Yes, again I'll go back to my comments after the manifesto reveal. The Tories are giving people precisely fuck all reason to vote for them. It's all more tax and fewer services. Policies like grammar schools which may have been popular enough to overcome the negatives had already been heavily trailed and had no net effect on the day.
I think overall this is the worst political campaign I've ever seen. Almost as bad as Hillary last year (or 2008). Her team is just awful.
The real stupidity is this has all been self-inflicted. She didn't have to go to the country - I suspect, contrary to her cautious instincts, she was talked into calling a snap election by Fiona or Nick or some of her other advisers who basically flattered her with talk of landslides and mandates and a place in history. I wonder if her husband persuaded her an election was a good idea.
I imagine she'll get her majority unless the 42-44% glacis shatters this week and over the weekend. If the Conservative number drops to 40% or below it will be a tad fraught in CCHQ. I don't believe it will - the majority will be workable if unspectacular and not necessarily providing May with the full confidence that anything she wants she will get through the Commons (and the Lords will remain a bastion of resistance).
How many times do opinion polls have to be wrong before people realise they're a load of old shit?
"If the polls called it incorrectly in the last two national elections, why should take seriously what they tell us now? Why did they indicate one thing, pretty strongly, only for the public to say something different? I believe it’s because they are not recording the opinion of the public as a whole but extrapolating the opinion of the type who like answering opinion polls - the politically engaged."
Questions will be asked about how much influence they have on the narrative. It was the same in the US, getting to the point where it was almost a mathematical impossibility that Trump would win so why even bother holding the election.
Since the first Yougov mega poll was released 3 days ago we have had a total of six polls. three of them have been Yougov all basically showing the same thing, one Survey Monkey showing a Tory lead of 6% and a poll each from Kantar and ICM showing leads of 10% and 12%.
The only mention of the polls that do not follow the narrative of 'Tories doing badly' was the rather passing reference "On the day ICM gave the Tories a 12% lead, YouGov analysis has the Tories losing their majority". It would be nice if the thread headers at least mentioned the other polls since anyone just reading the thread headers would not even know they existed.
If Yougov does turn out to be as flawed as many on all sides seem to think it is, then the site's preoccupation with it to the detriment of other polls will be seen to be rather foolish.
YouGov do have the limelight at the moment, and are drowning out coverage of other polls.
Yes, again I'll go back to my comments after the manifesto reveal. The Tories are giving people precisely fuck all reason to vote for them. It's all more tax and fewer services. Policies like grammar schools which may have been popular enough to overcome the negatives had already been heavily trailed and had no net effect on the day.
I think overall this is the worst political campaign I've ever seen. Almost as bad as Hillary last year (or 2008). Her team is just awful.
The real stupidity is this has all been self-inflicted. She didn't have to go to the country - I suspect, contrary to her cautious instincts, she was talked into calling a snap election by Fiona or Nick or some of her other advisers who basically flattered her with talk of landslides and mandates and a place in history. I wonder if her husband persuaded her an election was a good idea.
I imagine she'll get her majority unless the 42-44% glacis shatters this week and over the weekend. If the Conservative number drops to 40% or below it will be a tad fraught in CCHQ. I don't believe it will - the majority will be workable if unspectacular and not necessarily providing May with the full confidence that anything she wants she will get through the Commons (and the Lords will remain a bastion of resistance).
As someone on here put it (could be one of @RochdalePioneers' outstanding posts, could have been @Ishmael_Z), she has told us we are going to hell in a hand cart and that she is the right person to be driving the cart.
Jezza is telling us we can all have free owls. As @bigjohnowls says, it is at least a vision of something and is pretty straight on how he is going to try to get there. Well of course we might say he can't do it the way he says he can do it, but there's no doubting where he is at.
Against my original judgement May was correct to avoid the BBC debate last night. It is perfectly possible the shambles on view fed the coalition of chaos meme quite nicely for the Tories. I think TM's problem is that she needs to give up being teetotal, have a drink or two, do some relaxation stuff and hence be more normal.
I actually wonder if she's been given any media training at all. Nowadays I would have thought it was compulsory for all senior ministers.
As I mentioned yesterday. Churchill coined 'the glare of the hot probing eye' about the TV campaigning age.
May, sadly, has wilted under its glare. Corbyn looks as though he's started to enjoy himself*.
*It must be quite nice for Corbyn. He's had buckets of shite poured over his head for the previous 20 months. Whatever happens, he'll feel like he's won a certain degree of respect, and May will feel like she's lost a lot of it.
As I said the other day, it is a format where he is in his comfort zone, he has be repeatedly pushed into his comfort zone and has been able to spend hours talking on subjects where he is authentic using arguments he has held for decades.
allowing him to major on an area where he comes over as honest (they are his views) and authentic will inevitably have a positive effect on his position, even if a majority of people disagree with the message (and most will not absorb the full message). Authenticity is popular.
Wilson had it, Thatcher had it, Smith had it, Blair had it in early days, Cameron had it for a while, and Clegg too, and probably Kinnock. Heath, Major, Brown, Milliband, May, Farron to name a few do not come over in that way.
I can see a chance that May will emulate Major, one victory snatched from the jaws of defeat (something of a shock from the starting point!). However in this instance I would be shocked if she lasted as long as a 2022 election. She will be replaced within 18 months of Brexit deadline of March 2019, allowing a refreshed and rejuvenated leader to fight 2022.
TMay is due one assured, polished performance. Just one. Please God. Just one.
Trouble is, I don't think she's capable any more, she's getting worse as the campaign concludes, not better: more robotic, more panicky, more crazy-autistic-diabetic-lady (I'm trying not to be unkind, but this is how she comes across).
Nevertheless, she's not an idiot, and she's due some luck. And Corbyn has yet to have a televised meltdown, which he is also due.
*prays*
It will need a miracle.
The PM is way, way outside her comfort zone. 45 minutes being grilled to a frazzle by the punters who don't want soundbites and slogans. May will be off to a sticky wicket from the off .... "Nice of you to turn up Prime Minister ...."
In contrast Corbyn will talk total bollocks with absolute conviction and passion.
As I mentioned yesterday. Churchill coined 'the glare of the hot probing eye' about the TV campaigning age.
May, sadly, has wilted under its glare. Corbyn looks as though he's started to enjoy himself*.
*It must be quite nice for Corbyn. He's had buckets of shite poured over his head for the previous 20 months. Whatever happens, he'll feel like he's won a certain degree of respect, and May will feel like she's lost a lot of it.
As I said the other day, it is a format where he is in his comfort zone, he has be repeatedly pushed into his comfort zone and has been able to spend hours talking on subjects where he is authentic using arguments he has held for decades.
allowing him to major on an area where he comes over as honest (they are his views) and authentic will inevitably have a positive effect on his position, even if a majority of people disagree with the message (and most will not absorb the full message). Authenticity is popular.
Wilson had it, Thatcher had it, Smith had it, Blair had it in early days, Cameron had it for a while, and Clegg too, and probably Kinnock. Heath, Major, Brown, Milliband, May, Farron to name a few do not come over in that way.
I can see a chance that May will emulate Major, one victory snatched from the jaws of defeat (something of a shock from the starting point!). However in this instance I would be shocked if she lasted as long as a 2022 election. She will be replaced within 18 months of Brexit deadline of March 2019, allowing a refreshed and rejuvenated leader to fight 2022.
TMay is due one assured, polished performance. Just one. Please God. Just one.
Trouble is, I don't think she's capable any more, she's getting worse as the campaign concludes, not better: more robotic, more panicky, more crazy-autistic-diabetic-lady (I'm trying not to be unkind, but this is how she comes across).
Nevertheless, she's not an idiot, and she's due some luck. And Corbyn has yet to have a televised meltdown, which he is also due.
*prays*
It will need a miracle.
The PM is way, way outside her comfort zone. 45 minutes being grilled to a frazzle by the punters who don't want soundbites and slogans. May will be off to a sticky wicket from the off .... "Nice of you to turn up Prime Minister ...."
In contrast Corbyn will talk total bollocks with absolute conviction and passion.
Not to mention the additional handicap of having a record in government to defend.
Since the first Yougov mega poll was released 3 days ago we have had a total of six polls. three of them have been Yougov all basically showing the same thing, one Survey Monkey showing a Tory lead of 6% and a poll each from Kantar and ICM showing leads of 10% and 12%.
The only mention of the polls that do not follow the narrative of 'Tories doing badly' was the rather passing reference "On the day ICM gave the Tories a 12% lead, YouGov analysis has the Tories losing their majority". It would be nice if the thread headers at least mentioned the other polls since anyone just reading the thread headers would not even know they existed.
If Yougov does turn out to be as flawed as many on all sides seem to think it is, then the site's preoccupation with it to the detriment of other polls will be seen to be rather foolish.
YouGov do have the limelight at the moment, and are drowning out coverage of other polls.
And yet for some reason if they were showing substantial Tory leads I am not so sure they would be getting the same attention.
Yes, again I'll go back to my comments after the manifesto reveal. The Tories are giving people precisely fuck all reason to vote for them. It's all more tax and fewer services. Policies like grammar schools which may have been popular enough to overcome the negatives had already been heavily trailed and had no net effect on the day.
I think overall this is the worst political campaign I've ever seen. Almost as bad as Hillary last year (or 2008). Her team is just awful.
The real stupidity is this has all been self-inflicted. She didn't have to go to the country - I suspect, contrary to her cautious instincts, she was talked into calling a snap election by Fiona or Nick or some of her other advisers who basically flattered her with talk of landslides and mandates and a place in history. I wonder if her husband persuaded her an election was a good idea.
I imagine she'll get her majority unless the 42-44% glacis shatters this week and over the weekend. If the Conservative number drops to 40% or below it will be a tad fraught in CCHQ. I don't believe it will - the majority will be workable if unspectacular and not necessarily providing May with the full confidence that anything she wants she will get through the Commons (and the Lords will remain a bastion of resistance).
As someone on here put it (could be one of @RochdalePioneers' outstanding posts, could have been @Ishmael_Z), she has told us we are going to hell in a hand cart and that she is the right person to be driving the cart.
Jezza is telling us we can all have free owls. As @bigjohnowls says, it is at least a vision of something and is pretty straight on how he is going to try to get there. Well of course we might say he can't do it the way he says he can do it, but there's no doubting where he is at.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
They are also talking about writing off existing student debt. Add another few tens of billions to the pile.
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Repeated from previous thread. Attacking May over Rudd's father is akin to the Sun over Brown's handwritten condolence letter. Step too far and will not go down well.
Fair to cite the Private Eye coverage of Amber Rudd's business dealings, though.
Daily mail send journalists to funerals pretending to be family friends and government policy is that this is acceptable practice.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
They are also talking about writing off existing student debt. Add another few tens of billions to the pile.
Lots of parallels with the Hilary campaign last year in the US. Seriously dull lacklustre individual failing to engage with the electorate (not talking about the TV debate, that was just a circus).
In the states, it led to an wholly inadequate POTUS and there is a danger that the same could happen here.
Personally, I think ICM is probably nearer the mark than YouGov and May will still have a handy majority come next Friday morning, however that rather assumes that the trend of the last 2 weeks tapers off and there are no more 'events' to play out before election day.
Assuming the Labour surge is real and not just largely a figment of YouGov's Al Gore Rhythms, then Labour has largely mopped up the low hanging fruit from hte Greens and the LibDems. To move much further forward, Jeremy "open borders" Corbyn has to start wining over any remaining Kippers....hmmmm. And then start winning over Tories. They are going to be a much tougher nut to crack.
OGH used to say we should focus on absolute percentages and not percentage point leads, at least for party vote share.
Looking at that TM is down a little from pre-GE announcement but only a little. Her rating then spiked in the early stages of the campaign, but the more informative comparison is the settled picture pre-GE being triggered.
As I mentioned yesterday. Churchill coined 'the glare of the hot probing eye' about the TV campaigning age.
May, sadly, has wilted under its glare. Corbyn looks as though he's started to enjoy himself*.
*It must be quite nice for Corbyn. He's had buckets of shite poured over his head for the previous 20 months. Whatever happens, he'll feel like he's won a certain degree of respect, and May will feel like she's lost a lot of it.
As I said the other day, it is a format where he is in his comfort zone, he has be repeatedly pushed into his comfort zone and has been able to spend hours talking on subjects where he is authentic using arguments he has held for decades.
allowing him to major on an area where he comes over as honest (they are his views) and authentic will inevitably have a positive effect on his position, even if a majority of people disagree with the message (and most will not absorb the full message). Authenticity is popular.
Wilson had it, Thatcher had it, Smith had it, Blair had it in early days, Cameron had it for a while, and Clegg too, and probably Kinnock. Heath, Major, Brown, Milliband, May, Farron to name a few do not come over in that way.
I can see a chance that May will emulate Major, one victory snatched from the jaws of defeat (something of a shock from the starting point!). However in this instance I would be shocked if she lasted as long as a 2022 election. She will be replaced within 18 months of Brexit deadline of March 2019, allowing a refreshed and rejuvenated leader to fight 2022.
TMay is due one assured, polished performance. Just one. Please God. Just one.
Trouble is, I don't think she's capable any more, she's getting worse as the campaign concludes, not better: more robotic, more panicky, more crazy-autistic-diabetic-lady (I'm trying not to be unkind, but this is how she comes across).
Nevertheless, she's not an idiot, and she's due some luck. And Corbyn has yet to have a televised meltdown, which he is also due.
*prays*
It will need a miracle.
The PM is way, way outside her comfort zone. 45 minutes being grilled to a frazzle by the punters who don't want soundbites and slogans. May will be off to a sticky wicket from the off .... "Nice of you to turn up Prime Minister ...."
In contrast Corbyn will talk total bollocks with absolute conviction and passion.
In fairness on Sky the other night she was very strong when the subject turned to Brexit. The issue is she won't have the power to keep it on that. She should talk up grammar schools as it's a popular policy and be ready to defend the social care policy but move the subject on from it quickly.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
They are also talking about writing off existing student debt. Add another few tens of billions to the pile.
Against my original judgement May was correct to avoid the BBC debate last night. It is perfectly possible the shambles on view fed the coalition of chaos meme quite nicely for the Tories. I think TM's problem is that she needs to give up being teetotal, have a drink or two, do some relaxation stuff and hence be more normal.
I actually wonder if she's been given any media training at all. Nowadays I would have thought it was compulsory for all senior ministers.
My impression of her at the home office was that any time there was a problem, Cameron dealt with the media while May stonewalled in parliament until it went away.
I suspect her real problem isn't that she doesn't have any media training but that she's dealing with so many intractable issues: Brexit, falling incomes, public sector funding shortfalls etc. which have no sensible answer. At the same time she has chosen to make this election all about herself and does not seem to have a team of ministers around her who she can ask to campaign.
Maybe Theresa is going for the long con, reducing expectations to nil and then coming out in blistering form tomorrow night.
"Maybe Theresa" might be doing that I suppose. Not sure why she would.
Me neither, just a theory. More likely she's just crap. I'd like to point people back to a couple of weeks ago when the manifesto came out and both SeanT and I were certain it was going to go down very poorly and I questioned Theresa's political antenna, I think we've been vindicated since then.
In fairness on Sky the other night she was very strong when the subject turned to Brexit. The issue is she won't have the power to keep it on that. She should talk up grammar schools as it's a popular policy and be ready to defend the social care policy but move the subject on from it quickly.
I thought her response on social care was fine in the previous Q&A. In fact I don't think she seriously misstepped during that part of the program.
It's looking increasingly likely that JC will hang onto the leadership regardless of the seat numbers next week.
Will we get another Labour leadership election this summer?
I hope not, I've got a very busy summer!
JC is outperforming the initial expectations of him by a country mile in this campaign. It will all come down to getting the McDonnell amendment through conference before Jezza goes anywhere.
The Tories need to ditch May if McDonnell ever gets in charge, he'll marmalise her in a campaign. Particularly after we've either got a god awful or no deal from the EU.
It's all being set up very nicely for Priti to seize power in late June. *a spot of wishful thinking by me*
Maybe Theresa is going for the long con, reducing expectations to nil and then coming out in blistering form tomorrow night.
Hindsight is a funny old thing, and May hasn't covered herself in glory this campaign, not by any means. But I suppose the only way was down for her, from those silly high numbers.
But looking back at previous Tory campaigns -
2005 - Michael Howard toughens up the Tory act. Then, remember Howard Flight? Before the leader was forced to quickly scurry away from that idea (a good idea too, I thought) for patients to pay half the cost of their operation if they chose to go private? Brown and Blair hit the Tories all round the ring over that.
2010 - Big leads in 2007 & 2008 for fresh-faced new-boy Cameron. A commitment to 'match Labour's spending plans from Osborne, and then.... oh oh... the credit crunch. Then the campaign where daggers were out for Cameron for agreeing to the debates, where everybody agreed with Nick. I felt more rattled in May 2010 than I do now.
2015 - The delicate work of splitting the coalition. Accusations against Cameron for not caring enough, not showing enough fire. Twittersphere holding a love-in for Ed. In the end, a brilliant result.
It is never easy, I suppose. And May can always haul it back with one big, good performance. The media loves a hero to zero to hero narrative.
Haven't they got one with Jeremy Corbyn? It's possible Theresa May could haul it back with a tremendous performance, but it's highly unlikely. Most people have contempt for those who can give it but can't take it, or bullies as they are also known. Bullies very easily become crybabies when the tables are turned. Corbyn has shown resilience, inspirational leadership, and real character, and May hasn't. I think she's lost it now. One further big error or embarrassment and it's over.
Even though Tim Farron comes across well, the Liberal Democrats aren't so much in the public mind as they were in 2015. If the notion of "coalition of chaos" gets aired - as it seems to be getting aired, because what else have the Tories got as they slip in the polls? - people are more likely to respond by voting Labour not Tory.
I thought it was interesting that Boris Johnson congratulated May on chickening out of the debate. What other words might come out of his mouth, I wonder? Davis's presentation (and doubtless also his competence) exceeds Johnson's even more than Rudd's exceeds May's, but people like Johnson and his convict friend Darius Guppy have a certain view of themselves. Eton and stuff. I do hope Johnson steps forward in the days that are left.
Since the first Yougov mega poll was released 3 days ago we have had a total of six polls. three of them have been Yougov all basically showing the same thing, one Survey Monkey showing a Tory lead of 6% and a poll each from Kantar and ICM showing leads of 10% and 12%.
The only mention of the polls that do not follow the narrative of 'Tories doing badly' was the rather passing reference "On the day ICM gave the Tories a 12% lead, YouGov analysis has the Tories losing their majority". It would be nice if the thread headers at least mentioned the other polls since anyone just reading the thread headers would not even know they existed.
If Yougov does turn out to be as flawed as many on all sides seem to think it is, then the site's preoccupation with it to the detriment of other polls will be seen to be rather foolish.
Although the YouGov stuff has attracted attention (much of it critical) because of its extreme small lead and because it is backed with highly dubious constituency predictions, the DIRECTION isn't different to other polls.
The pattern is that the Tory lead is markedly lower than it was when the election was called. The good news for the Tories is that the dam is holding, the early movement to Corbyn is being consolidated but not extended, and May is still likely to get her mandate.
But it hasn't been a good campaign from May. The direction in ALL polls has supported that, as has the mood on the doorstep. It is now conceivable that her (almost certain) win will now be within the range which begs the question "why did she bother?" Such a result would clearly weaken her authority rather than strengthen it.
Now I understand why Remain didn't use Theresa May during EU Ref campaign.
Maybe they should have smuggled her into the Leave camp? Think what she could have done to their vote share
A bit unfair, she gave a good speech on why Britain should stay in the EU that TOPPING linked below. She clearly didn't sign up to the project fear aspects (although she's doing that no with the no deal stuff)
Fair enough, but her behaviour makes me wonder. If she was a Remainer, why would she want to be a PM who has to be a "Leave" PM? Either she was never a Remainer and was just following Cabinet policy or if she was a Remainer then the lure of power was too much to resist.
Perhaps my disappointment is caused by the fact that I thought she should have been Conservative leader instead of Cameron. She always seemed to talk sense. I thought she would have been better than this.
People often say "Do a job you like doing and you will never work a day in your life". Perhaps a Remainer should not be in a Leaver's job? She certainly does not seem to be enjoying it.
Corbyn comes across as more human than May, though let's face it everyone on PB would come across as more human.
Corbyn is a more effective campaigner and communicator because he has something to say which he believes in and wants to say to his audience. That comes across.
May gives the impression of having nothing to say.
Effective communication may not make a good leader nor does it say anything about whether what the person believes is sensible and wise or poisonous rubbish.
But in terms of pure communication, Corbyn is undoubtedly better than May. No wonder her star is falling. May believed her own hype - always dangerous.
After hubris - nemesis?
It remains to be seen whether Corbyn and his supporters are falling into the same trap.
Now I understand why Remain didn't use Theresa May during EU Ref campaign.
Maybe they should have smuggled her into the Leave camp? Think what she could have done to their vote share
A bit unfair, she gave a good speech on why Britain should stay in the EU that TOPPING linked below. She clearly didn't sign up to the project fear aspects (although she's doing that no with the no deal stuff)
Fair enough, but her behaviour makes me wonder. If she was a Remainer, why would she want to be a PM who has to be a "Leave" PM? Either she was never a Remainer and was just following Cabinet policy or if she was a Remainer then the lure of power was too much to resist.
Perhaps my disappointment is caused by the fact that I thought she should have been Conservative leader instead of Cameron. She always seemed to talk sense. I thought she would have been better than this.
People often say "Do a job you like doing and you will never work a day in your life". Perhaps a Remainer should not be in a Leaver's job? She certainly does not seem to be enjoying it.
It's looking increasingly likely that JC will hang onto the leadership regardless of the seat numbers next week.
Will we get another Labour leadership election this summer?
I hope not, I've got a very busy summer!
JC is outperforming the initial expectations of him by a country mile in this campaign. It will all come down to getting the McDonnell amendment through conference before Jezza goes anywhere.
The Tories need to ditch May if McDonnell ever gets in charge, he'll marmalise her in a campaign. Particularly after we've either got a god awful or no deal from the EU.
It's all being set up very nicely for Priti to seize power in late June. *a spot of wishful thinking by me*
The woman who's gone from wanting to abolish DfID to defending foreign aid against all-comers might struggle with 'strong and stable'? Although it does at least indicate an ability to look, listen and learn.
In fairness on Sky the other night she was very strong when the subject turned to Brexit. The issue is she won't have the power to keep it on that. She should talk up grammar schools as it's a popular policy and be ready to defend the social care policy but move the subject on from it quickly.
I thought her response on social care was fine in the previous Q&A. In fact I don't think she seriously misstepped during that part of the program.
The media love to come out with the "It was a draw" narrative. Except it wasn't, Corbyn was floundering near the end of the Paxo interview when his quote that the Falklands was a Tory plot came back to haunt him. May won that one.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
They are also talking about writing off existing student debt. Add another few tens of billions to the pile.
How many times do opinion polls have to be wrong before people realise they're a load of old shit?
"If the polls called it incorrectly in the last two national elections, why should take seriously what they tell us now? Why did they indicate one thing, pretty strongly, only for the public to say something different? I believe it’s because they are not recording the opinion of the public as a whole but extrapolating the opinion of the type who like answering opinion polls - the politically engaged."
I've been sceptical all along about the accuracy of opinion polls. But most people didn't seem very sceptical before. The doubts seemed to emerge when some of the polls started showing only small Tory leads.
Where the opinion poll sceptics remain confident of a Tory victory, I don't know what that's based on.
Against my original judgement May was correct to avoid the BBC debate last night. It is perfectly possible the shambles on view fed the coalition of chaos meme quite nicely for the Tories. I think TM's problem is that she needs to give up being teetotal, have a drink or two, do some relaxation stuff and hence be more normal.
I actually wonder if she's been given any media training at all. Nowadays I would have thought it was compulsory for all senior ministers.
My impression of her at the home office was that any time there was a problem, Cameron dealt with the media while May stonewalled in parliament until it went away.
I suspect her real problem isn't that she doesn't have any media training but that she's dealing with so many intractable issues: Brexit, falling incomes, public sector funding shortfalls etc. which have no sensible answer. At the same time she has chosen to make this election all about herself and does not seem to have a team of ministers around her who she can ask to campaign.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
They are also talking about writing off existing student debt. Add another few tens of billions to the pile.
"The leaders of both main parties have turned away from a decades-old vision of an open, liberal country" "No party passes with flying colours. But the closest is the Liberal Democrats. Brexit is the main task of the next government and they want membership of the single market and free movement."
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
Borrow 66 billion. Interest is say 1 billion per year. Change nothing except have govt owning all shares. Govt receives the 2 billion profit the water industry makes.
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
Has a single pollster beforehand influenced the narrative of an election quite so much? I would be interested to know of all the polls we have seen in this election cycle, the proportion that is from YG. They seem utterly ubiquitous. Lots of people are going to end up looking rather daft for emphasising one source quite so much...unless YG is right.
Since the first Yougov mega poll was released 3 days ago we have had a total of six polls. three of them have been Yougov all basically showing the same thing, one Survey Monkey showing a Tory lead of 6% and a poll each from Kantar and ICM showing leads of 10% and 12%.
The only mention of the polls that do not follow the narrative of 'Tories doing badly' was the rather passing reference "On the day ICM gave the Tories a 12% lead, YouGov analysis has the Tories losing their majority". It would be nice if the thread headers at least mentioned the other polls since anyone just reading the thread headers would not even know they existed.
If Yougov does turn out to be as flawed as many on all sides seem to think it is, then the site's preoccupation with it to the detriment of other polls will be seen to be rather foolish.
Although the YouGov stuff has attracted attention (much of it critical) because of its extreme small lead and because it is backed with highly dubious constituency predictions, the DIRECTION isn't different to other polls.
The pattern is that the Tory lead is markedly lower than it was when the election was called. The good news for the Tories is that the dam is holding, the early movement to Corbyn is being consolidated but not extended, and May is still likely to get her mandate.
But it hasn't been a good campaign from May. The direction in ALL polls has supported that, as has the mood on the doorstep. It is now conceivable that her (almost certain) win will now be within the range which begs the question "why did she bother?" Such a result would clearly weaken her authority rather than strengthen it.
You miss my point. I am not saying anything in support of May who to me is simply the lesser of several evils. But it would be nice if the thread headers did at least note the existence of other polls given they do not show the Tory position top be as dire as that portrayed by Yougov.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
They are also talking about writing off existing student debt. Add another few tens of billions to the pile.
Now I understand why Remain didn't use Theresa May during EU Ref campaign.
Maybe they should have smuggled her into the Leave camp? Think what she could have done to their vote share
A bit unfair, she gave a good speech on why Britain should stay in the EU that TOPPING linked below. She clearly didn't sign up to the project fear aspects (although she's doing that no with the no deal stuff)
Fair enough, but her behaviour makes me wonder. If she was a Remainer, why would she want to be a PM who has to be a "Leave" PM? Either she was never a Remainer and was just following Cabinet policy or if she was a Remainer then the lure of power was too much to resist.
It's possible that she genuinely thought that her Home Office EU negotiations could be used as a model for Brexit and didn't appreciate the gravity of the decisions that will need to be made. It's certainly my impression that one of the main factors in pushing her to go for an early election was the realisation that she was going 'alone and naked' into the negotiations.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
They are also talking about writing off existing student debt. Add another few tens of billions to the pile.
Since the first Yougov mega poll was released 3 days ago we have had a total of six polls. three of them have been Yougov all basically showing the same thing, one Survey Monkey showing a Tory lead of 6% and a poll each from Kantar and ICM showing leads of 10% and 12%.
The only mention of the polls that do not follow the narrative of 'Tories doing badly' was the rather passing reference "On the day ICM gave the Tories a 12% lead, YouGov analysis has the Tories losing their majority". It would be nice if the thread headers at least mentioned the other polls since anyone just reading the thread headers would not even know they existed.
If Yougov does turn out to be as flawed as many on all sides seem to think it is, then the site's preoccupation with it to the detriment of other polls will be seen to be rather foolish.
YouGov do have the limelight at the moment, and are drowning out coverage of other polls.
And yet for some reason if they were showing substantial Tory leads I am not so sure they would be getting the same attention.
They do, remember the night when we had polls showing Tory leads in the 20s?
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
"Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. "
Sigh.
ZHCs have a clear defined role in an economy and are popular with a certain % of the population. Those, like myself barely ten years ago, who want experience and money while working their way to something else.
Banning them, making that a cornerstone of the campaign, is a very retrograde, narrow view of the topic.
ld haul it back with a tremendous performance, but it's highly unlikely. Most people have contempt for those who can give it but can't take it, or bullies as they are also known. Bullies very easily become crybabies when the tables are turned. Corbyn has shown resilience, inspirational leadership, and real character, and May hasn't. I think she's lost it now. One further big error or embarrassment and it's over.
This is OTT. YouGov has a smaller lead, but the polls are seeming now to settle on a very high single figure, or low double figure Tory lead. It's not exactly on a knife-edge.
I'd liken the current position to a football team that's gone from 4-0 up at half time to 4-2 with 15 minutes left. They've been very careless, and a quick goal for the opposition now means very squeaky bums for a while. But you'd still heavily back the side with the two goal cushion, or even one goal if it came to that.
In fairness on Sky the other night she was very strong when the subject turned to Brexit. The issue is she won't have the power to keep it on that. She should talk up grammar schools as it's a popular policy and be ready to defend the social care policy but move the subject on from it quickly.
I thought her response on social care was fine in the previous Q&A. In fact I don't think she seriously misstepped during that part of the program.
The media love to come out with the "It was a draw" narrative. Except it wasn't, Corbyn was floundering near the end of the Paxo interview when his quote that the Falklands was a Tory plot came back to haunt him. May won that one.
Yes. The pundits are comparing their preformances and how they came across whilst completely ignoring the substance of what each candidate said. Away from the chatterati the general public will remember he called Hamas his friends and Falklands a tory plot, there is no way that is going to go down any way but badly in the midland marginals.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
They are also talking about writing off existing student debt. Add another few tens of billions to the pile.
An interesting factor in the podcast on the previous thread was that voters remember the bad parts of the Conservative manifesto and the good parts of Labour's. Ironically, one pundit then advised the Tories to go negative! Surely what Theresa May needs to do is to show us her path to the broad, sunlit uplands.
It's impossible to compete with Labour on that front since they are promising everything to everyone.
Actually, Labour's costed manifesto is surprisingly cautious. It is the uncosted Conservative one that is the pig in the poke. You might disagree with Labour's costings and assumptions and priorities but at least they are there.
The trouble with Labour's manifesto is what they have promised outside it - which is wholly uncosted e.g. the tuition fees promise and possibly also cancelling all the debt plus the stuff in it which is under consideration e.g. how to pay for social care / nationalisation and is uncosted.
If they did all the things they are promising every single person in the country will end up paying a great deal more, in direct and indirect taxes.
That the Tories have not been able to point this out shows how bloody useless they are.
And on top of all this we will have Brexit which, on the evidence so far, looks like being a FUBAR on steroids.
YouGov get mentioned a lot partly because of the number of polls and other information but also because they usually get stuff out fast so the data is always less than 24 hours old.
Compare that with Panelbase who published a poll yesterday where the fieldwork started two weeks ago.
Also YouGov has a bigger impact on betting markets than any other firm
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
Borrow 66 billion. Interest is say 1 billion per year. Change nothing except have govt owning all shares. Govt receives the 2 billion profit the water industry makes.
Voila - nationalisation has paid for itself.
Except Labour is all about ending "profiteering" in the utilities, so no there won't be £2 billion in profit, probably the opposite.
YouGov get mentioned a lot partly because of the number of polls and other information but also because they usually get stuff out fast so the data is always less than 24 hours old.
Compare that with Panelbase who published a poll yesterday where the fieldwork started two weeks ago.
Also YouGov has a bigger impact on betting markets than any other firm
And interest trumps accuracy every time. Just look at the column inches here on PB threads.
Are we going to be looking forward to a period of silence from Cameroon doomsayers if May canters in with a majority over 100 ? Its just possible that the largely metropolitan "liberal conservative" set are not her target audience
Lets face it, the Cameroons, the bulk of the media, and the TINO blogsphere are all the sort of people like Bobabob that like to sneer at "provincials", who are the ones that actually deliver the Tory majorities, since the party is not known for winning metropolitan city seats.
Now I understand why Remain didn't use Theresa May during EU Ref campaign.
Maybe they should have smuggled her into the Leave camp? Think what she could have done to their vote share
A bit unfair, she gave a good speech on why Britain should stay in the EU that TOPPING linked below. She clearly didn't sign up to the project fear aspects (although she's doing that no with the no deal stuff)
Fair enough, but her behaviour makes me wonder. If she was a Remainer, why would she want to be a PM who has to be a "Leave" PM? Either she was never a Remainer and was just following Cabinet policy or if she was a Remainer then the lure of power was too much to resist.
Perhaps my disappointment is caused by the fact that I thought she should have been Conservative leader instead of Cameron. She always seemed to talk sense. I thought she would have been better than this.
People often say "Do a job you like doing and you will never work a day in your life". Perhaps a Remainer should not be in a Leaver's job? She certainly does not seem to be enjoying it.
Has a single pollster beforehand influenced the narrative of an election quite so much? I would be interested to know of all the polls we have seen in this election cycle, the proportion that is from YG. They seem utterly ubiquitous. Lots of people are going to end up looking rather daft for emphasising one source quite so much...unless YG is right.
Has a single pollster beforehand influenced the narrative of an election quite so much? I would be interested to know of all the polls we have seen in this election cycle, the proportion that is from YG. They seem utterly ubiquitous. Lots of people are going to end up looking rather daft for emphasising one source quite so much...unless YG is right.
There have been 5 YouGov polls since Manchester. The rest 1 or 2.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
Borrow 66 billion. Interest is say 1 billion per year. Change nothing except have govt owning all shares. Govt receives the 2 billion profit the water industry makes.
Voila - nationalisation has paid for itself.
Except Labour is all about ending "profiteering" in the utilities, so no there won't be £2 billion in profit, probably the opposite.
The government could just go around buying random crap, if it were prepared to act as an ordinary investor. Nothing would separate an investment in a water company from a REIT or buying shares in Apple.
Now I understand why Remain didn't use Theresa May during EU Ref campaign.
Maybe they should have smuggled her into the Leave camp? Think what she could have done to their vote share
A bit unfair, she gave a good speech on why Britain should stay in the EU that TOPPING linked below. She clearly didn't sign up to the project fear aspects (although she's doing that no with the no deal stuff)
Fair enough, but her behaviour makes me wonder. If she was a Remainer, why would she want to be a PM who has to be a "Leave" PM? Either she was never a Remainer and was just following Cabinet policy or if she was a Remainer then the lure of power was too much to resist.
It's possible that she genuinely thought that her Home Office EU negotiations could be used as a model for Brexit and didn't appreciate the gravity of the decisions that will need to be made. It's certainly my impression that one of the main factors in pushing her to go for an early election was the realisation that she was going 'alone and naked' into the negotiations.
Then we are heading up S**t Creek and the paddles are going overboard.
"The leaders of both main parties have turned away from a decades-old vision of an open, liberal country" "No party passes with flying colours. But the closest is the Liberal Democrats. Brexit is the main task of the next government and they want membership of the single market and free movement."
Since the first Yougov mega poll was released 3 days ago we have had a total of six polls. three of them have been Yougov all basically showing the same thing, one Survey Monkey showing a Tory lead of 6% and a poll each from Kantar and ICM showing leads of 10% and 12%.
The only mention of the polls that do not follow the narrative of 'Tories doing badly' was the rather passing reference "On the day ICM gave the Tories a 12% lead, YouGov analysis has the Tories losing their majority". It would be nice if the thread headers at least mentioned the other polls since anyone just reading the thread headers would not even know they existed.
If Yougov does turn out to be as flawed as many on all sides seem to think it is, then the site's preoccupation with it to the detriment of other polls will be seen to be rather foolish.
YouGov do have the limelight at the moment, and are drowning out coverage of other polls.
And yet for some reason if they were showing substantial Tory leads I am not so sure they would be getting the same attention.
They do, remember the night when we had polls showing Tory leads in the 20s?
All the polls were showing the same thing and all were being treated equally. Why are you currently ignoring polls that show the Tories in a better position than Yougov? The last time you showed a chart from any pollster other than Yougov was 6 days and 16 threads ago.
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
"Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. "
Sigh.
ZHCs have a clear defined role in an economy and are popular with a certain % of the population. Those, like myself barely ten years ago, who want experience and money while working their way to something else.
Banning them, making that a cornerstone of the campaign, is a very retrograde, narrow view of the topic.
Have you worked on a zero hour contract?
If you don't work or go on holiday, you have no money coming in. Employers are giving out work project by project and can change the working conditions at any point during a project. So if the company takes on a project that is proving more difficult than expected, the employer doesn't go to the client and ask for more money instead they cut the pay of the employees (hourly wage, commission).
So lets say you have a job that pays £18 an hour. The employer has not notified you of any changes in pay conditions. You get your pay cheque and you see that instead of getting £18 an hour you were paid £10 an hour. The employer can change the pay conditions at any point and has no obligation to pay you what you expected to be paid.
Zero hour contracts are another way for middle and low workers to be shafted for the benefit of directors who get a salary.
PV samples it is been implied are very 'interesting'.
I thought it was proved on here that PV samples were a load of bollocks? No one sees enough of them to get a grasp, or something like that? Or you simply can't see them?
Perhaps in the fog of battle I have wilfully misremembered.
No it is quite possible to get a very accurate assessment of the situation. It only takes a bit of experience It is a consistent and verifiable skill. You only need regular samples to pick up a trend. You can't determine a seat that will be lost by a thousand, but you can tell the ones that are going to be lost by 5,000.
YouGov get mentioned a lot partly because of the number of polls and other information but also because they usually get stuff out fast so the data is always less than 24 hours old.
Compare that with Panelbase who published a poll yesterday where the fieldwork started two weeks ago.
Also YouGov has a bigger impact on betting markets than any other firm
I think Panelbase's poll was delayed because of Manchester, although I could be wrong.
PV samples it is been implied are very 'interesting'.
I thought it was proved on here that PV samples were a load of bollocks? No one sees enough of them to get a grasp, or something like that? Or you simply can't see them?
Perhaps in the fog of battle I have wilfully misremembered.
No, that's spot on. They are verified face down and if done right the observer wont see a thing, apart from the occasional glimpse of one end of a paper as it is quickly extracted from its envelope.
What happens is that some young guy gets sent along just to take a look, then gets pumped for information when he gets back to base. He doesnt want to admit not seeing anything so mentions the few papers he happened to notice, and Chinese whispers quickly turns this in to a rumour as to which way the PVs are leaning. Its all nonsense.
You might get lucky if the ERO is new and doesn't know to verify face down (very rare given the excellent EC guidance material, which is a model for any public body), or if the counters are sloppy and pull votes out of envelopes any which way, or very slowly. Otherwise zip.
Are we going to be looking forward to a period of silence from Cameroon doomsayers if May canters in with a majority over 100 ? Its just possible that the largely metropolitan "liberal conservative" set are not her target audience
Lets face it, the Cameroons, the bulk of the media, and the TINO blogsphere are all the sort of people like Bobabob that like to sneer at "provincials", who are the ones that actually deliver the Tory majorities, since the party is not known for winning metropolitan city seats.
Wait until you see my Sunday piece.
Contains the greatest opening in PB, if not, political writing, history.
The government could just go around buying random crap, if it were prepared to act as an ordinary investor. Nothing would separate an investment in a water company from a REIT or buying shares in Apple.
If a government is hell bent on spending £66 billion I'd rather they bought tech stocks than water companies. Not sure the public would be so keen, even if it had more long term opportunity.
How many times do opinion polls have to be wrong before people realise they're a load of old shit?
"If the polls called it incorrectly in the last two national elections, why should take seriously what they tell us now? Why did they indicate one thing, pretty strongly, only for the public to say something different? I believe it’s because they are not recording the opinion of the public as a whole but extrapolating the opinion of the type who like answering opinion polls - the politically engaged."
I've been sceptical all along about the accuracy of opinion polls. But most people didn't seem very sceptical before. The doubts seemed to emerge when some of the polls started showing only small Tory leads.
Where the opinion poll sceptics remain confident of a Tory victory, I don't know what that's based on.
Canvassing. Possibly rumours of postal votes too, if people were being naughty.
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
Do you realise that ZHC are most heavily used in the charitable sector (over a third of contracts) and the public sector (around a quarter of contracts) not the private sector (under 8% of contracts). So its not those nasty capitalists at all
Tories/Media doing a good job moving discussion away from May's absence and on to the audience selection. Now the 2nd most read story on BBC news. If the public think it's a stitch-up then certainly the May narrative can move from 'coward' to 'wise'.
Now I understand why Remain didn't use Theresa May during EU Ref campaign.
Maybe they should have smuggled her into the Leave camp? Think what she could have done to their vote share
A bit unfair, she gave a good speech on why Britain should stay in the EU that TOPPING linked below. She clearly didn't sign up to the project fear aspects (although she's doing that no with the no deal stuff)
Fair enough, but her behaviour makes me wonder. If she was a Remainer, why would she want to be a PM who has to be a "Leave" PM? Either she was never a Remainer and was just following Cabinet policy or if she was a Remainer then the lure of power was too much to resist.
Perhaps my disappointment is caused by the fact that I thought she should have been Conservative leader instead of Cameron. She always seemed to talk sense. I thought she would have been better than this.
People often say "Do a job you like doing and you will never work a day in your life". Perhaps a Remainer should not be in a Leaver's job? She certainly does not seem to be enjoying it.
I don't think she was ever a truly convinced Remainer, and is happy within herself that leaving (on the right terms etc) is the right thing to do given the Leave vote, and that a legacy of being the person who took Britain out reasonably smoothly is one well worth having. PMs feel the hand of history etc, and I don't think she lays awake at night worrying about whether leaving the EU is the right thing.
What I do think is that she likes to govern with a small group, and dislikes collective decision making either at Cabinet or Parliament level. The truth at the heart of her decision to call an election is that she didn't want to piggyback on Cameron's mandate for 3 years, and wanted a 5 year May mandate, with a hefty majority, which would allow her to take Parliament for granted and raise two fingers to Cabinet troublemakers (of which there would be none). The idea of a big win impressing Europe so much that she'd magically get a better deal is tosh - this was about May and May's preferred style of leadership, which is much less than collegiate.
She might well still get that... or she might not. She will find it a long, hard slog if the result is a fairly modest majority. She won't have her personal Parliament, or her compliant cabinet, and she will loathe every single minute.
For anyone wondering why Iain Wright stood down in Hartlepool, he has just been appointed as the new Chief Executive of the North East Process Industry Cluster (NEPIC).
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
Borrow 66 billion. Interest is say 1 billion per year. Change nothing except have govt owning all shares. Govt receives the 2 billion profit the water industry makes.
Voila - nationalisation has paid for itself.
However, the government has slashed water prices to win votes and no-one, even the totally incompetent or redundant, ever gets fired because Len McCluskey (or whoever) has Corbyn over a barrel.
The government is now paying £1bn/year interest and then some because the companies are losing money hand over fist.
PV samples it is been implied are very 'interesting'.
I thought it was proved on here that PV samples were a load of bollocks? No one sees enough of them to get a grasp, or something like that? Or you simply can't see them?
Perhaps in the fog of battle I have wilfully misremembered.
No it is quite possible to get a very accurate assessment of the situation. It only takes a bit of experience It is a consistent and verifiable skill. You only need regular samples to pick up a trend. You can't determine a seat that will be lost by a thousand, but you can tell the ones that are going to be lost by 5,000.
There is a difference between postal votes which can't be seen and the non-postal votes which are counted face up and can be seen at the verification stage. Are you referring to the non-postal votes?
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
Borrow 66 billion. Interest is say 1 billion per year. Change nothing except have govt owning all shares. Govt receives the 2 billion profit the water industry makes.
Voila - nationalisation has paid for itself.
Except Labour is all about ending "profiteering" in the utilities, so no there won't be £2 billion in profit, probably the opposite.
The point is - if you think Labour should have included a cost of 66 billion in their manifesto, - then you simply do not understand how government finances work.
PV samples it is been implied are very 'interesting'.
I thought it was proved on here that PV samples were a load of bollocks? No one sees enough of them to get a grasp, or something like that? Or you simply can't see them?
Perhaps in the fog of battle I have wilfully misremembered.
No it is quite possible to get a very accurate assessment of the situation. It only takes a bit of experience It is a consistent and verifiable skill. You only need regular samples to pick up a trend. You can't determine a seat that will be lost by a thousand, but you can tell the ones that are going to be lost by 5,000.
Isn't it now the case that the Electoral Commission has instructed that postal voting verification shall take place in a manner whereby it is not possible to see the ballot form being extracted from the ballot envelope? Some places might not be following this.
This is the first election since I started PB when I haven't received a call advising about PV counting is going.
Do you realise that ZHC are most heavily used in the charitable sector (over a third of contracts) and the public sector (around a quarter of contracts) not the private sector (under 8% of contracts). So its not those nasty capitalists at all
Do you realise that ZHC are most heavily used in the charitable sector (over a third of contracts) and the public sector (around a quarter of contracts) not the private sector (under 8% of contracts). So its not those nasty capitalists at all
Comments
I imagine she'll get her majority unless the 42-44% glacis shatters this week and over the weekend. If the Conservative number drops to 40% or below it will be a tad fraught in CCHQ. I don't believe it will - the majority will be workable if unspectacular and not necessarily providing May with the full confidence that anything she wants she will get through the Commons (and the Lords will remain a bastion of resistance).
Jezza is telling us we can all have free owls. As @bigjohnowls says, it is at least a vision of something and is pretty straight on how he is going to try to get there. Well of course we might say he can't do it the way he says he can do it, but there's no doubting where he is at.
The PM is way, way outside her comfort zone. 45 minutes being grilled to a frazzle by the punters who don't want soundbites and slogans. May will be off to a sticky wicket from the off .... "Nice of you to turn up Prime Minister ...."
In contrast Corbyn will talk total bollocks with absolute conviction and passion.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/86362/jeremy-corbyn-labour-could-write
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Sadly Mrs JackW won't accommodate ....
Looking at that TM is down a little from pre-GE announcement but only a little. Her rating then spiked in the early stages of the campaign, but the more informative comparison is the settled picture pre-GE being triggered.
I suspect her real problem isn't that she doesn't have any media training but that she's dealing with so many intractable issues: Brexit, falling incomes, public sector funding shortfalls etc. which have no sensible answer. At the same time she has chosen to make this election all about herself and does not seem to have a team of ministers around her who she can ask to campaign.
So did I...
*a spot of wishful thinking by me*
Even though Tim Farron comes across well, the Liberal Democrats aren't so much in the public mind as they were in 2015. If the notion of "coalition of chaos" gets aired - as it seems to be getting aired, because what else have the Tories got as they slip in the polls? - people are more likely to respond by voting Labour not Tory.
I thought it was interesting that Boris Johnson congratulated May on chickening out of the debate. What other words might come out of his mouth, I wonder? Davis's presentation (and doubtless also his competence) exceeds Johnson's even more than Rudd's exceeds May's, but people like Johnson and his convict friend Darius Guppy have a certain view of themselves. Eton and stuff. I do hope Johnson steps forward in the days that are left.
The pattern is that the Tory lead is markedly lower than it was when the election was called. The good news for the Tories is that the dam is holding, the early movement to Corbyn is being consolidated but not extended, and May is still likely to get her mandate.
But it hasn't been a good campaign from May. The direction in ALL polls has supported that, as has the mood on the doorstep. It is now conceivable that her (almost certain) win will now be within the range which begs the question "why did she bother?" Such a result would clearly weaken her authority rather than strengthen it.
Perhaps my disappointment is caused by the fact that I thought she should have been Conservative leader instead of Cameron. She always seemed to talk sense. I thought she would have been better than this.
People often say "Do a job you like doing and you will never work a day in your life". Perhaps a Remainer should not be in a Leaver's job? She certainly does not seem to be enjoying it.
#hipsterMaydoubter
May gives the impression of having nothing to say.
Effective communication may not make a good leader nor does it say anything about whether what the person believes is sensible and wise or poisonous rubbish.
But in terms of pure communication, Corbyn is undoubtedly better than May. No wonder her star is falling. May believed her own hype - always dangerous.
After hubris - nemesis?
It remains to be seen whether Corbyn and his supporters are falling into the same trap.
Conservatives may be in trouble, but May's itinerary today suggests she's still very much on the offensive, visiting seats held by Labour
May won that one.
Where the opinion poll sceptics remain confident of a Tory victory, I don't know what that's based on.
"The leaders of both main parties have turned away from a decades-old vision of an open, liberal country"
"No party passes with flying colours. But the closest is the Liberal Democrats. Brexit is the main task of the next government and they want membership of the single market and free movement."
Change nothing except have govt owning all shares.
Govt receives the 2 billion profit the water industry makes.
Voila - nationalisation has paid for itself.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
Has a single pollster beforehand influenced the narrative of an election quite so much? I would be interested to know of all the polls we have seen in this election cycle, the proportion that is from YG. They seem utterly ubiquitous. Lots of people are going to end up looking rather daft for emphasising one source quite so much...unless YG is right.
That sounds good for Corbyn to me.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/22/opinium-sees-the-tory-lead-up-10-in-a-week-to-19/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/22/labour-reduce-the-tory-lead-to-23-with-yougov-in-the-most-incredible-polling-night-i-can-remember/
Sigh.
ZHCs have a clear defined role in an economy and are popular with a certain % of the population. Those, like myself barely ten years ago, who want experience and money while working their way to something else.
Banning them, making that a cornerstone of the campaign, is a very retrograde, narrow view of the topic.
I'd liken the current position to a football team that's gone from 4-0 up at half time to 4-2 with 15 minutes left. They've been very careless, and a quick goal for the opposition now means very squeaky bums for a while. But you'd still heavily back the side with the two goal cushion, or even one goal if it came to that.
If they did all the things they are promising every single person in the country will end up paying a great deal more, in direct and indirect taxes.
That the Tories have not been able to point this out shows how bloody useless they are.
And on top of all this we will have Brexit which, on the evidence so far, looks like being a FUBAR on steroids.
Oh dear.........
Compare that with Panelbase who published a poll yesterday where the fieldwork started two weeks ago.
Also YouGov has a bigger impact on betting markets than any other firm
Lets face it, the Cameroons, the bulk of the media, and the TINO blogsphere are all the sort of people like Bobabob that like to sneer at "provincials", who are the ones that actually deliver the Tory majorities, since the party is not known for winning metropolitan city seats.
I think the reverse taunt is about to come into fashion
Well they can't back Labour this time, can they?
If you don't work or go on holiday, you have no money coming in. Employers are giving out work project by project and can change the working conditions at any point during a project. So if the company takes on a project that is proving more difficult than expected, the employer doesn't go to the client and ask for more money instead they cut the pay of the employees (hourly wage, commission).
So lets say you have a job that pays £18 an hour. The employer has not notified you of any changes in pay conditions. You get your pay cheque and you see that instead of getting £18 an hour you were paid £10 an hour. The employer can change the pay conditions at any point and has no obligation to pay you what you expected to be paid.
Zero hour contracts are another way for middle and low workers to be shafted for the benefit of directors who get a salary.
What happens is that some young guy gets sent along just to take a look, then gets pumped for information when he gets back to base. He doesnt want to admit not seeing anything so mentions the few papers he happened to notice, and Chinese whispers quickly turns this in to a rumour as to which way the PVs are leaning. Its all nonsense.
You might get lucky if the ERO is new and doesn't know to verify face down (very rare given the excellent EC guidance material, which is a model for any public body), or if the counters are sloppy and pull votes out of envelopes any which way, or very slowly. Otherwise zip.
Contains the greatest opening in PB, if not, political writing, history.
What I do think is that she likes to govern with a small group, and dislikes collective decision making either at Cabinet or Parliament level. The truth at the heart of her decision to call an election is that she didn't want to piggyback on Cameron's mandate for 3 years, and wanted a 5 year May mandate, with a hefty majority, which would allow her to take Parliament for granted and raise two fingers to Cabinet troublemakers (of which there would be none). The idea of a big win impressing Europe so much that she'd magically get a better deal is tosh - this was about May and May's preferred style of leadership, which is much less than collegiate.
She might well still get that... or she might not. She will find it a long, hard slog if the result is a fairly modest majority. She won't have her personal Parliament, or her compliant cabinet, and she will loathe every single minute.
...suddenly a shot rang out...
Snoopy
He prefers a Cluster to a Clusterf---.
The government is now paying £1bn/year interest and then some because the companies are losing money hand over fist.
This is the first election since I started PB when I haven't received a call advising about PV counting is going.
Bereft of life it lies, pushing up the daisies....
LibDems raising nearly as much as Labour is worthy of note though. They won't be short of funds in their target seats.