Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Tbh I'm not sure the Womans Hour thing matters very much, except as a missed opportunity for Corbyn to make a positive case. It's like when David Cameron forgot which football team he claimed to support -- everyone has a good laugh but it does not change a single vote.
Was there 7.5bn quid of our money riding on Cameron's choice of football team?
What should be plainly transparent to all those ignorant voters who think that Jeremy Corbyn is a "very nice man" is, that, he is clearly not. He is the "smiley face" for a team of very dangerous people behind him, who have no love for this country, and want to destroy it from within.
Go to any wilderness and start whistling. Are you aware that other people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds ?
CCHQ need to produce an attack ad with Corbyn giving his car crash attempt at answering child care costs and Abbots police numbers disaster concluding labour the sums dont add up because they cant add up
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Tbh I'm not sure the Womans Hour thing matters very much, except as a missed opportunity for Corbyn to make a positive case. It's like when David Cameron forgot which football team he claimed to support -- everyone has a good laugh but it does not change a single vote.
Or like that other old favourite: Dave interviewed by The Gay Times:
The Tory line at the time was that, in an age of polished and mechanical politicians, it made Dave look fallible and human. I think there's some truth in that, so perhaps Jezza will reap a similar benefit.
@LadPolitics: Latest seat betting suggests SNP will lose: E Renfrews Dumfries & G Berwicks, R & S E Dunbartons Edinburgh W NE Fife W Aberdeens & K #GE2017
@Pulpstar The SNP would take that lot as losses I think.
---
The list seems generous to the Lib Dems and ungenerous to the Tories and Labour IMO. Although E Dunbartonshire and NE Fife could fall to the LDs there are good reasons to doubt it. All of the Tory targets listed are high probabilities, with the exception of East Renfrewshire which I think is a medium probability, mainly because the Tories would have to shoot past Labour to get the seat. There are no other medium probabilities listed. Labour are in with a good chance in East Lothian and possibilities in a couple of other constituencies. It all depends on how the Unionist tactical voting pans out, except for the Borders seats that are essentially nailed on for the Tories.
The Labour interview prep machine is having a bad campaign. There has only really been one successful moment (Thornberry's ambush of Fallon) and even that didn't get much traction beyond a day or two. But Abbott and Corbyn have both been allowed onto the airwaves to launch major policies and did not have the facts and figures in their heads or on a handy cheat sheet in front of them. That is Campaigning 101. Heads should be rolling - but, of course, they won't because you don't sack a fellow traveller
Corbyn's interview today will get lots of coverage - because it has come at exactly the wrong moment for him. When The Mirror describes it as a car crash, you know you are in trouble.
Coming on top of his weasel words with regards to security, it reinforces the widely held perception of him being out of date and out of his depth.
Emma Barnett should get a big promotion after today's performance - she took no prisoners and showed up the flaws in his answers without ever being pushy or aggressive. A talent to watch.
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Roy Jenkins, Roy Mason, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams
Look at that list, compare it with the Labour team today, and weep.
Can't the same thing be said of the Tories, though? And the Libs/Lib Dems?
No, not at all. The Corbyn team is completely off the scale, in a toxic combination of extremism and incompetence which is beyond anything ever seen before in a major party in modern times.
The Labour team would look a lot stronger if it included many languishing on the backbenches. Mind you, the same could be said to a lesser extent of the Tories.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
Where does this free run idea come from? Hasn't Corbyn been attacked more or less relentlessly by the conservatives and by their traditional media supporters?
Yes, but about all the wrong things. There are only so many swing votes in play that could be delivered by who he met in the 1980s.
Corbyn doesn't do detail. As soon as Labour made the error of producing a 'fully-costed' plan, it should have been rebutted with assumptions questioned throughout. Had that been done effectively, it would be Labour whose policy launch the media would have regarded as a shamables and Corbyn who would have been subject to detailed questioning on costings and fundings - areas where he is deeply uncomfortable (as, according to reports, he's proving today).
Spot on. The Economy and Public Finances should be something Hammond (if May doesn't want to do it, and she clearly doesn't because it's all a bit too George Osborne for her) should be all over because several newscycles of negative headlines and interviews could be wrought from that for Labour.
The National Insurance rise and U-turned fall in this year's budget surely tempers enthusiasm for Hammond and May's grasp of their own manifesto.
Yes, but Osborne had his own stratospheric screw up over the 2012 budget.
Tax rises and spending cuts are never popular. Tax cuts for those who are seen as "the haves", even if economically sensible, are not.
On "no deal", the UK would save £9bn net contributions and start to collect £2-£3bn of customs duties (prior to striking any new trade deals) and not pay the E100bn.
Full customs checks, full non-EU tariffs etc. would hit financial markets, car manufacturing and agriculture exports hardest. Disruption would also be potentially faced in transport and communication networks (but not energy, since these arrangements are largely commercial and "non-physical").
HMG would need to compensate for that (increase agricultural support significantly, compensate for 10% duty on exported cars, and 5% on exported components). The Independent and Guardian suggested 4.5bn-6bn per year. Another 5-8bn per year could be lost in financial services revenue, although I doubt it'd be that high. HMG would also need to price in a corporation tax cut from 17% to 10%, that could be up to 10bn per year. HMG would also need to factor in and support relocation of business and supply chains for a few years, say another 2-3bn per year, so that could cost - in total - up to £27bn per year in tax cuts and additional support.
So, I'd expect the public finances to be between 8-16bn per year worse off in the short term, although that excludes the E100bn danegeld which would otherwise have to be paid and would balance out most of the effects in the first few years. I'd expect us to deregulate in a few areas as well.
So not ideal, but not catastrophic. The main impacts (and very visual, and nasty, headlines) would be the queues at Dover and Calais, and the long queues of Brits trying to holiday abroad. It's that sort of thing, combined with the economy stagnating, that might turn politically toxic for the Tories, not the money, with immigration largely "solving" itself as a public issue by dipping below 150k per year as all that happens.
The risk would then be that Labour are returned to office in GE2022 and took us straight back into the EEA, because, by that stage, free movement is politically acceptable, with an aim to renegotiate accession to the EU 10-15 years after that.
In fact, if you're a Remainer, that's now your most credible path back to "Remain".
There is no credible path back to Remain, Casino.
The Prime Minister herself described the consequences of no deal as 'dire'. We should heed her warning.
Yes, this morning's debacle must come as a great relief to those who were as astonished as I was to see him look like a Prime Minister in waiting last nite.
Seems the guy's human after all.
*night
How he performed last night explains exactly why he cleaned up both Labour leadership elections, which most of us weren't paying close enough attention to understand.
How he's performed as Labour leader day-to-day, in office, explains why he is entirely unfit to the office of PM.
The Tories have 9 days left to communicate that.
Sure.
I'd heard Corbyn could be very good in front of a live audience so I shouldn't have been too surprised but last nite was the first time I'd ever seen him in full flow and I have to see I was impressed. He certainly looked a lot more Prime Ministerial than the Prime Minister.
Of course that doesn't mean everybody should go vote for him. There's a lot more to it than that and it will take more than one strong TV performance to convince the doubters, of which I remain one. But credit where credit is due.
And of course if there's much more of that kind of stuff you'd have to wonder whether the Conservative election strategy of focusing on how bad he is, rather than how good they are, could just go awry.
I wasn't impressed with either of them, to be honest. They both seemed robotic as if someone had pressed a button and they were just playing a recorded answer of their policy on X. Neither of them is a politician who can use an interview to have a genuine conversation, as for example Blair, Cameron, Obama or Ken Clarke.
Well you set the bar a bit high with Blair/Cameron/Obama/Clarke but I take your point.
Maybe I set it a bit low for Jeremy and was surprised how emphatically he cleared it.
The bar's at the right level with Blair and Cameron. They're the only two people to win a general election in the last 25 years.
We still have a week and a half to go. No doubt the Tory campaign will sharpen up, focussing more on the right weaknesses of Corbyn / Labour. We're still heading for a significant (EU awkward squad proof) majority. If not a landslide. And then we'll get a decent Brexit deal - or none at all. Either is good. And Labour will still be commanded by a certain J. Corbyn esq. And the far left will not have been trounced. They'll still have a plausible 'one more push' in them. :-) What's not to like?
It's not nice to see a Tory election campaign that looks like it's been dreamed up by the Chuckle Brothers on their day off from CBBC and implemented by IDS in drag.
On topic, there has certainly been hubris and arrogance about how May and the Tories have treated this election like a walk-in-the-park.
However, February 1974 followed a very turbulent 3 1/2 years period of Heathite Government of 3-day weeks, the energy crisis, and the start of The Troubles. It was a very bleak period and the UK looked in permanent crisis. There had been more U-turns on the 1970 manifesto than in a grand prix track circuit, and there was a basic air of Tory cluelessness. It wasn't clear what re-electing them would offer over and above further conflict with the Trade Unions, and they'd already failed to deliver on migration and (funnily enough) denied a direct vote on EEC accession.
May's Tories go into Government with a good record of economic growth, and a plan for the EU negotiations to come, including a commitment to implement a referendum vote held barely 11 months ago. The message and messenger is more credible but, for the reasons outlined in my first paragraph, it will probably cost them the landslide they sought in my view.
That's a lesson that all politicians should learn. But probably won't.
Sorry Casino but I can't let one of your points pass.
It wasn't May's Tories that had a good record, but Cameron's (and Osborne's).
OK?
Carry on.
Sure, and May was part of that administration and is keeping several of those key pledges.
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Tbh I'm not sure the Womans Hour thing matters very much, except as a missed opportunity for Corbyn to make a positive case. It's like when David Cameron forgot which football team he claimed to support -- everyone has a good laugh but it does not change a single vote.
Not really. The electorate couldn't give a toss which football team the PM supports. They do want their PM to gave some idea what their proposals will cost.
The Conservatives better hope not since their manifesto is uncosted. Labour's is not. And a partisan wanting to attack Cameron would say it is a question of honesty, like Tony Blair's favourite food to take an example from the other side. Corbyn did not know the numbers off the top of his head -- no-one will change their vote.
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Tbh I'm not sure the Womans Hour thing matters very much, except as a missed opportunity for Corbyn to make a positive case. It's like when David Cameron forgot which football team he claimed to support -- everyone has a good laugh but it does not change a single vote.
Or like that other old favourite: Dave interviewed by The Gay Times:
The Tory line at the time was that, in an age of polished and mechanical politicians, it made Dave look fallible and human. I think there's some truth in that, so perhaps Jezza will reap a similar benefit.
Yeah good point. Bloke who wants to become PM in charge of billions of pounds of our money can't for the life of him remember what his free kittens for all strategy will cost but maintains that free kittens for all (including millionaires) is the right thing to do.
Is the same as a cricket-loving posho in a frivolous and misguided comment trying to show he understands the footie.
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Tbh I'm not sure the Womans Hour thing matters very much, except as a missed opportunity for Corbyn to make a positive case. It's like when David Cameron forgot which football team he claimed to support -- everyone has a good laugh but it does not change a single vote.
Or like that other old favourite: Dave interviewed by The Gay Times:
The Tory line at the time was that, in an age of polished and mechanical politicians, it made Dave look fallible and human. I think there's some truth in that, so perhaps Jezza will reap a similar benefit.
Really?
What I am thinking is that for Jezza £7.5bn and £0.00 are to a first approximation the same thing, because it's taxpayers money, not his.
Or because it is all fully costed but he can't say so because it is all to come out of cancelling trident.
On "no deal", the UK would save £9bn net contributions and start to collect £2-£3bn of customs duties (prior to striking any new trade deals) and not pay the E100bn.
Full customs checks, full non-EU tariffs etc. would hit financial markets, car manufacturing and agriculture exports hardest. Disruption would also be potentially faced in transport and communication networks (but not energy, since these arrangements are largely commercial and "non-physical").
HMG would need to compensate for that (increase agricultural support significantly, compensate for 10% duty on exported cars, and 5% on exported components). The Independent and Guardian suggested 4.5bn-6bn per year. Another 5-8bn per year could be lost in financial services revenue, although I doubt it'd be that high. HMG would also need to price in a corporation tax cut from 17% to 10%, that could be up to 10bn per year. HMG would also need to factor in and support relocation of business and supply chains for a few years, say another 2-3bn per year, so that could cost - in total - up to £27bn per year in tax cuts and additional support.
So, I'd expect the public finances to be between 8-16bn per year worse off in the short term, although that excludes the E100bn danegeld which would otherwise have to be paid and would balance out most of the effects in the first few years. I'd expect us to deregulate in a few areas as well.
So not ideal, but not catastrophic. The main impacts (and very visual, and nasty, headlines) would be the queues at Dover and Calais, and the long queues of Brits trying to holiday abroad. It's that sort of thing, combined with the economy stagnating, that might turn politically toxic for the Tories, not the money, with immigration largely "solving" itself as a public issue by dipping below 150k per year as all that happens.
The risk would then be that Labour are returned to office in GE2022 and took us straight back into the EEA, because, by that stage, free movement is politically acceptable, with an aim to renegotiate accession to the EU 10-15 years after that.
In fact, if you're a Remainer, that's now your most credible path back to "Remain".
There is no credible path back to Remain, Casino.
The Prime Minister herself described the consequences of no deal as 'dire'. We should heed her warning.
My point is that such a "dire" outcome might lead to the UK re-joining in the 2030s.
We still have a week and a half to go. No doubt the Tory campaign will sharpen up, focussing more on the right weaknesses of Corbyn / Labour. We're still heading for a significant (EU awkward squad proof) majority. If not a landslide. And then we'll get a decent Brexit deal - or none at all. Either is good. And Labour will still be commanded by a certain J. Corbyn esq. And the far left will not have been trounced. They'll still have a plausible 'one more push' in them. :-) What's not to like?
Are both the Corbyn's the same person ? The one who is outshining Glumbucket in the campaign and the LoTo after the election ?
As we leave the EU we are resuming full control over own our customs process. Some fear we may 'have to' check every lorry entering the country. This is bullshit. We might just as well check zero more lorries than we do now, or even fewer. The political risk of long queues is very well known. Pre-transit shipment paperwork linked to number plate recognition is an option. You never know, we might have a simpler and slicker customs experience.
Chances of Osborne becoming Tory Leader on a pro-immigration ticket?
If it's such a terrible pledge (cutting immigration to 100,000) why was Osborne happy to include it in the 2010 and 2015 manifesto's?
lol. Very good. He is a f*xking hypocrite.
However things turn out in the next few years he is surely burning his bridges with the Tory membership so any chance of a "comeback" must be reducing by the day...
Re the idea that a corp tax cut would cost money. Are we sure about that? Why wouldn't it attract corporations here and make money? Works for the Caymans, BVI, etc etc...
@LadPolitics: Latest seat betting suggests SNP will lose: E Renfrews Dumfries & G Berwicks, R & S E Dunbartons Edinburgh W NE Fife W Aberdeens & K #GE2017
@Pulpstar The SNP would take that lot as losses I think.
---
The list seems generous to the Lib Dems and ungenerous to the Tories and Labour IMO. Although E Dunbartonshire and NE Fife could fall to the LDs there are good reasons to doubt it. All of the Tory targets listed are high probabilities, with the exception of East Renfrewshire which I think is a medium probability, mainly because the Tories would have to shoot past Labour to get the seat. There are no other medium probabilities listed. Labour are in with a good chance in East Lothian and possibilities in a couple of other constituencies. It all depends on how the Unionist tactical voting pans out, except for the Borders seats that are essentially nailed on for the Tories.
Scottish Lib Dems are VERY transfer friendly in target seats though, and the Holyrood constituency votes won 4 seats on 178,238 votes whereas the Tories took 7 on 501,844.
The Scottish Lib Dem vote has enormous concentration and efficacy, even on tiny overall shares. Getting 601 votes for instance in Motherwell helps here. It's also very very solid even in bad times in the strongholds (Currently overwhelmed by high SNP tide) I think the Tories will get more seats than that lot mind. Moray, Perthshire & possibly even Banff. Ruth Davidson appeals to Lib Dems.
@SeanT - yes. If the Government "survives" the Brexit of the next 5 years, it will only be able to reap the real benefits during the 2022-2027 Parliament when the new trade deals start to kick-in, the economy has adjusted and the political benefits are clear (blue passports, UK product standards, new migration regime, new human rights legal structure, and cheaper agricultural exports)
If it doesn't, and political support for Brexit collapses, over the economic fallout, then it might ricochet back to a new soft Brexit arrangement, at heavy cost, under a new Labour Government.
Or Brits might pluck up, button down the hatches, and see it all through with Theresa.
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Another gift for CCHQ, though. You have to wonder why Corbyn and co weren't nailed on the economics before.
The public aren't stupid, and none of us live in a vacuum. This must have an effect.
**runs for cover as next opinion poll shows 5% gap**
Given how ofter Tories are relaying this information, it looks like a certain panic has set in. If Tories were confident of winning they would not need to look at the "clock" every half hour.
@LadPolitics: Latest seat betting suggests SNP will lose: E Renfrews Dumfries & G Berwicks, R & S E Dunbartons Edinburgh W NE Fife W Aberdeens & K #GE2017
Who gets E Renfrewshire though? Its a 3 way marginal. The Courier had a poll yesterday suggesting that the Tories are fractionally ahead in Perth and North Tayside. I am told the Lib Dems are very optimistic in Fife NE but then they were optimistic in 2015 too.
On "no deal", the UK would save £9bn net contributions and start to collect £2-£3bn of customs duties (prior to striking any new trade deals) and not pay the E100bn.
Full customs checks, full non-EU tariffs etc. would hit financial markets, car manufacturing and agriculture exports hardest. Disruption would also be potentially faced in transport and communication networks (but not energy, since these arrangements are largely commercial and "non-physical").
HMG would need to compensate for that (increase agricultural support significantly, compensate for 10% duty on exported cars, and 5% on exported components). The Independent and Guardian suggested 4.5bn-6bn per year. Another 5-8bn per year could be lost in financial services revenue, although I doubt it'd be that high. HMG would also need to price in a corporation tax cut from 17% to 10%, that could be up to 10bn per year. HMG would also need to factor in and support relocation of business and supply chains for a few years, say another 2-3bn per year, so that could cost - in total - up to £27bn per year in tax cuts and additional support.
So, I'd expect the public finances to be between 8-16bn per year worse off in the short term, although that excludes the E100bn danegeld which would otherwise have to be paid and would balance out most of the effects in the first few years. I'd expect us to deregulate in a few areas as well.
So not ideal, but not catastrophic. The main impacts (and very visual, and nasty, headlines) would be the queues at Dover and Calais, and the long queues of Brits trying to holiday abroad. It's that sort of thing, combined with the economy stagnating, that might turn politically toxic for the Tories, not the money, with immigration largely "solving" itself as a public issue by dipping below 150k per year as all that happens.
The risk would then be that Labour are returned to office in GE2022 and took us straight back into the EEA, because, by that stage, free movement is politically acceptable, with an aim to renegotiate accession to the EU 10-15 years after that.
In fact, if you're a Remainer, that's now your most credible path back to "Remain".
There is no credible path back to Remain, Casino.
The Prime Minister herself described the consequences of no deal as 'dire'. We should heed her warning.
My point is that such a "dire" outcome might lead to the UK re-joining in the 2030s.
The SNP are now full on centre left. Even proper left. They appear to have abandoned the Tartan Tory stuff, as far as I can tell. This is surely a risky proposition. It makes indy seem like a left v right decision and I am far from convinced Scotland is an essentially leftwing country.
It is to the left of conservative England, but not by much.
Not really
They are only to the left on reserved matters that they can't control. On devolved matters they might conceivably have to take responsibility for, they tack right
As we leave the EU we are resuming full control over own our customs process. Some fear we may 'have to' check every lorry entering the country. This is bullshit. We might just as well check zero more lorries than we do now, or even fewer. The political risk of long queues is very well known. Pre-transit shipment paperwork linked to number plate recognition is an option. You never know, we might have a simpler and slicker customs experience.
No-one "knows" the impact, we can just put 90% confidence interval boundaries on it over a very wide range (and the media will tend to pick the upper and lower bounds to suit their agenda, and headlines) and one just has to use a bit of judgement and common-sense to interpret what could happen.
My view is it won't be as dire as some think, nor as straightforward and not-a-big-deal as others think, and the main price will be political, not economic, which is even less predictable.
She's the least bad PM given the circumstances we are in (eg. Brexit, etc). She is neutral enough to gain the support of the mad Brexiters, has acknowledged that some of the mad Brexiters need to be involved in Brexit, and she overlays it all with a sheen of overwhelming greyness, boredom and obfuscation. Again, something that the country needs right now, given the emotions aroused following the Brexit vote last year.
I agree with all that. The problem is it isn't nearly what we need right now. We need a trusty captain to steer the ship through the reef infested waters of Brexit. Instead of being in the pilothouse checking her maps and direction, she is in the first class saloon pleading with her obstreperous passengers trying to to make out she knows what she is doing.
Sturgeon's commitment to indyref2 at the end of the Brexit process at the SNP manifesto launch is exactly the ground Davidson wants to fight the general election on too
Chances of Osborne becoming Tory Leader on a pro-immigration ticket?
If it's such a terrible pledge (cutting immigration to 100,000) why was Osborne happy to include it in the 2010 and 2015 manifesto's?
lol. Very good. He is a f*xking hypocrite.
However things turn out in the next few years he is surely burning his bridges with the Tory membership so any chance of a comeback much be reducing by the day...
Osborne was always in the pocket of his corporate friends. Producing the home grown skills we need and not relying on the easy option of immigration is in the UK's long term interest.
@SeanT - yes. If the Government "survives" the Brexit of the next 5 years, it will only be able to reap the real benefits during the 2022-2027 Parliament when the new trade deals start to kick-in, the economy has adjusted and the political benefits are clear (blue passports, UK product standards, new migration regime, new human rights legal structure, and cheaper agricultural exports)
If it doesn't, and political support for Brexit collapses, over the economic fallout, then it might ricochet back to a new soft Brexit arrangement, at heavy cost, under a new Labour Government.
Or Brits might pluck up, button down the hatches, and see it all through with Theresa.
Difficult to say.
Soft Brexit and return to the single market will almost certainly require a Labour PM yes
And how are they going to pay for that? By raising their own taxes? I doubt it
The SNP are now full on centre left. Even proper left. They appear to have abandoned the Tartan Tory stuff, as far as I can tell. This is surely a risky proposition. It makes indy seem like a left v right decision and I am far from convinced Scotland is an essentially leftwing country.
It is to the left of conservative England, but not by much.
Look at what the SNP has done in power, not what it has said.
Re the idea that a corp tax cut would cost money. Are we sure about that? Why wouldn't it attract corporations here and make money? Works for the Caymans, BVI, etc etc...
What costs do they have ? Corporations go to Low tax havens not to pay taxes or very low rates of tax. That is enough for tiny governments with very little expenditure. On the other hand......
Given how ofter Tories are relaying this information, it looks like a certain panic has set in. If Tories were confident of winning they would not need to look at the "clock" every half hour.
Indeed. It's like the team that's 4-0 up at halftime, so subs its key players, and the team starts passing the ball sideways. Then, oops, an own goal and a penalty, 4-2 and momentum.......
She's the least bad PM given the circumstances we are in (eg. Brexit, etc). She is neutral enough to gain the support of the mad Brexiters, has acknowledged that some of the mad Brexiters need to be involved in Brexit, and she overlays it all with a sheen of overwhelming greyness, boredom and obfuscation. Again, something that the country needs right now, given the emotions aroused following the Brexit vote last year.
I agree with all that. The problem is it isn't nearly what we need right now. We need a trusty captain to steer the ship through the reef infested waters of Brexit. Instead of being in the pilothouse checking her maps and direction, she is in the first class saloon pleading with her obstreperous passengers trying to to make out she knows what she is doing.
No. The real problem for today is The Great Loo Roll Crisis of 2017. I may have to send someone to Tescos
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Another gift for CCHQ, though. You have to wonder why Corbyn and co weren't nailed on the economics before.
The public aren't stupid, and none of us live in a vacuum. This must have an effect.
**runs for cover as next opinion poll shows 5% gap**
Given how ofter Tories are relaying this information, it looks like a certain panic has set in. If Tories were confident of winning they would not need to look at the "clock" every half hour.
3,941,391 and counting. No panic, it's just addictive - like first-bagging on PB.
Have you watched it? It's so good I expect it to be part of the ppe syllabus for generations.
Interesting. I don't know enough about their domestic policies, so I bow to your superior knowledge; they are certainly selling themselves, in terms of PR, as a centre left party, more than they did under Salmond.
The most obvious example is 50p tax rate. They voted for it in Westminster. It is in the manifesto.
We still have a week and a half to go. No doubt the Tory campaign will sharpen up, focussing more on the right weaknesses of Corbyn / Labour. We're still heading for a significant (EU awkward squad proof) majority. If not a landslide. And then we'll get a decent Brexit deal - or none at all. Either is good. And Labour will still be commanded by a certain J. Corbyn esq. And the far left will not have been trounced. They'll still have a plausible 'one more push' in them. :-) What's not to like?
It's not nice to see a Tory election campaign that looks like it's been dreamed up by the Chuckle Brothers on their day off from CBBC and implemented by IDS in drag.
Indeed. That nice Mrs May is a bit of a dull and not very savvy political player. I think she's rather good at the managerial side of politics, the policy and governing. But she sucks a bit at the retail side. She should have got Dominic Cummings to run the campaign. She did, though, make an excellent choice to appoint David Davis to run Brexit. I've heard him on a few interviews / talk shows just lately and think he's completely on top of his brief. He's head and shoulders better than Fox or Boris.
And how are they going to pay for that? By raising their own taxes? I doubt it
The SNP are now full on centre left. Even proper left. They appear to have abandoned the Tartan Tory stuff, as far as I can tell. This is surely a risky proposition. It makes indy seem like a left v right decision and I am far from convinced Scotland is an essentially leftwing country.
It is to the left of conservative England, but not by much.
I would say Scotland is a much more small 'c' conservative country than England.
Chances of Osborne becoming Tory Leader on a pro-immigration ticket?
If it's such a terrible pledge (cutting immigration to 100,000) why was Osborne happy to include it in the 2010 and 2015 manifesto's?
lol. Very good. He is a f*xking hypocrite.
Has the Standard always had political headlines such as that on its front page?
As was said upthread, this is Osbornes own policy! I could understand this headline if Nigel Farage was editor of the Standard, though I doubt it would be fawned over quite as much
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Another gift for CCHQ, though. You have to wonder why Corbyn and co weren't nailed on the economics before.
The public aren't stupid, and none of us live in a vacuum. This must have an effect.
**runs for cover as next opinion poll shows 5% gap**
Given how ofter Tories are relaying this information, it looks like a certain panic has set in. If Tories were confident of winning they would not need to look at the "clock" every half hour.
3,941,391 and counting. No panic, it's just addictive - like first-bagging on PB.
Have you watched it? It's so good I expect it to be part of the ppe syllabus for generations.
The difference between Heath and May is that May has millions of new UKIP voters to add to get total unlike Heath
Clearly you have not read the Steve Fisher analysis
Wasn't that essentially stating the point that where UKIP are and are not running the result wouldn't be much different. In both cases the Tories definitely benefited, just that you should read seats where UKIP are and are not running in the same way as to the likely winner...
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Another gift for CCHQ, though. You have to wonder why Corbyn and co weren't nailed on the economics before.
The public aren't stupid, and none of us live in a vacuum. This must have an effect.
**runs for cover as next opinion poll shows 5% gap**
Given how ofter Tories are relaying this information, it looks like a certain panic has set in. If Tories were confident of winning they would not need to look at the "clock" every half hour.
3,941,391 and counting. No panic, it's just addictive - like first-bagging on PB.
Have you watched it? It's so good I expect it to be part of the ppe syllabus for generations.
She's the least bad PM given the circumstances we are in (eg. Brexit, etc). She is neutral enough to gain the support of the mad Brexiters, has acknowledged that some of the mad Brexiters need to be involved in Brexit, and she overlays it all with a sheen of overwhelming greyness, boredom and obfuscation. Again, something that the country needs right now, given the emotions aroused following the Brexit vote last year.
I agree with all that. The problem is it isn't nearly what we need right now. We need a trusty captain to steer the ship through the reef infested waters of Brexit. Instead of being in the pilothouse checking her maps and direction, she is in the first class saloon pleading with her obstreperous passengers trying to to make out she knows what she is doing.
The PM (whoever it is) has been given a mandate to make us all poorer (price worth paying, take back control, etc, etc, blah blah).
How to structure the least bad options to then make them into bargaining positions is surely beyond the wit of most people.
Actually I have to say that the way La Barnett put it on the radio to Jezza, it did seem that threatening to walk away was a sensible negotiating tactic. I don't happen to think it is - given the fact that no deal is a deal, it's a bad deal - but it sounded like it was.
The drone strike question last night to Corbyn was unfair. It should have been multiple choice. Would you- A Ring Len McCuskey B Ring Diane Abbott C Wring your hands as you have done all your life?
Re the idea that a corp tax cut would cost money. Are we sure about that? Why wouldn't it attract corporations here and make money? Works for the Caymans, BVI, etc etc...
It's the effective not the headline rate that matters, and you need to take great care in assessing that and the probable consequence of a change in it. For example, the introduction of a General Anti Avoidance Rule [GAAR] would probably make a huge difference to the effective rate but would obviously have ramifications for other aspects of the tax system and the law of the land generally.
The Treasury does spend quite a bit of time monitoring and assessing these things and Research Fellows build their careers around such arcane matters. But no, unfortunately you cannot just draw simple inferences about changes in the headline rate - unless all you want to do is fool some voters, in which case it works just fine.
And how are they going to pay for that? By raising their own taxes? I doubt it
The SNP are now full on centre left. Even proper left. They appear to have abandoned the Tartan Tory stuff, as far as I can tell. This is surely a risky proposition. It makes indy seem like a left v right decision and I am far from convinced Scotland is an essentially leftwing country.
It is to the left of conservative England, but not by much.
I would say Scotland is a much more small 'c' conservative country than England.
Nevertheless the SNP can only survive as a major Scottish party if they retain the lions share of the votes they have taken from Labour.
Chances of Osborne becoming Tory Leader on a pro-immigration ticket?
If it's such a terrible pledge (cutting immigration to 100,000) why was Osborne happy to include it in the 2010 and 2015 manifesto's?
lol. Very good. He is a f*xking hypocrite.
Has the Standard always had political headlines such as that on its front page?
As was said upthread, this is Osbornes own policy! I could understand this headline if Nigel Farage was editor of the Standard, though I doubt it would be fawned over quite as much
It's also London's policy which makes it a sensible headline for the London Evening Standard to carry.
Chances of Osborne becoming Tory Leader on a pro-immigration ticket?
If it's such a terrible pledge (cutting immigration to 100,000) why was Osborne happy to include it in the 2010 and 2015 manifesto's?
lol. Very good. He is a f*xking hypocrite.
Has the Standard always had political headlines such as that on its front page?
As was said upthread, this is Osbornes own policy! I could understand this headline if Nigel Farage was editor of the Standard, though I doubt it would be fawned over quite as much
I seem to recall in Cabinet he was against a limit like this. Indeed, that is one of the reasons he was disliked by May and got rid of when she had a chance.
The SNP are now full on centre left. Even proper left. They appear to have abandoned the Tartan Tory stuff, as far as I can tell. This is surely a risky proposition. It makes indy seem like a left v right decision and I am far from convinced Scotland is an essentially leftwing country.
It is to the left of conservative England, but not by much.
Not really
They are only to the left on reserved matters that they can't control. On devolved matters they might conceivably have to take responsibility for, they tack right
Interesting. I don't know enough about their domestic policies, so I bow to your superior knowledge; they are certainly selling themselves, in terms of PR, as a centre left party, more than they did under Salmond.
The SNP try to have as few positions as possible on anything except independence. That's because they are the broadest of churches, including supporters on the right like our MalcomG and diehard communists on the left. These groups have nothing in common except a belief that Scotland should take its rightful place in the pantheon of nations. Much safer to agree on a few Mom and Apple pie platitudes than adopt a hard policy that could alienate one or more factions. Also policy is finicky stuff when you get into social care, healthcare, the consequences of bed-blocking, education policies etc etc. It takes a special wonkish mind to be interested in that stuff. The typical SNP supporter is motivated by nationhood and emotions.
So the SNP have taken an approach of masterful inactivity. Eventually it gets to look like drift.
On "no deal", the UK would save £9bn net contributions and start to collect £2-£3bn of customs duties (prior to striking any new trade deals) and not pay the E100bn.
Full customs checks, full non-EU tariffs etc. would hit financial markets, car manufacturing and agriculture exports hardest. Disruption would also be potentially faced in transport and communication networks (but not energy, since these arrangements are largely commercial and "non-physical").
HMG would need to compensate for that (increase agricultural support significantly, compensate for 10% duty on exported cars, and 5% on exported components). The Independent and Guardian suggested 4.5bn-6bn per year. Another 5-8bn per year could be lost in financial services revenue, although I doubt it'd be that high. HMG would also need to price in a corporation tax cut from 17% to 10%, that could be up to 10bn per year. HMG would also need to factor in and support relocation of business and supply chains for a few years, say another 2-3bn per year, so that could cost - in total - up to £27bn per year in tax cuts and additional support.
So, I'd expect the public finances to be between 8-16bn per year worse off in the short term, although that excludes the E100bn danegeld which would otherwise have to be paid and would balance out most of the effects in the first few years. I'd expect us to deregulate in a few areas as well.
So not ideal, but not catastrophic. The main impacts (and very visual, and nasty, headlines) would be the queues at Dover and Calais, and the long queues of Brits trying to holiday abroad. It's that sort of thing, combined with the economy stagnating, that might turn politically toxic for the Tories, not the money, with immigration largely "solving" itself as a public issue by dipping below 150k per year as all that happens.
The risk would then be that Labour are returned to office in GE2022 and took us straight back into the EEA, because, by that stage, free movement is politically acceptable, with an aim to renegotiate accession to the EU 10-15 years after that.
In fact, if you're a Remainer, that's now your most credible path back to "Remain".
If there were no deal, the resultant drop in GDP and tax take would eat up the net payments we make to the EU and then some. We would also be immediately excluded from any form of international and pan-European agreement, collaboration and cooperation in which the ECJ has jurisdiction. That would have a significant impact on our ability to trade and move capital, as well as to physically travel - not only within Europe but also further afield. This would have a further impact on GDP and may also lead to rises in unemployment - meaning extra expenditure on benefits.
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Another gift for CCHQ, though. You have to wonder why Corbyn and co weren't nailed on the economics before.
The public aren't stupid, and none of us live in a vacuum. This must have an effect.
**runs for cover as next opinion poll shows 5% gap**
Given how ofter Tories are relaying this information, it looks like a certain panic has set in. If Tories were confident of winning they would not need to look at the "clock" every half hour.
3,941,391 and counting. No panic, it's just addictive - like first-bagging on PB.
Have you watched it? It's so good I expect it to be part of the ppe syllabus for generations.
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
All the polls are clear that May enjoys a substantial lead over Corbyn, that the Tories have a substantial lead on all things security-related and that they will win the election with ease. The attacks are working.
erm excuse me - the attacks are working because some of them are based in fact. It was noted on here, rightly, that the debate worked for Lab because it stayed on security rather than economics.
This morning the sainted Emma sent Lab firmly back to economics. And to say he/they were dreadful would qualify as understatement of the century.
They are all based in fact. They are the reason I will not be voting Labour.
He should always have been expected to be a little more effective once out on the road but the extent the which CCHQ have given him a free run is criminal.
I think CCHQ surrendered the airwaves assuming his Labour manifesto would speak for itself.
Yes, they were quite explicit about it to journalists. It was a classic case of assuming everyone thinks like oneself - they think Corbyn is appalling, so giving Corbyn lots of airtime seemed a good idea.
No he doesnt. Anyone can pick ludicrous figures out of the air and then clsim their manifesto us costed. The fact it bears absolutely no relation to reality seems to be an issue only to those people living on planet Earth.
The drone strike question last night to Corbyn was unfair. It should have been multiple choice. Would you- A Ring Len McCuskey B Ring Diane Abbott C Wring your hands as you have done all your life?
Let's face it, Corbyn's Woman's Hour meltdown was just emblematic of everything about Labour's economic case in this election. They have no idea because it is like one of those towns in western movies, all propped-up front and nothingness behind. Of course Corbyn doesn't know the details - there is no detail to know.
But this interview might now give the opportunity to lift the curtain to reveal the truth about the Wizard.... People are being taken for fools.
It's disappointing that he didn't have the figures readily available. At least he didn't make it up. It happens to me at times on conference calls - sometimes saying "I'm not sure - I'll get back to you" is brutally honest.
Anyway, I expect the PB Tories to be orgasmic at the moment. You lot really are pathetic - desperate to put the torch back on Corbyn as your leader is totally hopeless and hapless. The crappiest PM we have ever had in the country. Look in the mirror, you morons!
If I want to see morons, the Shadow Cabinet has a wonderful selection for me to peruse....
Corbyn deserves the torch putting on him. He has put himself up to be our Prime Minister. The person charged with keeping us safe from our enemies. Charged with securing the economy. Charged with securing the best Brexit deal possible.
The guy is a fucking joke. On any level, on every level, he is unfit to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. And you know this. The faux enthusiasm for the guy from you and others who have been set against him from his election is cringe-making to observe. And very funny. because when he loses next week, you will all be saying "we knew he was shit and had to go..."
Who said I am a fan of Corbyn? I am not! Just trying to bring some balance to a right-wing dominated blog like this. Let me flip the question - what do you think of TMay? Do you agree she's probably the worst PM we have ever had? Cameron would be 25 percent clear now.
She's not the worst, though she does remind me a bit of Brown and from what I've heard she is a control freak very much in the same vein as Brown. Not a good quality to have.
Chances of Osborne becoming Tory Leader on a pro-immigration ticket?
If it's such a terrible pledge (cutting immigration to 100,000) why was Osborne happy to include it in the 2010 and 2015 manifesto's?
lol. Very good. He is a f*xking hypocrite.
Has the Standard always had political headlines such as that on its front page?
As was said upthread, this is Osbornes own policy! I could understand this headline if Nigel Farage was editor of the Standard, though I doubt it would be fawned over quite as much
Check out Standard headlines during recent mayoral elections.
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Another gift for CCHQ, though. You have to wonder why Corbyn and co weren't nailed on the economics before.
The public aren't stupid, and none of us live in a vacuum. This must have an effect.
**runs for cover as next opinion poll shows 5% gap**
Given how ofter Tories are relaying this information, it looks like a certain panic has set in. If Tories were confident of winning they would not need to look at the "clock" every half hour.
3,941,391 and counting. No panic, it's just addictive - like first-bagging on PB.
Have you watched it? It's so good I expect it to be part of the ppe syllabus for generations.
Chances of Osborne becoming Tory Leader on a pro-immigration ticket?
If it's such a terrible pledge (cutting immigration to 100,000) why was Osborne happy to include it in the 2010 and 2015 manifesto's?
lol. Very good. He is a f*xking hypocrite.
Has the Standard always had political headlines such as that on its front page?
As was said upthread, this is Osbornes own policy! I could understand this headline if Nigel Farage was editor of the Standard, though I doubt it would be fawned over quite as much
Check out Standard headlines during recent mayoral elections.
Would definitely have second preffed for Khan after Zac's racist train wreck of a campaign. The Tory campaign this election this election looks quite good next to that one.
So Corbyn's only chance to stop a Conservative majority is relying on the group that doesn't turn out for elections to suddenly turn out in their droves across the nation?
I guess a mixture of higher than usual turnout for say 18-24's and some of the over 65's deciding to sit this one out and not vote at all could be interesting.
But I get the impression that whilst the over 65's are not exactly happy with May or the Tories right now over this social care issue the prospect of Corbyn as PM is too much for them and they will turnout to try to stop him. Take that guy in the audience last night who asked the social care question and wasn't happy with her answer, he still plans to vote for the Tories I believe.
Common sense says that some of this MUST be hitting home. And that hilarious radio pile-up won't help.
But maybe this isn't a common sensical election.
Another gift for CCHQ, though. You have to wonder why Corbyn and co weren't nailed on the economics before.
The public aren't stupid, and none of us live in a vacuum. This must have an effect.
**runs for cover as next opinion poll shows 5% gap**
Given how ofter Tories are relaying this information, it looks like a certain panic has set in. If Tories were confident of winning they would not need to look at the "clock" every half hour.
3,941,391 and counting. No panic, it's just addictive - like first-bagging on PB.
Have you watched it? It's so good I expect it to be part of the ppe syllabus for generations.
So Corbyn's only chance to stop a Conservative majority is relying on the group that doesn't turn out for elections to suddenly turn out in their droves across the nation?
I guess a mixture of higher than usual turnout for say 18-24's and some of the over 65's deciding to sit this one out and not vote at all could be interesting.
But I get the impression that whilst the over 65's are not exactly happy with May or the Tories right now over this social care issue the prospect of Corbyn as PM is too much for them and they will turnout to try to stop him. Take that guy in the audience last night who asked the social care question and wasn't happy with her answer, he still plans to vote for the Tories.
Over 65s are not that bothered about the social care plans, it is more the under 50s in polling whose inheritance May be affected and the cap was meant to reassure them most of all
She's the least bad PM given the circumstances we are in (eg. Brexit, etc). She is neutral enough to gain the support of the mad Brexiters, has acknowledged that some of the mad Brexiters need to be involved in Brexit, and she overlays it all with a sheen of overwhelming greyness, boredom and obfuscation. Again, something that the country needs right now, given the emotions aroused following the Brexit vote last year.
I agree with all that. The problem is it isn't nearly what we need right now. We need a trusty captain to steer the ship through the reef infested waters of Brexit. Instead of being in the pilothouse checking her maps and direction, she is in the first class saloon pleading with her obstreperous passengers trying to to make out she knows what she is doing.
The PM (whoever it is) has been given a mandate to make us all poorer (price worth paying, take back control, etc, etc, blah blah).
How to structure the least bad options to then make them into bargaining positions is surely beyond the wit of most people.
Actually I have to say that the way La Barnett put it on the radio to Jezza, it did seem that threatening to walk away was a sensible negotiating tactic. I don't happen to think it is - given the fact that no deal is a deal, it's a bad deal - but it sounded like it was.
Spot on for all three points. Theresa May obviously can't give an honest answer to Jeremy Paxman's question to her yesterday: You don’t really believe in Brexit because you argued against it and don't now think you were wrong about that? An honest answer is that I still think Brexit is crap but I can make it less crap than it would otherwise be. My fear is that she believes her own rhetoric, just as she probably has convinced the public of it.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2010/mar/26/david-cameron-gay-times-interview
The Tory line at the time was that, in an age of polished and mechanical politicians, it made Dave look fallible and human. I think there's some truth in that, so perhaps Jezza will reap a similar benefit.
old habits die hard - he did the same 2010-2015
---
The list seems generous to the Lib Dems and ungenerous to the Tories and Labour IMO. Although E Dunbartonshire and NE Fife could fall to the LDs there are good reasons to doubt it. All of the Tory targets listed are high probabilities, with the exception of East Renfrewshire which I think is a medium probability, mainly because the Tories would have to shoot past Labour to get the seat. There are no other medium probabilities listed. Labour are in with a good chance in East Lothian and possibilities in a couple of other constituencies. It all depends on how the Unionist tactical voting pans out, except for the Borders seats that are essentially nailed on for the Tories.
Corbyn's interview today will get lots of coverage - because it has come at exactly the wrong moment for him. When The Mirror describes it as a car crash, you know you are in trouble.
Coming on top of his weasel words with regards to security, it reinforces the widely held perception of him being out of date and out of his depth.
Emma Barnett should get a big promotion after today's performance - she took no prisoners and showed up the flaws in his answers without ever being pushy or aggressive. A talent to watch.
The Prime Minister herself described the consequences of no deal as 'dire'. We should heed her warning.
https://twitter.com/EarsJim/status/869492516600635392
https://twitter.com/melocoton61/status/869491538115665920
Is the same as a cricket-loving posho in a frivolous and misguided comment trying to show he understands the footie.
What I am thinking is that for Jezza £7.5bn and £0.00 are to a first approximation the same thing, because it's taxpayers money, not his.
Or because it is all fully costed but he can't say so because it is all to come out of cancelling trident.
As we leave the EU we are resuming full control over own our customs process. Some fear we may 'have to' check every lorry entering the country. This is bullshit. We might just as well check zero more lorries than we do now, or even fewer. The political risk of long queues is very well known. Pre-transit shipment paperwork linked to number plate recognition is an option. You never know, we might have a simpler and slicker customs experience.
The Scottish Lib Dem vote has enormous concentration and efficacy, even on tiny overall shares. Getting 601 votes for instance in Motherwell helps here. It's also very very solid even in bad times in the strongholds (Currently overwhelmed by high SNP tide)
I think the Tories will get more seats than that lot mind. Moray, Perthshire & possibly even Banff.
Ruth Davidson appeals to Lib Dems.
If it doesn't, and political support for Brexit collapses, over the economic fallout, then it might ricochet back to a new soft Brexit arrangement, at heavy cost, under a new Labour Government.
Or Brits might pluck up, button down the hatches, and see it all through with Theresa.
Difficult to say.
By 2030? Maybe....with a fair wind.
@PolhomeEditor: For balance, should point out that Kathleen Nutt of The National gets a massive cheer from the audience at SNP manifesto launch.
@JamieRoss7: Sturgeon is asked if her disappearance from the manifesto cover is a sign of declining popularity. She says the baby is "cuter" than her.
Oh
They are only to the left on reserved matters that they can't control. On devolved matters they might conceivably have to take responsibility for, they tack right
My view is it won't be as dire as some think, nor as straightforward and not-a-big-deal as others think, and the main price will be political, not economic, which is even less predictable.
There were hundreds of posts along the lines of Ed Miliband Is Crap.
Then, as the polls narrowed, it became Ed Miliband Is Crap, Is Prime Minister...
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/869509282370334722
Hard to get back on the attack from there.
Have you watched it? It's so good I expect it to be part of the ppe syllabus for generations.
3,943,296 now, in the time it took to type that.
They refused to do it at Holyrood...
She did, though, make an excellent choice to appoint David Davis to run Brexit. I've heard him on a few interviews / talk shows just lately and think he's completely on top of his brief. He's head and shoulders better than Fox or Boris.
As was said upthread, this is Osbornes own policy! I could understand this headline if Nigel Farage was editor of the Standard, though I doubt it would be fawned over quite as much
I mean, if it really only costs 3 billion to set up the National Care Service, it would have been done years ago.
Who the fuck do you vote for in Scotland if you are pro-independence but basically right-wing/Libertarian in outlook?
Such people must surely exist.
How to structure the least bad options to then make them into bargaining positions is surely beyond the wit of most people.
Actually I have to say that the way La Barnett put it on the radio to Jezza, it did seem that threatening to walk away was a sensible negotiating tactic. I don't happen to think it is - given the fact that no deal is a deal, it's a bad deal - but it sounded like it was.
Would you-
A Ring Len McCuskey
B Ring Diane Abbott
C Wring your hands as you have done all your life?
The Treasury does spend quite a bit of time monitoring and assessing these things and Research Fellows build their careers around such arcane matters. But no, unfortunately you cannot just draw simple inferences about changes in the headline rate - unless all you want to do is fool some voters, in which case it works just fine.
So the SNP have taken an approach of masterful inactivity. Eventually it gets to look like drift.
I think you vote SNP until you get independence and then wait to see what sort of realignment occurs afterwards.
For example, you immediately assume I am a Tory and start attacking me based on Tory policy.
I am not a party political hack, I'm interested in a decent social care policy for people like my late mother. You are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Libertarian_Party
18-24: 67
25-39: 68
40-59: 78
60+: 85
Survation Had
18-34: 57%
35-54: 76%
55+: 87%
ICM Telephone Poll
18-24: 53
25-34: 63
35-64: 77
65+: 87
Not trending on Facebook.
Anyone got a link?
I guess a mixture of higher than usual turnout for say 18-24's and some of the over 65's deciding to sit this one out and not vote at all could be interesting.
But I get the impression that whilst the over 65's are not exactly happy with May or the Tories right now over this social care issue the prospect of Corbyn as PM is too much for them and they will turnout to try to stop him. Take that guy in the audience last night who asked the social care question and wasn't happy with her answer, he still plans to vote for the Tories I believe.
Don't read to much into it. It is used for all actual and aspirant PMs!