to nationalise industries to run them as they are and for a profit.
Labour claim in essence that they can save the public money by eliminating the "profiteering". So profit is irrelevant to the Labour position, ultimately Labour has to run the nationalised industries as well or better for no profit for nationalisation of this form to make any sense.
People who remember nationalised industries will likely treat such an aim with some skepticism.
Acquiring those industries that make a decent return isn't necessarily a mistake in purely financial terms.
But Labour aren't planning to nationalise industries to run them as they are and for a profit.
Labour claim in essence that they can save the public money by eliminating the "profiteering". So profit is irrelevant to the Labour position, ultimately Labour has to run the nationalised industries as well or better for no profit for nationalisation of this form to make any sense.
People who remember nationalised industries will likely treat such an aim with some skepticism.
In theory at least they could run them at arms length, letting management act commercially as now, and just syphon off the dividend. It worked reasonably well with Royal Mail under Blair.
Mr. B2, the Conservatives do have some credit on the economy, which they decided to blow by appealing to the demographic that votes with the unorthodox approach of making them sell their home (albeit upon death).
*sighs* It's a masterclass in trying to cock up a seemingly uncockupable position.
Mr. B2, the Conservatives do have some credit on the economy, which they decided to blow by appealing to the demographic that votes with the unorthodox approach of making them sell their home (albeit upon death).
*sighs* It's a masterclass in trying to cock up a seemingly uncockupable position.
Government is coming for windfall property equity anyway, sooner or later. The mistake was either a) telling them in advance, or b) not telling them further in advance, with some explanation.
Anyone else think the Greens shouldn't be 1/10 in Brighton Pavilion? They are being squeezed hard nationally, and Lucas' lead isn't actually all that large. If Brighton leftys decide to go with Corbyn she could be in trouble.
I'd certainly expect her to slip a bit, though probably hold. But 90%+ to hold? I've laid a bit at Betfair.
In theory at least they could run them at arms length, letting management act commercially as now, and just syphon off the dividend. It worked reasonably well with Royal Mail under Blair.
Under Blair. The politician most opposite of Corbyn.
Do you honestly think a Corbyn led government would nationalise these industries and then just leave them to it?
Two weeks time Corbyn could be in charge, and all this half-witted rehashed socialism has to work. Does anyone think he and his shadow cabinet are up to the job?
As recent as 2011? His apologists are running out of excuses. Appalling, really. He rubbed shoulders with people who murdered women and children, and he SYMPATHISED with their cause.
Corbynistas here accuse me of being a frother. I'm not the terrorist sympathiser.
I have to be honest and admit I'm warming to him. That said, he is facing an utterly shite opponent in the shape of Theresa May. Yet she is so feeble I actually think he'd be better, as PM.
They'll win though, the Tories.
I think.
Yes the conservatives will win.However I never supported Corbyn but I have to admit he has shifted the debate on so many areas.I supported the Iraq war but I now ask myself since 2001 what have we achieved in Afghanistan , Iraq , Libya , Syria ? Anyone please tell me.Maybe it is time for a British leader like Wilson to say no to LBJ over Vietnam.
Mr. B2, the Conservatives do have some credit on the economy, which they decided to blow by appealing to the demographic that votes with the unorthodox approach of making them sell their home (albeit upon death).
*sighs* It's a masterclass in trying to cock up a seemingly uncockupable position.
Perhaps BREXIT is too difficult and nobody wants to win.
In theory at least they could run them at arms length, letting management act commercially as now, and just syphon off the dividend. It worked reasonably well with Royal Mail under Blair.
Under Blair. The politician most opposite of Corbyn.
Do you honestly think a Corbyn led government would nationalise these industries and then just leave them to it?
Two weeks time Corbyn could be in charge, and all this half-witted rehashed socialism has to work. Does anyone think he and his shadow cabinet are up to the job?
The tragedy is that none of our politicians are up to the job.
I think that by focussing such a large part of the interview on security and the IRA, Neil missed a lot of opportunities to examine his economic proposals. Not enough time. The clip on borrowing vs bonds alone showed the potential for him to sound very silly.
This is an interesting point.
Over 50% was on terror / IRA / defence.
Will they do something similar on the BBC1 QT? It's a big issue for the BBC - and it will have quite a big impact.
Regardless of the spinning on here it's obvious that the Lab manifesto is very popular whilst Corbyn is highly vulnerable on IRA / defence. W
So where time is focussed is bound to influence opinions of him.
He was probably trying to compensate for the mistake he made with May, going in with too long a checklist of issues and never digging deep enough into any of them. With just half an hour, getting the balance right is proving difficult.
Meanwhile I remain concerned that we won't get to hear the Leanne interview outside the principality
If I do not get to see Leanne I am not going pay my licence fee.
I have to be honest and admit I'm warming to him. That said, he is facing an utterly shite opponent in the shape of Theresa May. Yet she is so feeble I actually think he'd be better, as PM.
They'll win though, the Tories.
I think.
Yes the conservatives will win.However I never supported Corbyn but I have to admit he has shifted the debate on so many areas.I supported the Iraq war but I now ask myself since 2001 what have we achieved in Afghanistan , Iraq , Libya , Syria ? Anyone please tell me.Maybe it is time for a British leader like Wilson to say no to LBJ over Vietnam.
Anyone else think the Greens shouldn't be 1/10 in Brighton Pavilion? They are being squeezed hard nationally, and Lucas' lead isn't actually all that large. If Brighton leftys decide to go with Corbyn she could be in trouble.
I'd certainly expect her to slip a bit, though probably hold. But 90%+ to hold? I've laid a bit at Betfair.
She'll win, easy. When did you last visit Brighton?
Our military adventurism didn't create the threat, but you would have to be a halfwit not to see that it made things hugely worse.
Though not for the reason that Corbyn thinks. If he had the guts to come out and say "do you know what, it's in our interests for countries like Libya to be run by strong men", then I'd have some respect for him.
I think that by focussing such a large part of the interview on security and the IRA, Neil missed a lot of opportunities to examine his economic proposals. Not enough time. The clip on borrowing vs bonds alone showed the potential for him to sound very silly.
This is an interesting point.
Over 50% was on terror / IRA / defence.
Will they do something similar on the BBC1 QT? It's a big issue for the BBC - and it will have quite a big impact.
Regardless of the spinning on here it's obvious that the Lab manifesto is very popular whilst Corbyn is highly vulnerable on IRA / defence. W
So where time is focussed is bound to influence opinions of him.
He was probably trying to compensate for the mistake he made with May, going in with too long a checklist of issues and never digging deep enough into any of them. With just half an hour, getting the balance right is proving difficult.
Meanwhile I remain concerned that we won't get to hear the Leanne interview outside the principality
If I do not get to see Leanne I am not going pay my licence fee.
I think that by focussing such a large part of the interview on security and the IRA, Neil missed a lot of opportunities to examine his economic proposals. Not enough time. The clip on borrowing vs bonds alone showed the potential for him to sound very silly.
These interviews needed to be hour long and they needed to be between 9pm-10pm, IMO.
In theory at least they could run them at arms length, letting management act commercially as now, and just syphon off the dividend. It worked reasonably well with Royal Mail under Blair.
Under Blair. The politician most opposite of Corbyn.
Do you honestly think a Corbyn led government would nationalise these industries and then just leave them to it?
Two weeks time Corbyn could be in charge, and all this half-witted rehashed socialism has to work. Does anyone think he and his shadow cabinet are up to the job?
The tragedy is that none of our politicians are up to the job.
But if you believe that is the case why would you want a party to go around nationalising things (at enormous expense) that they do not have the skills or knowledge in order to run?
Re the novel interpretation about Government borrowing and bonds. Is the idea that they will buy shareholders out with bonds (as opposed presumably with Cash) which they are forbidden from selling or something?
Buy it with Cash = "borrowing". Buy it with "bonds that can't be sold" = paid for out of future revenues
Acquiring those industries that make a decent return isn't necessarily a mistake in purely financial terms.
Meanwhile your defence of the government's QE programme is?
Is the BoE independent in these matters, or is QE a government program? I wonder if it will ever be rolled up. I think it's around £300bn.
The BoE can only do QE after agreement with the government. So, for example, they agree or the government tells the BoE that they can do £300bn. The BoE decides on the transches.
In theory at least they could run them at arms length, letting management act commercially as now, and just syphon off the dividend. It worked reasonably well with Royal Mail under Blair.
Under Blair. The politician most opposite of Corbyn.
Do you honestly think a Corbyn led government would nationalise these industries and then just leave them to it?
Two weeks time Corbyn could be in charge, and all this half-witted rehashed socialism has to work. Does anyone think he and his shadow cabinet are up to the job?
The tragedy is that none of our politicians are up to the job.
But if you believe that is the case why would you want a party to go around nationalising things (at enormous expense) that they do not have the skills or knowledge in order to run?
For the same reason that shares in industries like National Grid are still worth buying, for the income.
If they are sensible (which, ok, is 50/50), they won't be doing much of the actual running.
I worked for a nationalised industry for over 25 years. Made a profit pretty much every year. The Tories pre-Blair interfered a lot more than New Labour did, but even then it was arms length stuff. The biggest problem was government syphoning off all the profits and not doing enough reinvestment.
In theory at least they could run them at arms length, letting management act commercially as now, and just syphon off the dividend. It worked reasonably well with Royal Mail under Blair.
Under Blair. The politician most opposite of Corbyn.
Do you honestly think a Corbyn led government would nationalise these industries and then just leave them to it?
Two weeks time Corbyn could be in charge, and all this half-witted rehashed socialism has to work. Does anyone think he and his shadow cabinet are up to the job?
The tragedy is that none of our politicians are up to the job.
But if you believe that is the case why would you want a party to go around nationalising things (at enormous expense) that they do not have the skills or knowledge in order to run?
Rail nationalising will cost zero as they will be taken into public ownership as the franchise's expire.
Mr. S, there's also very little airtime given over to another attack on Coptic Christians in Egypt today. It's not so much Western hypocrisy, as Western (relative) disinterest in terrorism beyond Europe/North America.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Mr. Nunu, aren't those casualties because ISIS put civilians in and around their ammunition dumps?
Mr. Gin, I agree.
Isis are sick and there do not care one iota for the people they purport to support, however...
....if you know there are civillians in the area you should not bomb it, even if it means leaving weapons intact. Atleast if you want to maintain a moral high ground. I believe Israel used the same excuse to bomb UN hospitals, and I disagree with that aswell.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
Perhaps significantly, the Prime Minister would have been in the air, en route from Brussels to the G7 summit, making the Tory strategy more difficult to discuss and decide.
...
If the poll is repeated universally on June 8, Labour would take eight seats from the Conservatives, in places as far spread as Croydon, Plymouth, Derby and North Wales, while the Tories would fail to gain any from Labour.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
I'll rephrase it then: of the policies that the public most recall about the two parties, Labour's are far more popular
Was talking to a Tory candidate in the school playground this morning - clearly throughly pissed by TM's Dementia Tax but even more so by the subsequent back-tracking.
I put forward the question who would be better in the Brexit negotiations - someone who had stuck to his principles for forty years in politics or TM who back-tracks at the slightest setback?
Was talking to a Tory candidate in the school playground this morning - clearly throughly pissed by TM's Dementia Tax but even more so by the subsequent back-tracking.
I put forward the question who would be better in the Brexit negotiations - someone who had stuck to his principles for forty years in politics or TM who back-tracks at the slightest setback?
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
I'll rephrase it then: of the policies that the public most recall about the two parties, Labour's are far more popular
Was talking to a Tory candidate in the school playground this morning - clearly throughly pissed by TM's Dementia Tax but even more so by the subsequent back-tracking.
I put forward the question who would be better in the Brexit negotiations - someone who had stuck to his principles for forty years in politics or TM who back-tracks at the slightest setback?
He simply raised his eyebows.
They grow up so fast these days.
Indeed - we did speak of the absence of Dianne Abbott but assumed she was doing her maths SATs
Just watched Jeremy Corbyn with Andrew Neil. Surprisingly articulate, calm and assured. In my opinion he seems so much more able to answer questions than Theresa May. May seemed to be so ill at ease and evasive on Monday night.
I now would have no worries about Corbyn as Prime Minister.
So the effect of the Neil interview was probably neutral for Corbyn. No-one who would vote Labour, except for doubts about its leader, will have their doubts sufficiently assuaged to come back on board. No-one who intends to vote Labour will now call off because of what they have discovered about Corbyn during the interview.
Are we really saying this doesn't help radicalise some people in part:
twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/868116290539540481
Missing the point, I'm afraid. Read what Daesh write: they don't hate us because of what we do, they hate us because of what we are (kaffir) - and we could stop fighting them and they would still fight us and try to kill us.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
I'll rephrase it then: of the policies that the public most recall about the two parties, Labour's are far more popular
It's why the Tories could well be toast. Not only are their policies less well-known, and less popular, but their most well-known is the "Dementia Tax". This, combined with the u-turn damaging perceptions of May as a strong leader, has surely reversed may of the gains that looked conceivable that mad polling weekend when the Tories were 25% up and surging in Scotland. The Tories will win, but with not much of a larger majority than they already possessed. Then May will have to suffer the public wrath / media onslaught that not only did she call a - in their mind - unnecessary election but called it to no discernible advantage either to her or the country. So she will start the new Parliament far weeaker than she ended the old one, just as she is entering Brexit negotiations.
If you're going to call a snap election, how about making sure your party is ready to campaign and you have a thoroughly-prepared manifesto ready to go? It seems the party was no more prepared than the others for an election. And the Tory campaign is almost invisible. All one sees and hears is Corbyn this and Corbyn that; he is driving the agenda.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
I'll rephrase it then: of the policies that the public most recall about the two parties, Labour's are far more popular
That said, I swear we were in pretty much this exact place 2 years ago. Tory campaign seemingly a shambles, polls 'turning', all of that jazzle.
"The strongest, if still tentative, sign that the Conservatives’ narrow and negative campaign is misfiring emerged on Thursday when three polls showed Labour moving ahead and, for the first time, one poll found that Ed Miliband had more positive personal approval ratings than David Cameron." from April 9 - so, what, 28 days out?
Same with Brexit, same with Indy, hell, same with Trump.
But then again, turning back to the initial point, I can see the Tories absolutely stacking this election and Corbyn's merry posse not with my own eyes.
People keep saying that the "supplementary" questions in polling contradict the headline voting-intention numbers. But those supplementary questions are consistently finding that Labour's key policies are far more popular than the Tories' key policies.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
Depends which policies, polls also show voters back May's immigration cap, want to ban those who go to Syria without permission from returning, back restoring the death penalty, want to bomb ISIS, want to cut their own taxes and the welfare bill, back means testing winter fuel allowance and of course they backed Brexit
Yes but how many voters know about Corbyn's views on immigration, Syria, ISIS, tax etc etc?
Mr. Owls, I prefer my theory that May is simply incompetent at campaigning.
Just think, Boris could probably have beaten her. Maybe Leadsom too.
I'm reminded that Brown manoeuvred himself into Number Ten without a leadership election too and that didn't turn out all that well. Still, how did the Tories manage to end up with a final two of May and Leadsom?
Just watched Jeremy Corbyn with Andrew Neil. Surprisingly articulate, calm and assured. In my opinion he seems so much more able to answer questions than Theresa May. May seemed to be so ill at ease and evasive on Monday night.
I now would have no worries about Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Mr. Owls, I prefer my theory that May is simply incompetent at campaigning.
Just think, Boris could probably have beaten her. Maybe Leadsom too.
I'm reminded that Brown manoeuvred himself into Number Ten without a leadership election too and that didn't turn out all that well. Still, how did the Tories manage to end up with a final two of May and Leadsom?
Comments
The trick, as I said earlier, is to direct a wodge of the saving toward policing and the security services, and challenge the Tories to vote against.
*twitch*
Sounds like the perfect life
Over 50% was on terror / IRA / defence.
Will they do something similar on the BBC1 QT? It's a big issue for the BBC - and it will have quite a big impact.
Regardless of the spinning on here it's obvious that the Lab manifesto is very popular whilst Corbyn is highly vulnerable on IRA / defence.
So where time is focussed is bound to influence opinions of him.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/andrew-neil-interviews-jeremy-corbyn-full-transcript/
...was Theresa May's decision to refuse to debate Corbyn head to head a major error as it could blunt his momentum - or a masterstroke as it could lose her the election entirely?
It'll be interesting to see if a York audience is as brutal as the Loiners were.
Meanwhile I remain concerned that we won't get to hear the Leanne interview outside the principality
I thought the "we're offering the british people hope" line was alright. He could have made more of it though. Sharply contrasted it with the Cons and wrapped it up in a better prepared soundbite.
I imagine Corbyn is quite hard to media drill.
Seamus doesn't have an easy job.
I have to be honest and admit I'm warming to him. That said, he is facing an utterly shite opponent in the shape of Theresa May. Yet she is so feeble I actually think he'd be better, as PM.
They'll win though, the Tories.
I think.
https://order-order.com/2017/05/26/corbyn-lies-never-met-ira/
What a painfully obvious trap the Conservatives have walked into. Gob smacking.
https://twitter.com/mattzarb/status/868148924783132678
Labour claim in essence that they can save the public money by eliminating the "profiteering". So profit is irrelevant to the Labour position, ultimately Labour has to run the nationalised industries as well or better for no profit for nationalisation of this form to make any sense.
People who remember nationalised industries will likely treat such an aim with some skepticism.
The Conservatives should be hammering him over this.
*sighs* It's a masterclass in trying to cock up a seemingly uncockupable position.
I'd certainly expect her to slip a bit, though probably hold. But 90%+ to hold? I've laid a bit at Betfair.
I am reassesing my Con nailed on for huge majority position.
Do you honestly think a Corbyn led government would nationalise these industries and then just leave them to it?
Two weeks time Corbyn could be in charge, and all this half-witted rehashed socialism has to work. Does anyone think he and his shadow cabinet are up to the job?
Corbynistas here accuse me of being a frother. I'm not the terrorist sympathiser.
Surprised Corbyn stayed chilled and didn't let the radge out
Checked Wikipedia, she had an 8,000 vote majority last time. Seems pretty hefty.
Just think, Boris could probably have beaten her. Maybe Leadsom too.
Mr. P, Labour's would-be Home Secretary, there, refusing to retract a statement hoping for the defeat of the British state.
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/868116290539540481
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/868131549287460868
Mr. Gin, I agree.
If they are sensible (which, ok, is 50/50), they won't be doing much of the actual running.
I worked for a nationalised industry for over 25 years. Made a profit pretty much every year. The Tories pre-Blair interfered a lot more than New Labour did, but even then it was arms length stuff. The biggest problem was government syphoning off all the profits and not doing enough reinvestment.
Anyway, I must, again, be off.
True, policies aren't the be-all and end-all -- but that doesn't mean they count for nothing in the public's eyes. It seems quite plausible to me that if people think the Tories are more competent and have the better leader, but that Labour have the much better intentions and better policies, that the two things would come close to cancelling eachother out, thus resulting in only a small Tory lead.
....if you know there are civillians in the area you should not bomb it, even if it means leaving weapons intact. Atleast if you want to maintain a moral high ground. I believe Israel used the same excuse to bomb UN hospitals, and I disagree with that aswell.
...
If the poll is repeated universally on June 8, Labour would take eight seats from the Conservatives, in places as far spread as Croydon, Plymouth, Derby and North Wales, while the Tories would fail to gain any from Labour.
I had assumed the conservatives were campaigning rationally but they could be as Muppet delusional as Clinton's staff.
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/867849067363270657
I put forward the question who would be better in the Brexit negotiations - someone who had stuck to his principles for forty years in politics or TM who back-tracks at the slightest setback?
He simply raised his eyebows.
Corbyn is 100% right - events like this only help the radicalisation process.
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/868186228549660672
I now would have no worries about Corbyn as Prime Minister.
If you're going to call a snap election, how about making sure your party is ready to campaign and you have a thoroughly-prepared manifesto ready to go? It seems the party was no more prepared than the others for an election. And the Tory campaign is almost invisible. All one sees and hears is Corbyn this and Corbyn that; he is driving the agenda.
That said, I swear we were in pretty much this exact place 2 years ago. Tory campaign seemingly a shambles, polls 'turning', all of that jazzle.
"The strongest, if still tentative, sign that the Conservatives’ narrow and negative campaign is misfiring emerged on Thursday when three polls showed Labour moving ahead and, for the first time, one poll found that Ed Miliband had more positive personal approval ratings than David Cameron." from April 9 - so, what, 28 days out?
Same with Brexit, same with Indy, hell, same with Trump.
But then again, turning back to the initial point, I can see the Tories absolutely stacking this election and Corbyn's merry posse not with my own eyes.
This needs an obelisk.
I'll take my chance with JC.