Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
Yes, we would be trotting behind gallant Merkel slagging off the country who we invest in the most and who invests the most with us because we would know that any voice of moderation in our relationship with America would be dismissed by Merkel in her rage at having someone who disagrees with her.
Or we could stay silent just as we did with the EU Ports Directive, the Payment Services directive et all because despite the harmful nature of the law to the UK we knew it was pointless to protest and we would be given the same consideration when they put Jean Claude Juncker in charge of the bureaucrats that write our laws.
Or we would protest that perhaps Trump has a point that the majority of the EU NATO members are security parasites. We would then get our under 5% say in any legislation that was drafted in support of Merkel's dummy spitting, and when that failed to change anything as it always do we could then get outvoted at the European council at over double the rate of our nearest "Friends" (12.5% losses when we bothered to fight), by nations such as Ireland who pay 0.5% of their GDP on defence or Spain with their 0.9%. Supported of course by the European Parliament where we get outvoted about 50% of the time on Foreign Policy Decisions. We could then take the matter to the ECJ where we lost 75% of the time.
Or we could beg and plead for an Opt out or Exemption to the EU, knowing the above and knowing our voice didn't matter a damn. If the EU was feeling generous it might allow us to sign the hissy fit away from the Media.
The only time the UK's voice was heard was when it was saying "How high" to the command "jump".
Even with Corbyn at the helm we will be able to make decisions that suit us, and more importantly get rid of them when enough people finally realise that he doesn't know what he is doing. Can we say the same about the EU?
You should really post more often.
+1
The mentions of dummy spitting and hissy fits were a nice touch, conforming to the maxim of accusing others of that which you are guilty.
How do you get that from my 6 words and a number?
I was commenting on the post with which you were approvingly associating yourself. You did read it?
Really sceptical about YG. After the two previous incidents more caution should be attached to their polling. That other pollsters seem to swing in that direction says everything.
All pollsters failed at GE1015. Most, including YouGov, got the referendum right within the margin of error.
Didn't they produce an "exit poll" from their panel on the day that was 52% Remain 48% Leave?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Well quite, yet I'm sure Mrs May is aware that politics, like life isn't 'fair'.....though if you vote Corbyn, it will be....or something.....
Cyclefree also says "The "character" question bothers me a lot about Corbyn." I think this has been well aired, but I like Cyclefree and FWIW a response from me which I'll try to be honest about. What you see is what you get with him, to a degree that I wouldn't say about most politicians. In public he is leftist in a generalised fashion, polite about opponents and very hard to get down by tiredness or personal abuse. Privately he is exactly the same. I've known him on and off all my adult life: I've never heard him talk abusively about anyone. He is an acute sense of duty which makes him indifferent to personal attacks and personal comfort - I've seen him turn up on his bike in the pouring rain for a routine canvassing session, and I've seen him conduct a 6-hours surgery to ensure that every constituent who attended could get everything off their chest.
Downsides? He is not a detail man and not academically trained, although he has the instinct of an academic to treat a problem as something to be discussed rather than avoided. He has been consistently critical of postwar Western policy and it's led him to indulge all kinds of underdog campaigns and groups, some of which he should IMO have steeeered clear of, but it misreads him to see him as a terrorist sympathiser: he is closer to being a pacifist, and certainly endorses the "better jaw-jaw than war-war" principle, though like most of us he sees no prospect of talking to ISIS. He would not get us involved in further MidEast adventures, unlike Ms May and Boris, who would find it "very difficult" to refuse a request for that from Mr Trump.
Why has he appointed Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray - two avowed Stalinists - to his leadership team? Those were decisions taken in the here and now.
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
Yes, we would be trotting behind gallant Merkel slagging off the country who we invest in the most and who invests the most with us because we would know that any voice of moderation in our relationship with America would be dismissed by Merkel in her rage at having someone who disagrees with her.
Or we could stay silent just as we did with the EU Ports Directive, the Payment Services directive et all because despite the harmful nature of the law to the UK we knew it was pointless to protest and we would be given the same consideration when they put Jean Claude Juncker in charge of the bureaucrats that write our laws.
Or we would protest that perhaps Trump has a point that the majority of the EU NATO members are security parasites. We would then get our under 5% say in any legislation that was drafted in support of Merkel's dummy spitting, and when that failed to change anything as it always do we could then get outvoted at the European council at over double the rate of our nearest "Friends" (12.5% losses when we bothered to fight), by nations such as Ireland who pay 0.5% of their GDP on defence or Spain with their 0.9%. Supported of course by the European Parliament where we get outvoted about 50% of the time on Foreign Policy Decisions. We could then take the matter to the ECJ where we lost 75% of the time.
Even with Corbyn at the helm we will be able to make decisions that suit us, and more importantly get rid of them when enough people finally realise that he doesn't know what he is doing. Can we say the same about the EU?
You should really post more often.
+1
The mentions of dummy spitting and hissy fits were a nice touch, conforming to the maxim of accusing others of that which you are guilty.
How do you get that from my 6 words and a number?
I was commenting on the post with which you were approvingly associating yourself. You did read it?
Perhaps you should reply directly to the post then
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
Really sceptical about YG. After the two previous incidents more caution should be attached to their polling. That other pollsters seem to swing in that direction says everything.
All pollsters failed at GE1015. Most, including YouGov, got the referendum right within the margin of error.
Except that strange referendum day Populus which had LEAVE winning by 10%...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
Yes, we would be trotting behind gallant Merkel slagging off the country who we invest in the most and who invests the most with us because we would know that any voice of moderation in our relationship with America would be dismissed by Merkel in her rage at having someone who disagrees with her.
Or we could stay silent just as we did with the EU Ports Directive, the Payment Services directive et all because despite the harmful nature of the law to the UK we knew it was pointless to protest and we would be given the same consideration when they put Jean Claude Juncker in charge of the bureaucrats that write our laws.
Or we would protest that perhaps Trump has a point that the majority of the EU NATO members are security parasites. We would then get our under 5% say in any legislation that was drafted in support of Merkel's dummy spitting, and when that failed to change anything as it always do we could then get outvoted at the European council at over double the rate of our nearest "Friends" (12.5% losses when we bothered to fight), by nations such as Ireland who pay 0.5% of their GDP on defence or Spain with their 0.9%. Supported of course by the European Parliament where we get outvoted about 50% of the time on Foreign Policy Decisions. We could then take the matter to the ECJ where we lost 75% of the time.
Or we could beg and plead for an Opt out or Exemption to the EU, knowing the above and knowing our voice didn't matter a damn. If the EU was feeling generous it might allow us to sign the hissy fit away from the Media.
The only time the UK's voice was heard was when it was saying "How high" to the command "jump".
Even with Corbyn at the helm we will be able to make decisions that suit us, and more importantly get rid of them when enough people finally realise that he doesn't know what he is doing. Can we say the same about the EU?
Plus of course our democratically-elected government in each case signed up to each measure (or not - the fiscal compact). Just because you didn't agree with it doesn't make it not democratic.
Erm....we were denied any referendums on matters European since 1973. The people voted to join a Common Market. Our weasel fucking politicians from both sides of the establishment ratified Maastricht and then Lisbon without our authority. Brexit was the result. We would have voted No on both occasions had we but been given the chance.
Cyclefree also says "The "character" question bothers me a lot about Corbyn." I think this has been well aired, but I like Cyclefree and FWIW a response from me which I'll try to be honest about. What you see is what you get with him, to a degree that I wouldn't say about most politicians. In public he is leftist in a generalised fashion, polite about opponents and very hard to get down by tiredness or personal abuse. Privately he is exactly the same. I've known him on and off all my adult life: I've never heard him talk abusively about anyone. He is an acute sense of duty which makes him indifferent to personal attacks and personal comfort - I've seen him turn up on his bike in the pouring rain for a routine canvassing session, and I've seen him conduct a 6-hours surgery to ensure that every constituent who attended could get everything off their chest.
Downsides? He is not a detail man and not academically trained, although he has the instinct of an academic to treat a problem as something to be discussed rather than avoided. He has been consistently critical of postwar Western policy and it's led him to indulge all kinds of underdog campaigns and groups, some of which he should IMO have steeeered clear of, but it misreads him to see him as a terrorist sympathiser: he is closer to being a pacifist, and certainly endorses the "better jaw-jaw than war-war" principle, though like most of us he sees no prospect of talking to ISIS. He would not get us involved in further MidEast adventures, unlike Ms May and Boris, who would find it "very difficult" to refuse a request for that from Mr Trump.
Very good, but the missing element is leadership - taking people with him, communicating, co-ordinating, appraising, developing, resolving conflict and exercising good decisive judgement.
He is quite clearly a loner and utterly unsuited to running his party, let alone his country. And he doesn't even have good people around him; apart from McDonnell and Gardiner they are mostly clueless, inexperienced or both.
The tragedy is that we now see that Mrs May isn't much better qualified than him.
How did May go from Remain to Hard Brexiteer in the space of under a year?
To the extent I can detect any Brexit strategy at all from May, it is to wait and hope something will turn up. The "no deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric is just that. "I'm a bloody difficult woman" sounds more decisive and more in control than "I'm making all the necessary compromises to stop the wheels falling off".
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
There's a limit to how unfair to Mrs May the situation can be, considering that Mrs May is entirely responsible for the situation!
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
No shit, the endless parroting of "why would older voters care about tuition fees" has to be the most short sighted line ever said on PB.
Really sceptical about YG. After the two previous incidents more caution should be attached to their polling. That other pollsters seem to swing in that direction says everything.
All pollsters failed at GE1015. Most, including YouGov, got the referendum right within the margin of error.
Only 3 of the last 13 polls had Leave winning, and almost all showed a swing towards Remain. A strange interpretation of 'right'
I could go on. More generally, I trust Corbyn and McDonnell on this. Their instincts are redistributive, just as the Conservative instincts are entirely to support the wealthiest in the belief that this encourage incentives.
Did you ever look at the IFS stats? Since 2010 it's been the top decile (and I believe the second top) that have been hardest hit, while the lowest decile has - axiomatically - lost out most from reining back government spending
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
I'll be here.
Thank goodness. You, who will largely be untouched by Brexit, and the people who will be badly affected by it but can't afford to leave.
How did May go from Remain to Hard Brexiteer in the space of under a year?
To the extent I can detect any Brexit strategy at all from May, it is to wait and hope something will turn up. The "no deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric is just that. "I'm a bloody difficult woman" sounds more decisive and more in control than "I'm making all the necessary compromises to stop the wheels falling off".
She's making it up as she goes along. Jesus Christ.
Erm....we were denied any referendums on matters European since 1973. The people voted to join a Common Market. Our weasel fucking politicians from both sides of the establishment ratified Maastricht and then Lisbon without our authority. Brexit was the result. We would have voted No on both occasions had we but been given the chance.
Heath in the 1975 referendum: "Its purpose is first and foremost a political one." "What really divides us is that those opposing this are content to remain with the past development and institutions of the nation state, and those on this side want to move forward into a new organisation."
It was always more than just a trading bloc (as if such a thing could be devoid of a political character at all...), and any sentient being in the UK at the time knew it. There has been no more pernicious myth than the lie that people weren't told the truth.
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
Yes, we would be trotting beuld be dismissed by Merkel in her rage at having someone who disagrees with her.
Or we could stay silent just as we did with the EU Ports Directive, the Payment Services directive et all because despite the harmful nature of the law to the UK we knew it was pointless to protest and we would be given the same consideration when they put Jean Claude Juncker in charge of the bureaucrats that write our laws.
Or we would protest that perhaps Trump has a point that the majority of the EU NATO members are security parasites. We would then get our under 5% say in any legislation that was drafted in support of Merkel's dummy spitting, and when that failed to change anything as it always do we could then get outvoted at the European council at over double the rate of our nearest "Friends" (12.5% losses when we bothered to fight), by nations such as Ireland who pay 0.5% of their GDP on defence or Spain with their 0.9%. Supported of course by the European Parliament where we get outvoted about 50% of the time on Foreign Policy Decisions. We could then take the matter to the ECJ where we lost 75% of the time.
Or we could beg and plead for an Opt out or Exemption to the EU, knowing the above and knowing our voice didn't matter a damn. If the EU was feeling generous it might allow us to sign the hissy fit away from the Media.
The only time the UK's voice was heard was when it was saying "How high" to the command "jump".
Even with Corbyn at the helm we will be able to make decisions that suit us, and more importantly get rid of them when enough people finally realise that he doesn't know what he is doing. Can we say the same about the EU?
Plus of course our democratically-elected government in each case signed up to each measure (or not - the fiscal compact). Just because you didn't agree with it doesn't make it not democratic.
Erm....we were denied any referendums on matters European since 1973. The people voted to join a Common Market. Our weasel fucking politicians from both sides of the establishment ratified Maastricht and then Lisbon without our authority. Brexit was the result. We would have voted No on both occasions had we but been given the chance.
Yes I know. And yet we voted in our weasel fucking politicians to act, based upon their views of what they thought was best for the country.
April 2015, Cameron had a 14% lead over Miliband on the best PM question.
In last night's YouGov poll, May has a 13% lead over Corbyn on the same question.
That is a seriously impressive performance by Mrs May.
Unfortunately we will never know how he would be faring now because he quit.
Cameron was defeated by Corbyn in the 2016 local elections.
Its likely Cameron and Osborne would have been an open goal for Corbyn's 'resentment and promises' strategy. Time for a change would also have worked strongly against Cameron.
Quite, but there has been a lot of guff on recent threads about how spiffing it would all be if Dave and George were still around and how they would save the country if they returned.
How did May go from Remain to Hard Brexiteer in the space of under a year?
To the extent I can detect any Brexit strategy at all from May, it is to wait and hope something will turn up. The "no deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric is just that. "I'm a bloody difficult woman" sounds more decisive and more in control than "I'm making all the necessary compromises to stop the wheels falling off".
She's making it up as she goes along. Jesus Christ.
How did May go from Remain to Hard Brexiteer in the space of under a year?
To the extent I can detect any Brexit strategy at all from May, it is to wait and hope something will turn up. The "no deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric is just that. "I'm a bloody difficult woman" sounds more decisive and more in control than "I'm making all the necessary compromises to stop the wheels falling off".
I agree. I said a few days ago that Mrs May's superpower was "doing nothing" regardless of the screams around her. Sadly, she takes it to extremes...
Yes I know. And yet we voted in our weasel fucking politicians to act, based upon their views of what they thought was best for the country.
That's how it works...
It's an odd mindset that rails against the EU for being incompatible with a Westminster system of democracy, while simultaneously railing against the Westminster system that delivered it.
Everyone is focusing on whether the national polls are correct. Even if they are we all know it bears little relation to what happens in individual constituencies. Awful lot of hot air at the moment.
Suppose for a moment yougov is correct. Tory minority Government. A majority is not now necessary for most of the Brexit work until quite near the end, when the "Great Repeal Bill" (sic.) will need to pass, and potentially the deal put before Parliament.
At that stage it would incredibly easy for a halfway competent Tory Government to press for another election (assuming FTPA can't be repealed) and, emboldened by this election, Labour would agree. The trouble is, the Tories would have learned and their manifesto would presumably contain all sorts of sweeties contingent on that deal.
My point? Getting somewhere close in a Hung Parliament isn't necessarily "job done" for Labour next time. Especially if they are stuck with JC. If I were a Labour moderate I'd paradoxically be more worried now than I would have been staring at a guaranteed Tory landslide, given they would have had to defend it after Brexit had delivered and following the recession we're due. If you're a Labour moderate I reckon (assuming Labour majority Government is impossible) you want a Tory majority of 80. You see the end of Corbyn but you're in range in 2022.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
None of this nonsense about Theresa May being the shortest-serving Conservative leader since IDS. IDS managed two full years.
Come what may, at least she will have outlasted Andrew Bonar Law in the office of Prime Minister.
Even if she resigns the day after the election she will have outlasted Edith Cresson by a few days so the title of worst female Prime Minister in the history of Europe may elude her.
How did May go from Remain to Hard Brexiteer in the space of under a year?
To the extent I can detect any Brexit strategy at all from May, it is to wait and hope something will turn up. The "no deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric is just that. "I'm a bloody difficult woman" sounds more decisive and more in control than "I'm making all the necessary compromises to stop the wheels falling off".
She's making it up as she goes along. Jesus Christ.
A glorious morning in London Town and I hope for similar next week. Democracy only really works if as many participate as possible. The more who absent themselves from the process the easier it is for the extremes on both sides to gain a foothold.
Irrespective of political perspective (or lack of it), the one message ALL activists and campaigners should be shouting is for people to get out and vote. I can't honestly say from limited discussions with my contemporaries and acquaintances I detect huge enthusiasm for anyone in this election.
I don't claim that from speaking to a few people I have any kind of insight into the mood of the country any more than knocking on a few doors in one part of England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster immediately provides insight into all other areas.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets. The only problem is the voters are in the sack as well. More heat than light from what I've read and inevitable with seven runners as the farcical GOP debates last year illustrated. Two or three is probably the optimum number for these to work well.
How did May go from Remain to Hard Brexiteer in the space of under a year?
To the extent I can detect any Brexit strategy at all from May, it is to wait and hope something will turn up. The "no deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric is just that. "I'm a bloody difficult woman" sounds more decisive and more in control than "I'm making all the necessary compromises to stop the wheels falling off".
She's making it up as she goes along. Jesus Christ.
It's an election between Stalin and Mr Bean,
Mr Bean and Ms Bean would be closer.
LOL. So would Bob the Builder (C2s), the Teleubbies, Winnie the Pooh and so on.
Suppose for a moment yougov is correct. Tory minority Government. A majority is not now necessary for most of the Brexit work until quite near the end, when the "Great Repeal Bill" (sic.) will need to pass, and potentially the deal put before Parliament.
At that stage it would incredibly easy for a halfway competent Tory Government to press for another election (assuming FTPA can't be repealed) and, emboldened by this election, Labour would agree. The trouble is, the Tories would have learned and their manifesto would presumably contain all sorts of sweeties contingent on that deal.
My point? Getting somewhere close in a Hung Parliament isn't necessarily "job done" for Labour next time. Especially if they are stuck with JC. If I were a Labour moderate I'd paradoxically be more worried now than I would have been staring at a guaranteed Tory landslide, given they would have had to defend it after Brexit had delivered and following the recession we're due. If you're a Labour moderate I reckon (assuming Labour majority Government is impossible) you want a Tory majority of 80. You see the end of Corbyn but you're in range in 2022.
Plus I think people might look back on the coalition with some fondness. Except of course this time we would have different factors at play in terms of needing to pass legislation, but perhaps people don't mind what would sort of, in effect, a bit, be a grand coalition.
Family anecdote time. Was with the parents, background- both working class families, mums were WC Conservatives who thought Maggie was the greatest thing that ever walked the earth, Dad's were hardcore old labour trade unionists bordering communist in some ways (the good, everyone is born equal and should live equal way). Mum has always voted Tory, Dad rarely votes, but voted Maggie in 79 and Cameron in 2010. He usually only turns out when he thinks it's time to get rid of a Labour government, he despised Blair from day one bit has a strange infatuation and empathy with Tony Benn and has his parents hard left streak under the surface. Both voted for Brexit, both originally voted to join the common market. Mum asked nervously if Corbyn might win this, I said I didn't know and probably don't care anymore, it's a terrible choice either way. She likes May but she isn't as committed to voting as she has always been and its fear of Corbyn that is driving her to the booth this time, but she said stoically that there's nothing we can do about it anyway. I get the impression she thinks this one has slipped out the Tory grasp but she's much less vocal than 2010 when she was proclaiming the end times if we didn't get rid of Brown. Dad is thinking of voting for May as he really liked her until about a week ago when she started winding him up, not sure why, he gets huffy about people sometimes. He hates Corbyn, which seems odd if you contrast it with his Benn admiration but he thinks Corbyn is false and duplicitous. The Falklands thing hit home hard for hi (Benn?! I know right?!). He was impressed May had decided not to debate declaring it a waste of time and all hot air. He was pissed off when I told him Rudd was going instead as he didn't know that and said what a daft thing to do. I've got a feeling he's going to be a DNV as he had that 'bollocks to the lot of them' look in his eyes by the end of the conversation. We all agreed to enjoy the free puppies if Corbyn wins. Apropos of nothing but thought I'd share for the sake of it,
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
The stories from TSE from the focus groups rings true to me. May has played on being Thatcher MK II and she carried that off for 9-months quite well because people were only exposed to her in very small doses. But I think during this election campaign we were expecting to learn a bit more about her and when we have, the reality is a bit of a shocker. She almost seems two-dimensional as a character, hence the Maybot memes have real potency.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets.
She's going to be the shortest serving Tory leader since IDS.
When she gets a 100 seat majority you're going to look pretty silly.
Oh she's getting a decent majority.
She could still be ousted in the next year
She would only be ousted in favour of a hard-core Leaver if she was seen as being too soft with the EU and making too many concessions, as I have said before if you want soft Brexit you need a Labour PM
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
No shit, the endless parroting of "why would older voters care about tuition fees" has to be the most short sighted line ever said on PB.
Brexit changed a lot of perceptions about the inner workings of the voting behaviour of the old. Despite all the advantages for the young of working without restriction the old overrode their ambition because they didn't like foreigners. Who knew that the East coast was inhabited exclusively by autochonthonous people?
Really sceptical about YG. After the two previous incidents more caution should be attached to their polling. That other pollsters seem to swing in that direction says everything.
All pollsters failed at GE1015. Most, including YouGov, got the referendum right within the margin of error.
Didn't they produce an "exit poll" from their panel on the day that was 52% Remain 48% Leave?
By "right within the margin of error" in a two horse race I assume Mike actually means "Wrong".
How can you give any credit to the pollsters when they got the binary result wrong. It is not possible to actually be more wrong than that.
I have no idea which of the pollsters are right now but I certainly don't think they deserve any credit either for the 2015 GE result or the Referendum result.
Compare with France where the pollsters there manage to get stunningly accurate results.
Plus I think people might look back on the coalition with some fondness.
I'm really surprised the Lib Dems haven't used this to counterpunch, but I suppose they still have the scars from 2015.
Farron could have had hit back against the 'coalition of chaos' line by saying something like:
"There's only been one coalition in recent history and it was between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Yes, we had to make some tough decisions but we provided strong and stable government. On your own, you're not so strong or stable: reckless with the economy, reckless with the constitution, reckless with our place in the world. Regardless of who occupies Downing Street, we need a strong Liberal voice in parliament."
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
No shit, the endless parroting of "why would older voters care about tuition fees" has to be the most short sighted line ever said on PB.
The SNP is the only party that has offered bungs to single working age childless people for years.
It's an unloved demographic, and considered unworthy behind those who have kids (Labour) - or the Tories with their bloody pensioner bungs but no tuition fees & free prescriptions are two policies me and my other half would benefit from if we lived in Scotland. This is precisely where the unionist SNP vote lies.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets.
Really sceptical about YG. After the two previous incidents more caution should be attached to their polling. That other pollsters seem to swing in that direction says everything.
All pollsters failed at GE1015. Most, including YouGov, got the referendum right within the margin of error.
The best 2015 pollster was Comres in terms of final published polls
Tom Harris: nice try but absolutely the wrong tack. Are we heading for a Grand Coalition German style with May or another and Corbyn or another together. I would love it. If the election goes sour for May, (she has the postal votes snapped up I guess), would Boris Johnson take over. He would be able to get support to cancel the EU negiotiations and carry on as normal.
I was wondering: suppose May wins well (call it 60+ majority).
Does the PCP still knife her? If so, when?
The day after Brexit is complete. One thing is clear, May cannot be allowed to lead the party into another election campaign. She has been spectacularly useless in this one. At least Brown left the campaign up to better politicians, May seems to have farmed it out to Timothy who is clearly a complete numpty.
The only way Brexit will be complete before the next election is if there is no deal. And if that happens it will not matter who the Tory leader is.
It doesn't because we'll get a 200 majority if that happens. We'll blame it on the EU and drape it in the Union flag, anyone attacking no deal will be attacking the nation.
Won't work now that May's been rumbled.
She has not been rumbled on the core point, Leave voters want an end to free movement and no 100 billion euros to Brussels, any Tory losses have been over social care NOT Brexit
You may be the only person left in the UK who feels May has not been rumbled.
Abstract scenario is not the same as reality; most Leave voters are not all Leave voters; and all Leave voters = 52%.
Unless May loses her majority, in which case she goes and we may well get Corbyn as PM and soft Brexit and then diluted socialism it will be Brexit on May's terms
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets.
2015 - Miliband and Cameron swapped opinion poll leads. Result Con +6.5 Con/Lab seat lead 98
2017 - May leads Jezza in opinion polls throughout. Result Con Landslide.
End Of Message ....
Yes, but it's based on an assumption that polling methodologies are unchanged and absolutely no lessons have been learned from the 2015 and EU ref campaigns by the polling companies
The restoration Bourbons had famously "learned nothing and forgotten nothing?" Polling companies, maybe but not certain
Tom Harris: nice try but absolutely the wrong tack. Are we heading for a Grand Coalition German style with May or another and Corbyn or another together. I would love it. If the election goes sour for May, (she has the postal votes snapped up I guess), would Boris Johnson take over. He would be able to get support to cancel the EU negiotiations and carry on as normal.
The EU despise Boris sad to say, they are merely indifferent to May
Don't expect either logic or the slightest acquaintance with reality from William. Rather like the Soviet propagandists of the 1930s, anything which doesn't conform to his world view is either distorted to fit or disappeared.
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
I'll be here.
Thank goodness. You, who will largely be untouched by Brexit, and the people who will be badly affected by it but can't afford to leave.
Sums it up perfectly.
I won't be largely untouched if it is a disaster. My biggest single asset is London prime property. I've built my career in financial services. Neither of those segments are safe from a bad Brexit.
I just have more confidence in the ability of the British people to cope with adversity than you.
I wonder whether the Tories are starting to wonder whether May is a "bloody difficult leader" to campaign under?
Sadly being difficult is considered a good negotiating position. It isn't. It usually has the opposite effect and you don't necessarily negotiate a logical solution where you maximise the win win scenario.
Sometime ago I was negotiating taking over another business. The position of the other side was so irrational I eventually just walked away. Prior to walking away we were at the point of agreeing stuff that was to both our disadvantage, but I was reluctantly doing so just to get the deal. Eventually enough was enough.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
Just them saddled with huge taxes instead! I mean, are these middle class parents all buying into shaking the Free Money Tree?
Put that down as a "hmmmmm......."
Student fees are currently paid by the government to universities. This is funded by borrowing. It doesn't show as part of the deficit because of the accounting convention that you can offset the borrowing against student debt in the balance sheet - the student debt to be possibly paid back over 30 years.
This government is the biggest ever user of the magic money tree, known more technically as quantitative easing. This has created about £350 billion to buy bonds including government bonds. The Bank of England holds over 50% of government debt, receives interest on it and passes it back to the Treasury.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
No shit, the endless parroting of "why would older voters care about tuition fees" has to be the most short sighted line ever said on PB.
I have a 14 year old daughter & 12 year old son who could in theory benefit.
But I think it's a stupid policy. Because there will be others of their age who will not go to University who will have to pay more tax to fund it. It's fundamentally unfair. The system already allows very generous terms and a long time for you to pay back your fees - decades! It's a bargain if you get a good degree
The country cannot afford to pay more middle class & rich kids to go to University for nothing. We. cannot. afford. it. Maybe some more grants for poor kids - there's a case. Same argument for winter fuel, and for free school meals - keep it for the most needy, not everyone.
Tories are right, and Labour is wrong on all this. But the electorate wants free stuff, and wants "the rich" to pay.
And so more generally the Corbyn approach to spending money he hasn't got even more than the Tories will f*ck the economy royally.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
No shit, the endless parroting of "why would older voters care about tuition fees" has to be the most short sighted line ever said on PB.
Brexit changed a lot of perceptions about the inner workings of the voting behaviour of the old. Despite all the advantages for the young of working without restriction the old overrode their ambition because they didn't like foreigners. Who knew that the East coast was inhabited exclusively by autochonthonous people?
I think their concern is that it is now filling up with allochthonous people.
I wonder whether the Tories are starting to wonder whether May is a "bloody difficult leader" to campaign under?
Sadly being difficult is considered a good negotiating position. It isn't. It usually has the opposite effect and you don't necessarily negotiate a logical solution where you maximise the win win scenario.
Sometime ago I was negotiating taking over another business. The position of the other side was so irrational I eventually just walked away. Prior to walking away we were at the point of agreeing stuff that was to both our disadvantage, but I was reluctantly doing so just to get the deal. Eventually enough was enough.
I'm rather afraid this will happen.
No Tory leader will survive 5 minutes and agree to leaving free movement uncontrolled and paying 100 billion euros to the EU so if that is the price the EU demand for a deal with no compromise as I said the only way we get a deal is a Labour PM
A glorious morning in London Town and I hope for similar next week. Democracy only really works if as many participate as possible. The more who absent themselves from the process the easier it is for the extremes on both sides to gain a foothold.
Irrespective of political perspective (or lack of it), the one message ALL activists and campaigners should be shouting is for people to get out and vote. I can't honestly say from limited discussions with my contemporaries and acquaintances I detect huge enthusiasm for anyone in this election.
I don't claim that from speaking to a few people I have any kind of insight into the mood of the country any more than knocking on a few doors in one part of England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster immediately provides insight into all other areas.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets. The only problem is the voters are in the sack as well. More heat than light from what I've read and inevitable with seven runners as the farcical GOP debates last year illustrated. Two or three is probably the optimum number for these to work well.
Disagree about May sitting it out (in retrospect - before the event I thought May was right to sit it out, though that was when Corbyn wasn't going either). May should have gone. Would she have done OK? Who knows? She's hardly the most nimble on her toes but she does know her stuff. The biggest risk would have been that she'd have parroted the same line for 90 minutes and sounded false and robotic, while simultaneously missing several open goals. But that's a risk she could have controlled by not being so f*cking controlled.
However, not being there just looked awful.
In terms of invitees, I fully agree that seven is far too many. There should be a 5% qualification: you only get in if you are projected to win either 5%+ of the votes or 5%+ of the seats. Obviously, there'd need to be some sort of agreement on methodology about how you do that but it's not beyond the wit of man. If those criteria were applied, Plaid and the Greens would be out and UKIP borderline. Four participants is manageable; five a bit topside but perhaps the limit for what can be a genuine debate.
A glorious morning in London Town and I hope for similar next week. Democracy only really works if as many participate as possible. The more who absent themselves from the process the easier it is for the extremes on both sides to gain a foothold.
Irrespective of political perspective (or lack of it), the one message ALL activists and campaigners should be shouting is for people to get out and vote. I can't honestly say from limited discussions with my contemporaries and acquaintances I detect huge enthusiasm for anyone in this election.
I don't claim that from speaking to a few people I have any kind of insight into the mood of the country any more than knocking on a few doors in one part of England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster immediately provides insight into all other areas.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets. The only problem is the voters are in the sack as well. More heat than light from what I've read and inevitable with seven runners as the farcical GOP debates last year illustrated. Two or three is probably the optimum number for these to work well.
I think that's got to be the way forward.
Put in a requirement to have candidates in 300+ seats and, say, averaging over 20% in the last 20 polls or something (i.e. all candidates with a reasonable prospect of becoming PM).
If it was a head of head it might have added something to the sum of human knowledge
2015 - Miliband and Cameron swapped opinion poll leads. Result Con +6.5 Con/Lab seat lead 98
2017 - May leads Jezza in opinion polls throughout. Result Con Landslide.
End Of Message ....
Yes, but it's based on an assumption that polling methodologies are unchanged and absolutely no lessons have been learned from the 2015 and EU ref campaigns by the polling companies
The restoration Bourbons had famously "learned nothing and forgotten nothing?" Polling companies, maybe but not certain
It comes down to hard choices as some politicians are wont to say .... Except it isn't hard :
2015 - Miliband and Cameron swapped opinion poll leads. Result Con +6.5 Con/Lab seat lead 98
2017 - May leads Jezza in opinion polls throughout. Result Con Landslide.
End Of Message ....
Yes, but it's based on an assumption that polling methodologies are unchanged and absolutely no lessons have been learned from the 2015 and EU ref campaigns by the polling companies
The restoration Bourbons had famously "learned nothing and forgotten nothing?" Polling companies, maybe but not certain
It comes down to hard choices as some politicians are wont to say .... Except it isn't hard :
YouGov or ICM ....
Mega ICM - Mega Increased Conservative Majority
I think you're very probably correct, but legitimate uncertainty remains
Which, let's face it, is what Labour has done to the youth vote. Buy them, with promises it will find very difficult to deliver once the 1% who pay 27% of income tax decide to depart the reach of HMRC. And companies take their investment and their jobs to a country that will undercut our Corporation Tax rates. At which point, the rest of us will have to make up the shortfall - or the commitments turn into aspirations, nothing happens. Sorry kids, but that dream you have been sold by Labour, of lots of free beer tokens and your own crash pad - they will come to nothing.
Now that the lies of Cameron and Osborne about the consequences of voting for Leave have been shown to be lies its harder to convince anyone that voting for change would bring disaster.
Cameron and Osborne also promised the oldies that they could have triple lock pensions, endless freebies and subsidised house prices.
So why wouldn't the young vote for free beer tokens and their own crash pad ? They've little to lose and much more to gain and the establishment has had its fear tactics exposed as being groundless.
It wouldn't matter what Corbyn promised if May had an ounce of personality or political acumen. I know Brexiteers love to blame Cameron and his ideological impurity for everything. But its nonsense. She's against Corbyn ffsl.
Cameron managed to get beaten by Corbyn in the 2016 local elections.
And May could conceivably lose to Corbyn in a general election under circumstances which could hardly have been made any better for the Tories. And still you try and blame the person who won the Tories their first majority since 1992 on the back of personal ratings far in excess of those of his party. You're so blinded by Brexit and May you can't see what's happening in front of your eyes.
Ask yourself this....in what's basically a binary choice election do you think Labour would rather face the man who used to thrash Corbyn at PMQs without breaking sweat or the inarticulate, politically inept May who has nothing to say, has delivered no policy or vision and couldn't even trust herself to make an appearance last night.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
Just them saddled with huge taxes instead! I mean, are these middle class parents all buying into shaking the Free Money Tree?
Put that down as a "hmmmmm......."
Student fees are currently paid by the government to universities. This is funded by borrowing. It doesn't show as part of the deficit because of the accounting convention that you can offset the borrowing against student debt in the balance sheet - the student debt to be possibly paid back over 30 years.
This government is the biggest ever user of the magic money tree, known more technically as quantitative easing. This has created about £350 billion to buy bonds including government bonds. The Bank of England holds over 50% of government debt, receives interest on it and passes it back to the Treasury.
QE is however am internal monentary construct. Non of the 'spending' goes into the real world.
I wonder whether the Tories are starting to wonder whether May is a "bloody difficult leader" to campaign under?
Sadly being difficult is considered a good negotiating position. It isn't. It usually has the opposite effect and you don't necessarily negotiate a logical solution where you maximise the win win scenario.
Sometime ago I was negotiating taking over another business. The position of the other side was so irrational I eventually just walked away. Prior to walking away we were at the point of agreeing stuff that was to both our disadvantage, but I was reluctantly doing so just to get the deal. Eventually enough was enough.
I'm rather afraid this will happen.
It was a meme started by Maggie. Much to many people's amazement (and the disgust of some) her NON NON NON got the blue rinses wetting themselves in excitement. Since then arrogance by right-wing Tories under all circumstances is considered heroic.
A glorious morning in London Town and I hope for similar next week. Democracy only really works if as many participate as possible. The more who absent themselves from the process the easier it is for the extremes on both sides to gain a foothold.
Irrespective of political perspective (or lack of it), the one message ALL activists and campaigners should be shouting is for people to get out and vote. I can't honestly say from limited discussions with my contemporaries and acquaintances I detect huge enthusiasm for anyone in this election.
I don't claim that from speaking to a few people I have any kind of insight into the mood of the country any more than knocking on a few doors in one part of England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster immediately provides insight into all other areas.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets. The only problem is the voters are in the sack as well. More heat than light from what I've read and inevitable with seven runners as the farcical GOP debates last year illustrated. Two or three is probably the optimum number for these to work well.
I think that's got to be the way forward.
Put in a requirement to have candidates in 300+ seats and, say, averaging over 20% in the last 20 polls or something (i.e. all candidates with a reasonable prospect of becoming PM).
If it was a head of head it might have added something to the sum of human knowledge
Actually I still think the main problem are the TV channels. What the parties should do is get an independent organisation like the Electoral Commission to organise what they consider to be a fair set of debates/presentations and then invite the TV companies to film them. Take the power to organise the debates away from the media so that they can be arranged in such away as to produce something for education rather than entertainment.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
Just them saddled with huge taxes instead! I mean, are these middle class parents all buying into shaking the Free Money Tree?
Put that down as a "hmmmmm......."
Student fees are currently paid by the government to universities. This is funded by borrowing. It doesn't show as part of the deficit because of the accounting convention that you can offset the borrowing against student debt in the balance sheet - the student debt to be possibly paid back over 30 years.
This government is the biggest ever user of the magic money tree, known more technically as quantitative easing. This has created about £350 billion to buy bonds including government bonds. The Bank of England holds over 50% of government debt, receives interest on it and passes it back to the Treasury.
QE is however am internal monentary construct. Non of the 'spending' goes into the real world.
It is nevertheless partly responsible for the real world snafu that is today's global economy.
The format of the debates will almost certainly have to change next time, on the reasonable assumption that UKIP will have no seats and far fewer votes than in 2015. If UKIP's participation becomes almost impossible to justify, the Greens and the Lib Dems will look vulnerable to the axe too.
The SNP and Plaid Cymru might still creep through on the basis that the SNP is a national party in Scotland (and Plaid Cymru might well slipstream in their wake). But next time a pure head-to-head between the main two party leaders will be much easier to argue for.
Of course, that would bring us back to the format wars of 2015.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
Just them saddled with huge taxes instead! I mean, are these middle class parents all buying into shaking the Free Money Tree?
Put that down as a "hmmmmm......."
Student fees are currently paid by the government to universities. This is funded by borrowing. It doesn't show as part of the deficit because of the accounting convention that you can offset the borrowing against student debt in the balance sheet - the student debt to be possibly paid back over 30 years.
This government is the biggest ever user of the magic money tree, known more technically as quantitative easing. This has created about £350 billion to buy bonds including government bonds. The Bank of England holds over 50% of government debt, receives interest on it and passes it back to the Treasury.
QE is however am internal monentary construct. Non of the 'spending' goes into the real world.
Hard to maintain that view now that the BoE pays the Treasury all of the interest earned from its Gilt holdings. That's real money being recycled into public spending for sure.
I have a 14 year old daughter & 12 year old son who could in theory benefit.
But I think it's a stupid policy. Because there will be others of their age who will not go to University who will have to pay more tax to fund it. It's fundamentally unfair. The system already allows very generous terms and a long time for you to pay back your fees - decades! It's a bargain if you get a good degree
The country cannot afford to pay more middle class & rich kids to go to University for nothing. We. cannot. afford. it. Maybe some more grants for poor kids - there's a case. Same argument for winter fuel, and for free school meals - keep it for the most needy, not everyone.
Tories are right, and Labour is wrong on all this. But the electorate wants free stuff, and wants "the rich" to pay.
And so more generally the Corbyn approach to spending money he hasn't got even more than the Tories will f*ck the economy royally.
How depressing
How is this any different from the ranting about the social care policy ? It's just another group of people who don't want to pay and expect the Government to pick up the tab.
Yes of course we must help those and especially those struggling with dementia but to what extent should the care of the elderly be a family responsibility? Instead, we have the absurdity of the Government interfering to provide a guaranteed inheritance - why should anyone be guaranteed an inheritance and especially when most of that will be as a result of the ludicrous "housing market" which operates in this country ?
I note by the way not much has been said about housing apart from vague commitments to build a lot of houses.
A glorious morning in London Town and I hope for similar next week. Democracy only really works if as many participate as possible. The more who absent themselves from the process the easier it is for the extremes on both sides to gain a foothold.
Irrespective of political perspective (or lack of it), the one message ALL activists and campaigners should be shouting is for people to get out and vote. I can't honestly say from limited discussions with my contemporaries and acquaintances I detect huge enthusiasm for anyone in this election.
I don't claim that from speaking to a few people I have any kind of insight into the mood of the country any more than knocking on a few doors in one part of England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster immediately provides insight into all other areas.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets. The only problem is the voters are in the sack as well. More heat than light from what I've read and inevitable with seven runners as the farcical GOP debates last year illustrated. Two or three is probably the optimum number for these to work well.
Disagree about May sitting it out (in retrospect - before the event I thought May was right to sit it out, though that was when Corbyn wasn't going either). May should have gone. Would she have done OK? Who knows? She's hardly the most nimble on her toes but she does know her stuff. The biggest risk would have been that she'd have parroted the same line for 90 minutes and sounded false and robotic, while simultaneously missing several open goals. But that's a risk she could have controlled by not being so f*cking controlled.
However, not being there just looked awful.
In terms of invitees, I fully agree that seven is far too many. There should be a 5% qualification: you only get in if you are projected to win either 5%+ of the votes or 5%+ of the seats. Obviously, there'd need to be some sort of agreement on methodology about how you do that but it's not beyond the wit of man. If those criteria were applied, Plaid and the Greens would be out and UKIP borderline. Four participants is manageable; five a bit topside but perhaps the limit for what can be a genuine debate.
The ludicrous idea of having a 7 way debate only came to pass because Cameron wanted to dilute the impact Farage would have on him at GE 2015. Why it has become a precedent is beyond me, it was a one off fudge.
A glorious morning in London Town and I hope for similar next week. Democracy only really works if as many participate as possible. The more who absent themselves from the process the easier it is for the extremes on both sides to gain a foothold.
Irrespective of political perspective (or lack of it), the one message ALL activists and campaigners should be shouting is for people to get out and vote. I can't honestly say from limited discussions with my contemporaries and acquaintances I detect huge enthusiasm for anyone in this election.
I don't claim that from speaking to a few people I have any kind of insight into the mood of the country any more than knocking on a few doors in one part of England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster immediately provides insight into all other areas.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets. The only problem is the voters are in the sack as well. More heat than light from what I've read and inevitable with seven runners as the farcical GOP debates last year illustrated. Two or three is probably the optimum number for these to work well.
I think that's got to be the way forward.
Put in a requirement to have candidates in 300+ seats and, say, averaging over 20% in the last 20 polls or something (i.e. all candidates with a reasonable prospect of becoming PM).
If it was a head of head it might have added something to the sum of human knowledge
Actually I still think the main problem are the TV channels. What the parties should do is get an independent organisation like the Electoral Commission to organise what they consider to be a fair set of debates/presentations and then invite the TV companies to film them. Take the power to organise the debates away from the media so that they can be arranged in such away as to produce something for education rather than entertainment.
The format of the debates will almost certainly have to change next time, on the reasonable assumption that UKIP will have no seats and far fewer votes than in 2015. If UKIP's participation becomes almost impossible to justify, the Greens and the Lib Dems will look vulnerable to the axe too.
The SNP and Plaid Cymru might still creep through on the basis that the SNP is a national party in Scotland (and Plaid Cymru might well slipstream in their wake). But next time a pure head-to-head between the main two party leaders will be much easier to argue for.
Of course, that would bring us back to the format wars of 2015.
I don't think the Conservatives would have anything to worry about with Rudd as leader in these debates.
A glorious morning in London Town and I hope for similar next week. Democracy only really works if as many participate as possible. The more who absent themselves from the process the easier it is for the extremes on both sides to gain a foothold.
Irrespective of political perspective (or lack of it), the one message ALL activists and campaigners should be shouting is for people to get out and vote. I can't honestly say from limited discussions with my contemporaries and acquaintances I detect huge enthusiasm for anyone in this election.
I don't claim that from speaking to a few people I have any kind of insight into the mood of the country any more than knocking on a few doors in one part of England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster immediately provides insight into all other areas.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets. The only problem is the voters are in the sack as well. More heat than light from what I've read and inevitable with seven runners as the farcical GOP debates last year illustrated. Two or three is probably the optimum number for these to work well.
I think that's got to be the way forward.
Put in a requirement to have candidates in 300+ seats and, say, averaging over 20% in the last 20 polls or something (i.e. all candidates with a reasonable prospect of becoming PM).
If it was a head of head it might have added something to the sum of human knowledge
Actually I still think the main problem are the TV channels. What the parties should do is get an independent organisation like the Electoral Commission to organise what they consider to be a fair set of debates/presentations and then invite the TV companies to film them. Take the power to organise the debates away from the media so that they can be arranged in such away as to produce something for education rather than entertainment.
I concur with Charles and I humbly offer this an additional uptick.
Comments
"It's tricky - low costs for farmers ... millions of consumers, but ... low wages for workers involved"
There's winners (lots) and losers (a few), but it encapsulates the new Labour party. Diversity trumps the old style socialism.
Even Jezza goes with international socialism. Stalin thought he'd laid it to rest in 1940, but not so. Every generation sees it as exciting and new.
He is quite clearly a loner and utterly unsuited to running his party, let alone his country. And he doesn't even have good people around him; apart from McDonnell and Gardiner they are mostly clueless, inexperienced or both.
The tragedy is that we now see that Mrs May isn't much better qualified than him.
Oh well, when people have stopped listening, what does it matter.
Sums it up perfectly.
It's an election between Stalin and Mr Bean,
She could still be ousted in the next year
It was always more than just a trading bloc (as if such a thing could be devoid of a political character at all...), and any sentient being in the UK at the time knew it. There has been no more pernicious myth than the lie that people weren't told the truth.
That's how it works...
Come what may, at least she will have outlasted Andrew Bonar Law in the office of Prime Minister.
LOL.
At that stage it would incredibly easy for a halfway competent Tory Government to press for another election (assuming FTPA can't be repealed) and, emboldened by this election, Labour would agree. The trouble is, the Tories would have learned and their manifesto would presumably contain all sorts of sweeties contingent on that deal.
My point? Getting somewhere close in a Hung Parliament isn't necessarily "job done" for Labour next time. Especially if they are stuck with JC. If I were a Labour moderate I'd paradoxically be more worried now than I would have been staring at a guaranteed Tory landslide, given they would have had to defend it after Brexit had delivered and following the recession we're due. If you're a Labour moderate I reckon (assuming Labour majority Government is impossible) you want a Tory majority of 80. You see the end of Corbyn but you're in range in 2022.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
A glorious morning in London Town and I hope for similar next week. Democracy only really works if as many participate as possible. The more who absent themselves from the process the easier it is for the extremes on both sides to gain a foothold.
Irrespective of political perspective (or lack of it), the one message ALL activists and campaigners should be shouting is for people to get out and vote. I can't honestly say from limited discussions with my contemporaries and acquaintances I detect huge enthusiasm for anyone in this election.
I don't claim that from speaking to a few people I have any kind of insight into the mood of the country any more than knocking on a few doors in one part of England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster immediately provides insight into all other areas.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets. The only problem is the voters are in the sack as well. More heat than light from what I've read and inevitable with seven runners as the farcical GOP debates last year illustrated. Two or three is probably the optimum number for these to work well.
Mum asked nervously if Corbyn might win this, I said I didn't know and probably don't care anymore, it's a terrible choice either way. She likes May but she isn't as committed to voting as she has always been and its fear of Corbyn that is driving her to the booth this time, but she said stoically that there's nothing we can do about it anyway. I get the impression she thinks this one has slipped out the Tory grasp but she's much less vocal than 2010 when she was proclaiming the end times if we didn't get rid of Brown.
Dad is thinking of voting for May as he really liked her until about a week ago when she started winding him up, not sure why, he gets huffy about people sometimes. He hates Corbyn, which seems odd if you contrast it with his Benn admiration but he thinks Corbyn is false and duplicitous. The Falklands thing hit home hard for hi (Benn?! I know right?!). He was impressed May had decided not to debate declaring it a waste of time and all hot air. He was pissed off when I told him Rudd was going instead as he didn't know that and said what a daft thing to do. I've got a feeling he's going to be a DNV as he had that 'bollocks to the lot of them' look in his eyes by the end of the conversation.
We all agreed to enjoy the free puppies if Corbyn wins.
Apropos of nothing but thought I'd share for the sake of it,
2015 - Miliband and Cameron swapped opinion poll leads. Result Con +6.5 Con/Lab seat lead 98
2017 - May leads Jezza in opinion polls throughout. Result Con Landslide.
End Of Message ....
How can you give any credit to the pollsters when they got the binary result wrong. It is not possible to actually be more wrong than that.
I have no idea which of the pollsters are right now but I certainly don't think they deserve any credit either for the 2015 GE result or the Referendum result.
Compare with France where the pollsters there manage to get stunningly accurate results.
Farron could have had hit back against the 'coalition of chaos' line by saying something like:
"There's only been one coalition in recent history and it was between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Yes, we had to make some tough decisions but we provided strong and stable government. On your own, you're not so strong or stable: reckless with the economy, reckless with the constitution, reckless with our place in the world. Regardless of who occupies Downing Street, we need a strong Liberal voice in parliament."
It's an unloved demographic, and considered unworthy behind those who have kids (Labour) - or the Tories with their bloody pensioner bungs but no tuition fees & free prescriptions are two policies me and my other half would benefit from if we lived in Scotland.
This is precisely where the unionist SNP vote lies.
The restoration Bourbons had famously "learned nothing and forgotten nothing?" Polling companies, maybe but not certain
I just have more confidence in the ability of the British people to cope with adversity than you.
Sometime ago I was negotiating taking over another business. The position of the other side was so irrational I eventually just walked away. Prior to walking away we were at the point of agreeing stuff that was to both our disadvantage, but I was reluctantly doing so just to get the deal. Eventually enough was enough.
I'm rather afraid this will happen.
This government is the biggest ever user of the magic money tree, known more technically as quantitative easing. This has created about £350 billion to buy bonds including government bonds. The Bank of England holds over 50% of government debt, receives interest on it and passes it back to the Treasury.
But I think it's a stupid policy. Because there will be others of their age who will not go to University who will have to pay more tax to fund it. It's fundamentally unfair. The system already allows very generous terms and a long time for you to pay back your fees - decades! It's a bargain if you get a good degree
The country cannot afford to pay more middle class & rich kids to go to University for nothing. We. cannot. afford. it. Maybe some more grants for poor kids - there's a case. Same argument for winter fuel, and for free school meals - keep it for the most needy, not everyone.
Tories are right, and Labour is wrong on all this. But the electorate wants free stuff, and wants "the rich" to pay.
And so more generally the Corbyn approach to spending money he hasn't got even more than the Tories will f*ck the economy royally.
How depressing
However, not being there just looked awful.
In terms of invitees, I fully agree that seven is far too many. There should be a 5% qualification: you only get in if you are projected to win either 5%+ of the votes or 5%+ of the seats. Obviously, there'd need to be some sort of agreement on methodology about how you do that but it's not beyond the wit of man. If those criteria were applied, Plaid and the Greens would be out and UKIP borderline. Four participants is manageable; five a bit topside but perhaps the limit for what can be a genuine debate.
Put in a requirement to have candidates in 300+ seats and, say, averaging over 20% in the last 20 polls or something (i.e. all candidates with a reasonable prospect of becoming PM).
If it was a head of head it might have added something to the sum of human knowledge
YouGov or ICM ....
Mega ICM - Mega Increased Conservative Majority
Ask yourself this....in what's basically a binary choice election do you think Labour would rather face the man who used to thrash Corbyn at PMQs without breaking sweat or the inarticulate, politically inept May who has nothing to say, has delivered no policy or vision and couldn't even trust herself to make an appearance last night.
The SNP and Plaid Cymru might still creep through on the basis that the SNP is a national party in Scotland (and Plaid Cymru might well slipstream in their wake). But next time a pure head-to-head between the main two party leaders will be much easier to argue for.
Of course, that would bring us back to the format wars of 2015.
Yes of course we must help those and especially those struggling with dementia but to what extent should the care of the elderly be a family responsibility? Instead, we have the absurdity of the Government interfering to provide a guaranteed inheritance - why should anyone be guaranteed an inheritance and especially when most of that will be as a result of the ludicrous "housing market" which operates in this country ?
I note by the way not much has been said about housing apart from vague commitments to build a lot of houses.
And as for the poor lambs paying 45% income tax on their earnings over £150k, my heart bleeds.