Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON majority still an 80% betting chance

1235»

Comments

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I just read that Fallon said HR tax payers will not pay more than now.

    So BASIC RATE taxpayers will pay more. Thanks, Fallon for letting it out.

    No rise in basic either
    But he DID NOT say that.
    He did not need to - he was cancelling all Corbyn's attack on the £80,000 plus aspirational earners There will be no increase in basic by the conservatives
    So, let's get this right.

    The 2015 manifesto explicitly ruled out any increase in Income Tax and basic rate NIC.

    The 2017 manifesto omitted that.

    Now you are saying that they will not increase any taxes. So why not keep the pledge ?

    Wobble ? U-turn ? What next ?
    LOL. Changing policies between manifestos is a U-turn now? Desperate indeed.
    So you cannot say that the 2017 manifesto specifically rule out increases in basic rate of income tax as it did in 2015 ?
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited June 2017

    Despite all the froth about the nuclear question, I'm not convinced it will shift any votes, though it seems to have motivated a degree of betting activity. I doubt there are too many voters who genuinely fear we are in danger of imminent attack.

    Actually shift votes? Probably not many.

    But I suspect it reminded people like my mother why she couldn't vote Labour this time, and also reminded Tory inclined waverers that while May is crap Corbyn is dangerous.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Floater said:

    nunu said:

    surbiton said:

    Sandpit said:

    surbiton said:

    I just read that Fallon said HR tax payers will not pay more than now.

    So BASIC RATE taxpayers will pay more. Thanks, Fallon for letting it out.

    I assumed that the ADDITIONAL RATE taxpayers are who he'll hit, upping 45% to 50%.
    Don't try to wobble now. Tories will never increase the HR. The cat is out of the bag.

    TORIES WILL INCREASE BASIC RATE OF INCOME TAX.
    You are despreate.
    Surbiton always makes me laugh.

    Sheer desperation shines through
    Now that you have been caught with your pants down.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,202
    surbiton said:

    Despite all the froth about the nuclear question, I'm not convinced it will shift any votes, though it seems to have motivated a degree of betting activity. I doubt there are too many voters who genuinely fear we are in danger of imminent attack.

    Wishful thinking. This is the big story and is going to be played over and over again with his car crash reply.

    Canvassers will be on the doorsteps from tomorrow on with attack ads and I have just received the attack e mail from CCHQ
    49% of the population does not want trident. Labour is not going to get 49%.
    You really are beyond belief.

    Corbyn bottled it tonight on nuclear and is already on the front pages.

    This is his bigot gate moment
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Despite all the froth about the nuclear question, I'm not convinced it will shift any votes, though it seems to have motivated a degree of betting activity. I doubt there are too many voters who genuinely fear we are in danger of imminent attack.

    Wishful thinking. This is the big story and is going to be played over and over again with his car crash reply.

    Canvassers will be on the doorsteps from tomorrow on with attack ads and I have just received the attack e mail from CCHQ
    Yes I guessed that from the number of comments on here, but I fear that any wishful thinking is on the part of CCHQ. It now looks like I was right to be sceptical of the IRA line, and this looks like more of the same. It will excite activists and those already opposed to Corbyn but I doubt it will have much traction beyond that. Let's see if it leads the later editions of tomorrow's papers.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    GIN1138 said:

    Catching up on Tim Farron's interview with Andrew Neil.

    Brutal, brutal stuff...

    Funny though ;-)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,202
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I just read that Fallon said HR tax payers will not pay more than now.

    So BASIC RATE taxpayers will pay more. Thanks, Fallon for letting it out.

    No rise in basic either
    But he DID NOT say that.
    He did not need to - he was cancelling all Corbyn's attack on the £80,000 plus aspirational earners There will be no increase in basic by the conservatives
    So, let's get this right.

    The 2015 manifesto explicitly ruled out any increase in Income Tax and basic rate NIC.

    The 2017 manifesto omitted that.

    Now you are saying that they will not increase any taxes. So why not keep the pledge ?

    Wobble ? U-turn ? What next ?
    You do talk rubbish - the basic rates of tax remain but that does not include NI which is avaiable if needed, possibly only on the employer.
    Does the 2017 manifesto specifically rule out increase in basic rate of income tax ? As it did in 2015. Show us.
    You are getting childish now.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,813
    Seen the front of the Express?

    The SNP becoming toxic for Labour south of the border again.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,202

    Despite all the froth about the nuclear question, I'm not convinced it will shift any votes, though it seems to have motivated a degree of betting activity. I doubt there are too many voters who genuinely fear we are in danger of imminent attack.

    Wishful thinking. This is the big story and is going to be played over and over again with his car crash reply.

    Canvassers will be on the doorsteps from tomorrow on with attack ads and I have just received the attack e mail from CCHQ
    Yes I guessed that from the number of comments on here, but I fear that any wishful thinking is on the part of CCHQ. It now looks like I was right to be sceptical of the IRA line, and this looks like more of the same. It will excite activists and those already opposed to Corbyn but I doubt it will have much traction beyond that. Let's see if it leads the later editions of tomorrow's papers.
    It is front middle and centre of today's daily mail already.

    The sun, express, telegraph, times together with the Sundays are going to make very poor reading for Corbyn, believe me.

    It was just the gaff they have been waiting for
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I just read that Fallon said HR tax payers will not pay more than now.

    So BASIC RATE taxpayers will pay more. Thanks, Fallon for letting it out.

    No rise in basic either
    But he DID NOT say that.
    He did not need to - he was cancelling all Corbyn's attack on the £80,000 plus aspirational earners There will be no increase in basic by the conservatives
    So, let's get this right.

    The 2015 manifesto explicitly ruled out any increase in Income Tax and basic rate NIC.

    The 2017 manifesto omitted that.

    Now you are saying that they will not increase any taxes. So why not keep the pledge ?

    Wobble ? U-turn ? What next ?
    You do talk rubbish - the basic rates of tax remain but that does not include NI which is avaiable if needed, possibly only on the employer.
    Does the 2017 manifesto specifically rule out increase in basic rate of income tax ? As it did in 2015. Show us.
    You are getting childish now.
    Because you cannot answer the question. Was it childish of the Tories to rule it out in the 2015 manifesto ?

    I love to see Tories squirming.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    Despite all the froth about the nuclear question, I'm not convinced it will shift any votes, though it seems to have motivated a degree of betting activity. I doubt there are too many voters who genuinely fear we are in danger of imminent attack.

    Wishful thinking. This is the big story and is going to be played over and over again with his car crash reply.

    Canvassers will be on the doorsteps from tomorrow on with attack ads and I have just received the attack e mail from CCHQ
    49% of the population does not want trident. Labour is not going to get 49%.
    You really are beyond belief.

    Corbyn bottled it tonight on nuclear and is already on the front pages.

    This is his bigot gate moment
    His position on nuclear is the same for the last 30 years. What a bloody waste of money !
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    "Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, said voting Tory is “the only way” workers across the wage spectrum can be sure their tax will not go up, ending weeks of uncertainty for middle-class professionals."

    ACROSS THE WAGE SPECTRUM!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    surbiton said:

    RobD said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I just read that Fallon said HR tax payers will not pay more than now.

    So BASIC RATE taxpayers will pay more. Thanks, Fallon for letting it out.

    No rise in basic either
    But he DID NOT say that.
    He did not need to - he was cancelling all Corbyn's attack on the £80,000 plus aspirational earners There will be no increase in basic by the conservatives
    So, let's get this right.

    The 2015 manifesto explicitly ruled out any increase in Income Tax and basic rate NIC.

    The 2017 manifesto omitted that.

    Now you are saying that they will not increase any taxes. So why not keep the pledge ?

    Wobble ? U-turn ? What next ?
    LOL. Changing policies between manifestos is a U-turn now? Desperate indeed.
    So you cannot say that the 2017 manifesto specifically rule out increases in basic rate of income tax as it did in 2015 ?
    Can't see the U-turn.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    I just read that Fallon said HR tax payers will not pay more than now.

    So BASIC RATE taxpayers will pay more. Thanks, Fallon for letting it out.

    No rise in basic either
    But he DID NOT say that.
    He did not need to - he was cancelling all Corbyn's attack on the £80,000 plus aspirational earners There will be no increase in basic by the conservatives
    So, let's get this right.

    The 2015 manifesto explicitly ruled out any increase in Income Tax and basic rate NIC.

    The 2017 manifesto omitted that.

    Now you are saying that they will not increase any taxes. So why not keep the pledge ?

    Wobble ? U-turn ? What next ?
    You do talk rubbish - the basic rates of tax remain but that does not include NI which is avaiable if needed, possibly only on the employer.
    Does the 2017 manifesto specifically rule out increase in basic rate of income tax ? As it did in 2015. Show us.
    You are getting childish now.
    Because you cannot answer the question. Was it childish of the Tories to rule it out in the 2015 manifesto ?

    I love to see Tories squirming.
    Yes it was. It was done to fill a gap on the grid.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,202
    nunu said:

    "Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, said voting Tory is “the only way” workers across the wage spectrum can be sure their tax will not go up, ending weeks of uncertainty for middle-class professionals."

    ACROSS THE WAGE SPECTRUM!

    Leaving open NI on employers which labour have also not ruled out
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,240
    Sandpit said:

    Good to see some love in the world. :)

    Singer Ariana Grande, who was headlining the bombed Manchester concert, turns up unannounced at hospital where the injured are being treated.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/ariana-grande-surprises-injured-fans-hospital-following-manchester/

    Good night.

    There was some major criticism that she didn't turn up at the hospital shortly after the attack, but I am glad she is doing so now. My cousin and her dad are going this weekend to the concert.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Despite all the froth about the nuclear question, I'm not convinced it will shift any votes, though it seems to have motivated a degree of betting activity. I doubt there are too many voters who genuinely fear we are in danger of imminent attack.

    Wishful thinking. This is the big story and is going to be played over and over again with his car crash reply.

    Canvassers will be on the doorsteps from tomorrow on with attack ads and I have just received the attack e mail from CCHQ
    Yes I guessed that from the number of comments on here, but I fear that any wishful thinking is on the part of CCHQ. It now looks like I was right to be sceptical of the IRA line, and this looks like more of the same. It will excite activists and those already opposed to Corbyn but I doubt it will have much traction beyond that. Let's see if it leads the later editions of tomorrow's papers.
    It is front middle and centre of today's daily mail already.

    The sun, express, telegraph, times together with the Sundays are going to make very poor reading for Corbyn, believe me.

    It was just the gaff they have been waiting for
    The Mail's web site has it some way down. I've not seen the later print editions. It may have come too late for the first editions of the papers.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,202

    Despite all the froth about the nuclear question, I'm not convinced it will shift any votes, though it seems to have motivated a degree of betting activity. I doubt there are too many voters who genuinely fear we are in danger of imminent attack.

    Wishful thinking. This is the big story and is going to be played over and over again with his car crash reply.

    Canvassers will be on the doorsteps from tomorrow on with attack ads and I have just received the attack e mail from CCHQ
    Yes I guessed that from the number of comments on here, but I fear that any wishful thinking is on the part of CCHQ. It now looks like I was right to be sceptical of the IRA line, and this looks like more of the same. It will excite activists and those already opposed to Corbyn but I doubt it will have much traction beyond that. Let's see if it leads the later editions of tomorrow's papers.
    It is front middle and centre of today's daily mail already.

    The sun, express, telegraph, times together with the Sundays are going to make very poor reading for Corbyn, believe me.

    It was just the gaff they have been waiting for
    The Mail's web site has it some way down. I've not seen the later print editions. It may have come too late for the first editions of the papers.
    I get my mail on line (11.00pm) edition and it is front, middle and centre with unflatering photos of Corbyn looking flustered
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Chris said:

    kjohnw said:

    at this stage I'll just be happy at the exit poll when I hear the words " Conservative majority"

    Remember the exit poll failed last time on the small detail of whether the Tories would have a majority.
    Exit poll accuracy is +/- 20 seats.
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    edited June 2017
    It's curious how those who believe that a country should have nuclear warheads deliverable on intercontinental missiles, the only purpose of which is to obliterate foreign cities murdering all the inhabitants on an industrial scale, somehow think they're better than those who believe it was acceptable for the murder of innocents on a similar scale to be carried out in Auschwitz by the Nazis. Double standards indeed. No possible cause - not even the retention of their money and privileges by a caste of Tories who revel in the psychological damage they sustained at private schools - can possibly justify such murder.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803

    Chris said:

    kjohnw said:

    at this stage I'll just be happy at the exit poll when I hear the words " Conservative majority"

    Remember the exit poll failed last time on the small detail of whether the Tories would have a majority.
    Exit poll accuracy is +/- 20 seats.
    We'll know immediately if we are in a YouGov or ICM universe.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024

    nunu said:

    "Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, said voting Tory is “the only way” workers across the wage spectrum can be sure their tax will not go up, ending weeks of uncertainty for middle-class professionals."

    ACROSS THE WAGE SPECTRUM!

    Leaving open NI on employers which labour have also not ruled out
    yes, looks like there will be increases for self employed NIC.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    Cyan said:

    It's curious how those who believe that a country should have nuclear weapons deliverable on intercontinental missiles, the only purpose of which is to obliterate foreign cities murdering all the inhabitants on an industrial scale, somehow think they're better than those who believe it was acceptable for the murder of innocents on a similar scale to be carried out in Auschwitz by the Nazis. Double standards indeed. No possible cause - not even the survival of a caste of Tories who went to private schools - can possibly justify such murder.

    Their purpose is deterrent.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    GIN1138 said:

    Have caught up on QT.

    Theresa gave her best performance of the campaign.

    Jezza was OK until the nuclear question and then stumbled very badly (and never really recovered)

    Scores on the doors:

    Tezza - 7

    Jezza - 5

    I'd add Audience 8. Intelligent, balanced and asked probing questions. DD also did well - his experience showed. Far better than the messy and poorly chaired 7 way debate the other day.
  • OUTOUT Posts: 569

    Despite all the froth about the nuclear question, I'm not convinced it will shift any votes, though it seems to have motivated a degree of betting activity. I doubt there are too many voters who genuinely fear we are in danger of imminent attack.

    Wishful thinking. This is the big story and is going to be played over and over again with his car crash reply.

    Canvassers will be on the doorsteps from tomorrow on with attack ads and I have just received the attack e mail from CCHQ
    Yes I guessed that from the number of comments on here, but I fear that any wishful thinking is on the part of CCHQ. It now looks like I was right to be sceptical of the IRA line, and this looks like more of the same. It will excite activists and those already opposed to Corbyn but I doubt it will have much traction beyond that. Let's see if it leads the later editions of tomorrow's papers.
    It is front middle and centre of today's daily mail already.

    The sun, express, telegraph, times together with the Sundays are going to make very poor reading for Corbyn, believe me.

    It was just the gaff they have been waiting for
    The Mail's web site has it some way down. I've not seen the later print editions. It may have come too late for the first editions of the papers.
    I get my mail on line (11.00pm) edition and it is front, middle and centre with unflatering photos of Corbyn looking flustered
    e-mails from CCHQ Daily Mail online, fair and balanced.
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    edited June 2017
    RobD said:

    Cyan said:

    It's curious how those who believe that a country should have nuclear weapons deliverable on intercontinental missiles, the only purpose of which is to obliterate foreign cities murdering all the inhabitants on an industrial scale, somehow think they're better than those who believe it was acceptable for the murder of innocents on a similar scale to be carried out in Auschwitz by the Nazis. Double standards indeed. No possible cause - not even the survival of a caste of Tories who went to private schools - can possibly justify such murder.

    Their purpose is deterrent.
    I meant their military purpose, in the sense that a siege engine's purpose is to break a siege. But a deterrent only serves its purpose if its possessor is prepared to use it, as many have pointed out.

    Do you support stockpiling chemical weapons? Biological weapons? How about weapons for gouging a million babies' eyes out? As a "deterrent" of course.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    The QT audience did the same thing to Corbyn on defence as they did to Ed last time on spending.

    Both times they went to the heart of the reason people are reluctant even scared of voting for them.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    Cyan said:

    RobD said:

    Cyan said:

    It's curious how those who believe that a country should have nuclear weapons deliverable on intercontinental missiles, the only purpose of which is to obliterate foreign cities murdering all the inhabitants on an industrial scale, somehow think they're better than those who believe it was acceptable for the murder of innocents on a similar scale to be carried out in Auschwitz by the Nazis. Double standards indeed. No possible cause - not even the survival of a caste of Tories who went to private schools - can possibly justify such murder.

    Their purpose is deterrent.
    I meant their military purpose, in the sense that a siege engine's purpose is to break a siege. But a deterrent only serves its purpose if its possessor is prepared to use it, as many have pointed out.

    Do you support stockpiling chemical weapons? Biological weapons? How about weapons for gouging a million babies' eyes out? As a "deterrent" of course.
    Hm, I'd be quite interested in the baby one.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Things I've learned this evening: a person not saying "I won't do X" is exactly the same as them saying "I will do X".

    OK then.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,036
    nunu said:

    The QT audience did the same thing to Corbyn on defence as they did to Ed last time on spending.

    Both times they went to the heart of the reason people are reluctant even scared of voting for them.

    I can't say I'm scared of voting for someone who doesn't want to murder thousands of innocent people.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Dadge said:

    nunu said:

    The QT audience did the same thing to Corbyn on defence as they did to Ed last time on spending.

    Both times they went to the heart of the reason people are reluctant even scared of voting for them.

    I can't say I'm scared of voting for someone who doesn't want to murder thousands of innocent people.
    I am very scared of someone who wouldn't protect his own countrymen before others. But then again he did back the IRA whilst they were bombing us, so no suprises there.
  • dmc82dmc82 Posts: 27
    edited June 2017
    After catching up on QT I smell something in the air it smells rather like the stench of appeasement!

    https://youtu.be/eoUW93Buv_4
  • DougieDougie Posts: 57
    edited June 2017
    Fascinating. This is the first time I've seen Labourites on this forum during this election panicking.

    Corbyn;s bugger-up tonight is on precisely the subject that voters are worried about in terms of what a Labour government will do. If there is going to be a swing against Labour, it will be due to this subject. The defence of the realm (despite the many years of defence cuts without any sort of response from the electorate) is exactly the sort of subject that will move wavering voters back to the Tories.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,036
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    Despite all the froth about the nuclear question, I'm not convinced it will shift any votes, though it seems to have motivated a degree of betting activity. I doubt there are too many voters who genuinely fear we are in danger of imminent attack.

    Wishful thinking. This is the big story and is going to be played over and over again with his car crash reply.

    Canvassers will be on the doorsteps from tomorrow on with attack ads and I have just received the attack e mail from CCHQ
    49% of the population does not want trident. Labour is not going to get 49%.
    You really are beyond belief.

    Corbyn bottled it tonight on nuclear and is already on the front pages.

    This is his bigot gate moment
    His position on nuclear is the same for the last 30 years. What a bloody waste of money !
    The headlines might make some impact, although he's had bad headlines every day and still Labour's been putting on an additional 2-3% a week to its poll rating, so I wouldn't bank on it. Interesting though to open up this particular can of worms that lies virtually dormant these days. Unlike back in the 80s/90s the issue is barely on the radar for younger people, and many of them will be as appalled as I am that we're even discussing such a macabre possibility. The nuclear deterrent is one of those emperor's new clothes things that some older voters assume is needed but is insane if you give it much thought.

    Of course there is the issue, even for Corbyn supporters, of why the hell build Trident if you admit you're not going to use it. Maybe he should've found someone in his party that he could delegate the red-button-pushing to!
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    If the Tories win any seats from Labour, they may be doing well enough to keep their majority. If their majority stays at 10 they may gain some and lose some, but there aren't many they could realistically gain from parties other than Labour.

    In 2015 they lost only 7 by <15% (whichever place they finished in) to non-Labour parties: 3 to LibDem, 3 to SNP, 1 to UKIP.

    * Southport (LibDem) (3.0% behind)
    * Carshalton and Wallington (LibDem) (3.2%)
    * Norfolk North (LibDem) (8.2%)

    * Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk (SNP) (0.6%)
    * Dumfries & Galloway (SNP) (11.5%)
    * Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine (SNP) (12.7%)

    * Clacton (UKIP) (7.8%)

    Last time these all declared after 3am.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,036
    nunu said:

    Dadge said:

    nunu said:

    The QT audience did the same thing to Corbyn on defence as they did to Ed last time on spending.

    Both times they went to the heart of the reason people are reluctant even scared of voting for them.

    I can't say I'm scared of voting for someone who doesn't want to murder thousands of innocent people.
    I am very scared of someone who wouldn't protect his own countrymen before others. But then again he did back the IRA whilst they were bombing us, so no suprises there.
    I can't imagine a situation where we would fire the damn things. I certainly can't imagine Theresa May firing one. JC ought really to have lied - it would hardly have made any difference. The fact that he told the truth when it's damaging is quite refreshing - suggests he might be more truthful than your average politician - notwithstanding the dodgy bits from his past that he wants to sweep under the carpet...
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    The entire nuclear debate is crap; just who is it supposed to deter and from what?

    North Korea has no ICBM capabilities, even if it did are we supposed think Kim would want to attack the UK and would only be stopped by a preemptive nuclear strike by the UK?

    Iran Equally farcical; what possible motive would they have? They are rational people, to do so would bring their certain destruction. Same with Putin.

    Corbyn didn't rule out the use of nuclear weapons, only to not use them first
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,322

    The entire nuclear debate is crap; just who is it supposed to deter and from what?

    North Korea has no ICBM capabilities, even if it did are we supposed think Kim would want to attack the UK and would only be stopped by a preemptive nuclear strike by the UK?

    Iran Equally farcical; what possible motive would they have? They are rational people, to do so would bring their certain destruction. Same with Putin.

    Corbyn didn't rule out the use of nuclear weapons, only to not use them first

    When the US got rid of its chemical and nuclear stockpiles, they said any attack using such weapons against the US could be responded to using nuclear. Otherwise they did not have an 'equal' response. I think our position was the same. ISTR Obama changed that position back in 2010, but I have little doubt that a state actor using chemical or biological weapons against the US in a large scale might well trigger a nuclear response. After all, such an attack would be an act of war.

    You also need to think of any threats that might occur over the thirty years lifetime of the system, not just the threats we may face at the moment.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,270
    The cost of Trident has been conspicuously absent from the debate, 60-100bn over the next 30 years, for a system that no other western country apart from France and the US feel the need to have. The Canadians dont sweat about it at night, the Germans neither. Who does it deter? China, Russia?

    It hasnt stopped Iraq invading Kuwait, it hasnt stopped the emergence of violent jihadist groups, 9/11, it hasn't made us any safer over the last 25 years since the Cold War ended. We do not own the missiles or the technology and it is hardly proven (the misfire around Xmas proved that) to achieve anythgin but scare people

    So for Corbyn to express some doubts about this Emperor's clothing is hardly surprising. I am not sure the Trident "Project Fear" is going to work
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 715
    Norm said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Have caught up on QT.

    Theresa gave her best performance of the campaign.

    Jezza was OK until the nuclear question and then stumbled very badly (and never really recovered)

    Scores on the doors:

    Tezza - 7

    Jezza - 5

    I'd add Audience 8. Intelligent, balanced and asked probing questions. DD also did well - his experience showed. Far better than the messy and poorly chaired 7 way debate the other day.
    The audience were awful.

    Walks on stage - everyone claps.

    Dimbleby coughs - furious clapping.

    Dimbleby asks a question: rapturous applause.

    Candidate answers: Cries of agony as people break their wrists from clapping, yet they continue to clap.

    I suspect they were told to from the dreadful wailing over the audience from the previous
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    edited June 2017
    I'm not at all sure whether the Tory "nuke" line will damage Labour, or if it does, how much. Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't. The Manchester bombing didn't, though if asked beforehand most people probably would have said that an attack like that would. Tories here on PB keep asking "Would you feel safer having Corbyn or May in charge of national defence?" Well I'd feel a LOT safer with Corbyn. Nuclear war is insane, and when Theresa May after becoming PM said "yes" in her bonkers-sounding way in the Commons when asked whether she would be prepared to nuke another country to smithereens, that was insane too. Has anything like that happened elsewhere? Hitler didn't say anything quite as batshit when he first came to office. The only parallel I can think of is when Avigdor Lieberman, currently the Israeli defence minister, talked before he was in the government of how it would give him a stiffy to bomb the Aswan dam in Egypt, an act which would similarly cause the death of millions of innocents. It's a frightening thought, but can May regain an issue of "strength" for the Tories by using the "I'm so hard I could nuke Moscow, me" approach? Or does it tend to be rabid types who would vote Tory no matter what who enjoy hearing this stuff? I'm not sure whether anyone under 50 understands the meaning of the "naked into the conference chamber" line. It's not as if the Tories are stressing that they're oh so in favour of multilateral nuclear disarmament. Nye Bevan is a hate figure for some Tories, but they don't let on often.

    Perhaps the Sunday Times will reprise 1992 and show an artist's impression of Trident crews standing on top of their subs in mutiny protest.

    If it's close, this election will depend on young people showing some sense, and for once I'm optimistic.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    Cyan said:

    I'm not at all sure whether the Tory "nuke" line will damage Labour, or if it does, how much. Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't. The Manchester bombing didn't, though if asked beforehand most people probably would have said that an attack like that would. Tories here on PB keep asking "Would you feel safer having Corbyn or May in charge of national defence?" Well I'd feel a LOT safer with Corbyn. Nuclear war is insane, and when Theresa May after becoming PM said "yes" in her bonkers-sounding way in the Commons when asked whether she would be prepared to nuke another country to smithereens, that was insane too. Has anything like that happened elsewhere? Hitler didn't say anything quite as batshit when he first came to office. The only parallel I can think of is when Avigdor Lieberman, currently the Israeli defence minister, talked before he was in the government of how it would give him a stiffy to bomb the Aswan dam in Egypt, an act which would similarly cause the death of millions of innocents. It's a frightening thought, but can May regain an issue of "strength" for the Tories by using the "I'm so hard I could nuke Moscow, me" approach? Or does it tend to be rabid types who would vote Tory no matter what who enjoy hearing this stuff? I'm not sure whether anyone under 50 understands the meaning of the "naked into the conference chamber" line. It's not as if the Tories are stressing that they're oh so in favour of multilateral nuclear disarmament. Nye Bevan is a hate figure for some Tories, but they don't let on often.

    Perhaps the Sunday Times will reprise 1992 and show an artist's impression of Trident crews standing on top of their subs in mutiny protest.

    If it's close, this election will depend on young people showing some sense, and for once I'm optimistic.

    Didn't Jim Callaghan reveal what he wrote in his letters of last resort, that he would have used them?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,095
    RobD said:

    Cyan said:

    I'm not at all sure whether the Tory "nuke" line will damage Labour, or if it does, how much. Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't. The Manchester bombing didn't, though if asked beforehand most people probably would have said that an attack like that would. Tories here on PB keep asking "Would you feel safer having Corbyn or May in charge of national defence?" Well I'd feel a LOT safer with Corbyn. Nuclear war is insane, and when Theresa May after becoming PM said "yes" in her bonkers-sounding way in the Commons when asked whether she would be prepared to nuke another country to smithereens, that was insane too. Has anything like that happened elsewhere? Hitler didn't say anything quite as batshit when he first came to office. The only parallel I can think of is when Avigdor Lieberman, currently the Israeli defence minister, talked before he was in the government of how it would give him a stiffy to bomb the Aswan dam in Egypt, an act which would similarly cause the death of millions of innocents. It's a frightening thought, but can May regain an issue of "strength" for the Tories by using the "I'm so hard I could nuke Moscow, me" approach? Or does it tend to be rabid types who would vote Tory no matter what who enjoy hearing this stuff? I'm not sure whether anyone under 50 understands the meaning of the "naked into the conference chamber" line. It's not as if the Tories are stressing that they're oh so in favour of multilateral nuclear disarmament. Nye Bevan is a hate figure for some Tories, but they don't let on often.

    Perhaps the Sunday Times will reprise 1992 and show an artist's impression of Trident crews standing on top of their subs in mutiny protest.

    If it's close, this election will depend on young people showing some sense, and for once I'm optimistic.

    Didn't Jim Callaghan reveal what he wrote in his letters of last resort, that he would have used them?
    Nye Bevan, 1957:

    I knew this morning that I was going to make a speech that would offend, and even hurt, many of my friends. I know that you are deeply convinced that the action you suggest is the most effective way of influencing international affairs. I am deeply convinced that you are wrong. It is therefore not a question of who is in favour of the hydrogen bomb, but a question of what is the most effective way of getting the damn thing destroyed. It is the most difficult of all problems facing mankind. But if you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications — and do not run away from it — you will send a British Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber. ... And you call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,095
    Only one prime minister, James Callaghan, who served from 1976 to 1979, has ever spoken publicly about his decision-making. He said, years later, that his belief was that the nation should fire its weapons: “If it were to become necessary or vital, it would have meant the deterrent had failed, because the value of the nuclear weapon is frankly only as a deterrent. But if we had got to that point, where it was, I felt, necessary to do it, then I would have done it. I’ve had terrible doubts, of course, about this. I say to you, if I had lived after having pressed that button, I could never, ever have forgiven myself.”

    ***

    While most prime ministers have stayed mum, not all would-be leaders have been so circumspect: Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour party, has long been a vocal supporter of nuclear disarmament, and has said that he’d never resort to nuclear weapons, meaning that a Corbyn government — if it ever came to pass — would likely rely on one of the “Last Resort” options that don’t include launching a retaliatory strike.


    http://www.politico.eu/article/the-grim-task-awaiting-theresa-may-preparing-for-nuclear-armageddon-uk-prime-minister-british-defense-letter-of-last-resort/
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,362
    The penny is supposed to have dropped for the Tories that their incessant negative campaigning isn't going down well, when they remain the next government-in-waiting and most people feel insufficient has been said about what lies in store for us over the next five years. It is all too obvious that the Tories are using knocking copy about Corbyn as a comfort blanket to avoid having to talk about their own plans.

    If the Tories have now suddenly "un-learned" that lesson, just days after supposedly having decided to change to a more honest and positive approach, that may not end well for them?

  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    IanB2 said:

    The penny is supposed to have dropped for the Tories that their incessant negative campaigning isn't going down well, when they remain the next government-in-waiting and most people feel insufficient has been said about what lies in store for us over the next five years. It is all too obvious that the Tories are using knocking copy about Corbyn as a comfort blanket to avoid having to talk about their own plans.

    If the Tories have now suddenly "un-learned" that lesson, just days after supposedly having decided to change to a more honest and positive approach, that may not end well for them?

    This particular wound was entirely self-inflicted by Corbyn, nothing to do with the Tories.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    edited June 2017
    I have decided that in the polling booth, I will write "stop cuts 2 mental health services" next to the Conservative box. The box seems big enough for me to fit this in so hopefully it should count.

    This might seem like some bizarre cognitive dissonance but I have my reasons.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,095
    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    The penny is supposed to have dropped for the Tories that their incessant negative campaigning isn't going down well, when they remain the next government-in-waiting and most people feel insufficient has been said about what lies in store for us over the next five years. It is all too obvious that the Tories are using knocking copy about Corbyn as a comfort blanket to avoid having to talk about their own plans.

    If the Tories have now suddenly "un-learned" that lesson, just days after supposedly having decided to change to a more honest and positive approach, that may not end well for them?

    This particular wound was entirely self-inflicted by Corbyn, nothing to do with the Tories.
    I love how quoting Corbyn's own words is "knocking copy" - anyone might think the importance of motivating your own voters was not understood....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    nunu said:

    I have decided that in the polling booth, I will write "stop cuts 2 mental health services" next to the Conservative box. The box seems big enough for me to fit this in so hopefully it should count.

    This might seem like some bizarre cognitive dissonance but I have my reasons.

    At least it sounds as though they want to do something about it.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Dadge said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    Despite all the froth about the nuclear question, I'm not convinced it will shift any votes, though it seems to have motivated a degree of betting activity. I doubt there are too many voters who genuinely fear we are in danger of imminent attack.

    Wishful thinking. This is the big story and is going to be played over and over again with his car crash reply.

    Canvassers will be on the doorsteps from tomorrow on with attack ads and I have just received the attack e mail from CCHQ
    49% of the population does not want trident. Labour is not going to get 49%.
    You really are beyond belief.

    Corbyn bottled it tonight on nuclear and is already on the front pages.

    This is his bigot gate moment
    His position on nuclear is the same for the last 30 years. What a bloody waste of money !
    The headlines might make some impact, although he's had bad headlines every day and still Labour's been putting on an additional 2-3% a week to its poll rating, so I wouldn't bank on it. Interesting though to open up this particular can of worms that lies virtually dormant these days. Unlike back in the 80s/90s the issue is barely on the radar for younger people, and many of them will be as appalled as I am that we're even discussing such a macabre possibility. The nuclear deterrent is one of those emperor's new clothes things that some older voters assume is needed but is insane if you give it much thought.

    Of course there is the issue, even for Corbyn supporters, of why the hell build Trident if you admit you're not going to use it. Maybe he should've found someone in his party that he could delegate the red-button-pushing to!
    There is also no "market" for things like Trident. That is why the consortium of builders screw the government knowing full well the UK gov has no where else to go.

    £50bn - £100bn , who decides ? Who is checking line by line ? In the 70's it was found in the US, toilet seats cost $640 each. Nowadays, it must be £2000. Coffee maker $7622 each then.

    Why wouldn't the suppliers screw the government ? No one can oppose the purchase of these white elephants because they will immediately be called traitors etc.

    The whole is nothing but a corrupt system to keep the military-industrial complex screwing us.

    Ironically, the PB Tories would have been happier with Len McCluskey answering the question. He would have probably asked for more nuclear buttons to increase employment of his members !

    http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-30/news/vw-18804_1_nut
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    edited June 2017
    surbiton said:



    There is also no "market" for things like Trident. That is why the consortium of builders screw the government knowing full well the UK gov has no where else to go.

    £50bn - £100bn , who decides ? Who is checking line by line ? In the 70's it was found in the US, toilet seats cost $640 each. Nowadays, it must be £2000. Coffee maker $7622 each then.

    Why wouldn't the suppliers screw the government ? No one can oppose the purchase of these white elephants because they will immediately be called traitors etc.

    The whole is nothing but a corrupt system to keep the military-industrial complex screwing us.

    Ironically, the PB Tories would have been happier with Len McCluskey answering the question. He would have probably asked for more nuclear buttons to increase employment of his members !

    http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-30/news/vw-18804_1_nut

    Well the warheads are built by AWE, which is part of the MoD. Missiles from the US, not sure if it goes out to tender but there is more than one defence contractor like BAE.

    Edit: Ah, my bad.. the AWE site is owned by HMG, but is run by a consortium. Definitely no market for the production of the warheads, but maybe for the missile itself.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,243
    Corbyn's views on security issues and foreign policy made him unelectable on the day he became Labour leader. Nothing has changed since. May is utterly useless, but she wins because most voters do not trust Corbyn to protect them and their families.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,095
    surbiton said:

    Dadge said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    Despite all the froth about the nuclear question, I'm not convinced it will shift any votes, though it seems to have motivated a degree of betting activity. I doubt there are too many voters who genuinely fear we are in danger of imminent attack.

    Wishful thinking. This is the big story and is going to be played over and over again with his car crash reply.

    Canvassers will be on the doorsteps from tomorrow on with attack ads and I have just received the attack e mail from CCHQ
    49% of the population does not want trident. Labour is not going to get 49%.
    You really are beyond belief.

    Corbyn bottled it tonight on nuclear and is already on the front pages.

    This is his bigot gate moment
    His position on nuclear is the same for the last 30 years. What a bloody waste of money !
    The headlines might make some impact, although he's had bad headlines every day and still Labour's been putting on an additional 2-3% a week to its poll rating, so I wouldn't bank on it. Interesting though to open up this particular can of worms that lies virtually dormant these days. Unlike back in the 80s/90s the issue is barely on the radar for younger people, and many of them will be as appalled as I am that we're even discussing such a macabre possibility. The nuclear deterrent is one of those emperor's new clothes things that some older voters assume is needed but is insane if you give it much thought.

    Of course there is the issue, even for Corbyn supporters, of why the hell build Trident if you admit you're not going to use it. Maybe he should've found someone in his party that he could delegate the red-button-pushing to!
    There is also no "market" for things like Trident.
    You want a market in the production of nuclear weapons?

    Not even the most head bangering head banger on the Tory back benches wants that!

    But there you go - the Tories outflanked by Labour on the right again.....
  • Stephen Fisher and Rosalind Shorrocks have at last come up with their third updated combined forecast result for next Thursday's General Election.
    Unfortunately, this appears ever more complicated and open to interpretation leading to the authors themselves choosing to disregard the relatively Tory Friendly so-called "Experts" category (don't these academics just love themselves) on account of it being too out of date to remain properly valid. On this basis their average forecast comes up with a Tory majority of 71 seats, based on the following share out of seats:

    Tory ........... 360
    Labour ....... 210
    LibDems ........ 9
    UKIP .............. 0
    Greens .......... 1
    SNP ............. 48
    Plaid ............. 3
    N.I. ............. 18

    Total ......... 649

    But even this forecast is heavily caveated on the basis that the "Complex Models" category (which includes YouGov) produces Tory wins of anywhere between 317 and 396 seats, with Fisher & Shorrocks settling on a median-ish figure of 361.
    To be honest, I'm left very much with the conclusion that you pays your money and you takes your choice. Presumably we'll be treated to the final prognostication from OGH's favourite forecaster on polling day itself.
  • At work yesterday, my Labour-voting colleagues were all saying that the way Theresa May stands makes her look evil, like she's anticipating making the poor suffer with great relish.

    Apparently, this is because of her shoulders. They weren't very clear on why, but they all agreed there's something about her shoulders that radiates evil.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    @peter_from_putney ... what are your thoughts on the outcome? Does a middling majority (50-70) sound reasonable?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803

    At work yesterday, my Labour-voting colleagues were all saying that the way Theresa May stands makes her look evil, like she's anticipating making the poor suffer with great relish.

    Apparently, this is because of her shoulders. They weren't very clear on why, but they all agreed there's something about her shoulders that radiates evil.

    Of course she does. She's a tory... :naughty:
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    You don't have to pay for not raising income tax.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,243
    RobD said:

    You don't have to pay for not raising income tax.

    You do if your tax take falls.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803

    RobD said:

    You don't have to pay for not raising income tax.

    You do if your tax take falls.

    Isn't that what happens when you raise taxes?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,243

    Only one prime minister, James Callaghan, who served from 1976 to 1979, has ever spoken publicly about his decision-making. He said, years later, that his belief was that the nation should fire its weapons: “If it were to become necessary or vital, it would have meant the deterrent had failed, because the value of the nuclear weapon is frankly only as a deterrent. But if we had got to that point, where it was, I felt, necessary to do it, then I would have done it. I’ve had terrible doubts, of course, about this. I say to you, if I had lived after having pressed that button, I could never, ever have forgiven myself.”

    ***

    While most prime ministers have stayed mum, not all would-be leaders have been so circumspect: Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour party, has long been a vocal supporter of nuclear disarmament, and has said that he’d never resort to nuclear weapons, meaning that a Corbyn government — if it ever came to pass — would likely rely on one of the “Last Resort” options that don’t include launching a retaliatory strike.


    http://www.politico.eu/article/the-grim-task-awaiting-theresa-may-preparing-for-nuclear-armageddon-uk-prime-minister-british-defense-letter-of-last-resort/

    Labour only ever wins when voters trust its leader to keep them safe. They do not trust Corbyn to do this. Thus, Labour will lose. It's that simple.

  • RobD said:

    @peter_from_putney ... what are your thoughts on the outcome? Does a middling majority (50-70) sound reasonable?

    Rob ...... just replying to you before I slope off back to bed.
    I find it difficult to estimate with any conviction what I expect the GE result will be. From a personal perspective, I'm praying for a Tory working majority of at least 40 seats, i.e. for the Blue Team to win > 345 seats, which let's be honest would be something of a shambles in itself compared with what might have been. From a betting perspective, my best result would be if the Tories were to win approx 370 seats, giving them an overall majority of around 90 seats, which I think they appear very unlikely to exceed.
    Bur there again, you never know, perhaps they'll romp home with around 400 seats for a 150 seat majority ..... Oh wait ..... what were those pink creatures with curly tails I just saw floating past the window?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,243
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    You don't have to pay for not raising income tax.

    You do if your tax take falls.

    Isn't that what happens when you raise taxes?

    Nope. If growth slows and you have ruled out tax rises, you either borrow more or inflict further cuts.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    You don't have to pay for not raising income tax.

    You do if your tax take falls.

    Isn't that what happens when you raise taxes?

    Nope. If growth slows and you have ruled out tax rises, you either borrow more or inflict further cuts.

    There are many tools at the disposal of the chancellor. I suspect raising income tax would be the absolute last resort.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    For the first time in many years I almost regret not watching the leaders being thrown into the bearpit. It sounds as if the BBC did a fantastic job of ensuring that both of them were taken way out of their comfort zone while also given the opportunity to make their cases on home territory.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,095

    At work yesterday, my Labour-voting colleagues were all saying that the way Theresa May stands makes her look evil, like she's anticipating making the poor suffer with great relish.

    Apparently, this is because of her shoulders. They weren't very clear on why, but they all agreed there's something about her shoulders that radiates evil.

    That's what happens when you only ever eat babies - she should vary her diet, add some kittens and puppies.
  • woody662woody662 Posts: 255
    If the Conservatives achieve a national 7% swing against Labour, how would that be looking seat wise?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,095

    RobD said:

    @peter_from_putney ... what are your thoughts on the outcome? Does a middling majority (50-70) sound reasonable?

    ..... what were those pink creatures with curly tails I just saw floating past the window?
    Lib Dem hopes.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,095
    edited June 2017
    Posted yesterday, but worth a read (particularly for the bedwetters):

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-polls-the-fundamentals-and-ge2017
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,243

    Posted yesterday, but worth a read (particularly for the bedwetters):

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-polls-the-fundamentals-and-ge2017

    The puzzle is why polling in this country seems to be so hit and miss, while being a lot more reliable elsewhere. I wonder if it is because Brits in general are just less comfortable talking about politics than people elsewhere. Thus, those who aren't have an oversize influence on the polls that do come out. I do think that explains the perennial Labour bias in the polling. A good general rule of thumb has always been to take the worst Labour score in a set of polls and then take off another five points. It's pretty crude, but it generally works, more or less. That's why I continue to expect a very comfortable Tory win. A majority of over 100 would not surprise me at all.

  • woody662 said:

    If the Conservatives achieve a national 7% swing against Labour, how would that be looking seat wise?

    Woody ..... do you mean a 7% swing from Lab to Con compared with the 2015 GE result?
    What exactly are you on fellow Derby County supporter, I want some of that?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,095

    Posted yesterday, but worth a read (particularly for the bedwetters):

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-polls-the-fundamentals-and-ge2017

    The puzzle is why polling in this country seems to be so hit and miss, while being a lot more reliable elsewhere. I wonder if it is because Brits in general are just less comfortable talking about politics than people elsewhere. Thus, those who aren't have an oversize influence on the polls that do come out. I do think that explains the perennial Labour bias in the polling. A good general rule of thumb has always been to take the worst Labour score in a set of polls and then take off another five points. It's pretty crude, but it generally works, more or less. That's why I continue to expect a very comfortable Tory win. A majority of over 100 would not surprise me at all.

    Stephen Tall, Lib Dem, put the chances of a landslide between 65-80% which, as he observes is still "more likely than not"
  • Posted yesterday, but worth a read (particularly for the bedwetters):

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-polls-the-fundamentals-and-ge2017

    That's all a tad too heavy for me at this time of the morning. That said, anything emanating from the LSE which appears even mildly encouraging for the Tories must be considered as being of truly monumental significance.
  • scotslass said:

    Ave_it

    Ave it you have totally lost it!

    The SNP are heading to a comfortable 50 seats without apparantly breaking sweat. If it turns into a hung parliament then they win. If it doesn't then they still win.

    So get used to it guys.

    Ave It predicted the collapse of the LDs in 2010 - doesn't look good for you SNP guys for 2022
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,009
    Dimbleby asked the telling question;

    'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

    Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

    Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

    "What's changed?"
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803

    scotslass said:

    Ave_it

    Ave it you have totally lost it!

    The SNP are heading to a comfortable 50 seats without apparantly breaking sweat. If it turns into a hung parliament then they win. If it doesn't then they still win.

    So get used to it guys.

    Ave It predicted the collapse of the LDs in 2010 - doesn't look good for you SNP guys for 2022
    SNP on 8 seats 2022? :D
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    Roger said:

    Dimbleby asked the telling question;

    'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

    Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

    Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

    "What's changed?"

    The referendum happened.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,095
    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    Dimbleby asked the telling question;

    'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

    Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

    Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

    "What's changed?"

    The referendum happened.
    Anyone see the debate? Twitter unhelpful as it's uniformly "my guy/gal won" - more perceptive comments are along the lines of "good audience put them both on the spot".
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,252

    For the first time in many years I almost regret not watching the leaders being thrown into the bearpit. It sounds as if the BBC did a fantastic job of ensuring that both of them were taken way out of their comfort zone while also given the opportunity to make their cases on home territory.

    It was indeed a very good event and as you say, challenged both leaders on areas where they needed testing, while also giving them time and space to touch on core messages.

    For the second election running, the format has produced the most revealing moments of the campaign - or at least, of the staged studio events.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Ave_it said:

    LOL I really think SNP could implode

    If we CON get 10 seats I am not upset if SLAB get 20

    John Harris has done another one of his videos, this time in Moray.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/jun/01/a-fishy-business-why-the-tories-are-back-in-scotland-video
    A very encouraging video for Tories in Scotland.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    I shall miss most of the Conservative bedweeting today as Mrs JackW and I are having "trade" around to measure up and discuss plans for our nuclear bunker.

    For interior design Mrs JackW fancies delicate shades of blue whilst I'm for a themed apocalypse orange with sunburst red and edging in a subtle mushroom shade.

    I hope we don't fallout over it ....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,449
    Dadge said:

    nunu said:

    Dadge said:

    nunu said:

    The QT audience did the same thing to Corbyn on defence as they did to Ed last time on spending.

    Both times they went to the heart of the reason people are reluctant even scared of voting for them.

    I can't say I'm scared of voting for someone who doesn't want to murder thousands of innocent people.
    I am very scared of someone who wouldn't protect his own countrymen before others. But then again he did back the IRA whilst they were bombing us, so no suprises there.
    I can't imagine a situation where we would fire the damn things. I certainly can't imagine Theresa May firing one. JC ought really to have lied - it would hardly have made any difference. The fact that he told the truth when it's damaging is quite refreshing - suggests he might be more truthful than your average politician - notwithstanding the dodgy bits from his past that he wants to sweep under the carpet...
    It is one of the less alluring things about him from a choice of many that Corbyn has repeatedly and transparently lied when it suits his purpose - cf. IRA, Hamas, Eisen, Traingate...so that explanation isn't plausible.

    Which makes this in a sense more interesting. If he's willing to lie, he must have a good reason for telling the truth at a time when it will surely be very negative for him.

    Am I overthinking it if I suggest it is possible canvassers are telling him his previous statements in Trident have gone down badly with his core vote and he was looking to shore it up?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,449
    JackW said:

    I shall miss most of the Conservative bedweeting today as Mrs JackW and I are having "trade" around to measure up and discuss plans for our nuclear bunker.

    For interior design Mrs JackW fancies delicate shades of blue whilst I'm for a themed apocalypse orange with sunburst red and edging in a subtle mushroom shade.

    I hope we don't fallout over it ....

    Boom boom!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803

    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    Dimbleby asked the telling question;

    'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

    Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

    Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

    "What's changed?"

    The referendum happened.
    Anyone see the debate? Twitter unhelpful as it's uniformly "my guy/gal won" - more perceptive comments are along the lines of "good audience put them both on the spot".
    I think they were both good. May much improved, Corbyn comfortable as usual, except for the huge wobble over Trident.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    JackW said:

    I shall miss most of the Conservative bedweeting today as Mrs JackW and I are having "trade" around to measure up and discuss plans for our nuclear bunker.

    For interior design Mrs JackW fancies delicate shades of blue whilst I'm for a themed apocalypse orange with sunburst red and edging in a subtle mushroom shade.

    I hope we don't fallout over it ....

    The world is curious.. which one of you two has their finger on the button? :D
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803

    Ave_it said:

    LOL I really think SNP could implode

    If we CON get 10 seats I am not upset if SLAB get 20

    John Harris has done another one of his videos, this time in Moray.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/jun/01/a-fishy-business-why-the-tories-are-back-in-scotland-video
    A very encouraging video for Tories in Scotland.
    My trusty KLAXON is on standby :)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    New thread!
  • I agree with Mr Smithsons comments regarding the Question time show last night. May much better (she needed to be), Jezza on the ropes due to his weakness on defence. As Mike says, this BBC audience fair and representative. Very different to the Corbyn WoodCraft Folk the beeb usually tell us are a fair mix of opinions.
This discussion has been closed.