Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling numbers that should really scare the Tories – the

SystemSystem Posts: 12,114
edited June 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling numbers that should really scare the Tories – the oldies are abandoning Mrs May

The narrative of what drove the shock result in the general election is becoming well established. Those in the younger age segments turned out to vote on a scale that hadn’t been anticipated and they were much more pro LAB than CON.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,732
    First. And isn't everyone abandoning May?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Second! ... and apparently they're not.
  • RobinWiggsRobinWiggs Posts: 621
    3rd. Which is the month from now when everything will look different. Calm and perspective needed.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    647 - days left in the EU (and 7h 24m)
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    3rd. Which is the month from now when everything will look different. Calm and perspective needed.

    You mean during the parliamentary recess when everybody is on holiday.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    GeoffM said:

    647 - days left in the EU (and 7h 24m)

    That that might have been the case if Mrs may had secured the majority that she was seeking. She failed. Now we are in a state of flux
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,463
    a lot will depend on how the BREXIT negotiations are viewed (and reported), DD is unlikely to pull many rabbits out of the hat for those voting to leave - maybe a Blue passport design (and I am not joking) is all he may be able to offer in the next 6 months or so, the BREXIT bill is a tricky lose-lose as I see it. Farage et al have persuaded a number that Brussels owes us money, so when a modest 25Bn deal is struck - that will appear a big loss.

    So in sum, I think things will get worse for the Blues - there's no quick wins from BREXIT (passports aside) and a heck of a lot of unknowns - farm subsidies, higher education money, Airbus colbaoration, EU residents rights etc etc - all of these are likely to make some waves with little gain for the Tories - this may be their annus horriblus
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,725
    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    And it would be useful to have June 8 and June 12 data to establish how much of the loss of faith was an input to the GE result and how much a consequence?

    Anyhow she may be gone, soon.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited June 2017
    These figs would surely imply a huge Labour lead, and if you believe the polls there isn't.
    In any event the Social care crap is dead, the winter fuel allowance will remain---Hurrah!/sorted
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,122
    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    And it would be useful to have June 8 and June 12 data to establish how much of the loss of faith was an input to the GE result and how much a consequence?

    Anyhow she may be gone, soon.

    Good spot. My view of May and her team was not great at 21:59 on 8 June, but it declined substantially two minutes later.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    And it would be useful to have June 8 and June 12 data to establish how much of the loss of faith was an input to the GE result and how much a consequence?

    Anyhow she may be gone, soon.

    Favorability is probably a better guide to voting intention than actual voting intention polls.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    In their own interest AND the UK's interest as well, the Tories need to seal the deal with the DUP asap to provide sufficient stability to enable the government to last for at least 2 years until Brexit is delivered. May is currently a liability, but she is a capable administrator once she has thought issues through. She will have problems in keeping her motley crew aboard, but an alternative Tory leader/PM would be viewed as illegitimate without another GE soon, which would be highly risky from a Tory perspective. While I had hoped that the beginning of June would be the end of May, the current parliamentary arithmetic and the need to achieve a not too painful Brexit, means that it would be best if her demise is prolonged to 2019.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,725

    These figs would surely imply a huge Labour lead, and if you believe the polls there isn't.
    In any event the Social care crap is dead, the winter fuel allowance will remain---Hurrah!/sorted

    She will always be the PM who needlessly threw away her majority. In politics there is no escape from a big mistake.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    GeoffM said:

    647 - days left in the EU (and 7h 24m)

    That that might have been the case if Mrs may had secured the majority that she was seeking. She failed. Now we are in a state of flux
    No, we really aren't. It's over.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited June 2017
    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,122
    Trigger warning....

    It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    Anyone know what happened in 1922 yesterday?
  • RobinWiggsRobinWiggs Posts: 621

    3rd. Which is the month from now when everything will look different. Calm and perspective needed.

    You mean during the parliamentary recess when everybody is on holiday.
    Precisely. There is no need to act precipitously now. Changing leaders and PM now will increase the uncertainty with no benefit to either country or party.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    OchEye said:

    Anyone know what happened in 1922 yesterday?

    The only thing of note seems to be that Paavo Nuuni broke the 5000 metres world record

    http://www.onthisday.com/events/june/19
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    IanB2 said:

    These figs would surely imply a huge Labour lead, and if you believe the polls there isn't.
    In any event the Social care crap is dead, the winter fuel allowance will remain---Hurrah!/sorted

    She will always be the PM who needlessly threw away her majority. In politics there is no escape from a big mistake.
    Quite, I can't believe people are still discussing polls as opposed to what actually happens.

    The perception, which is reflected in the reality of votes is that Corbyn did better than expected because he is sincere, and May the opposite. Perhaps finally politicians will tell us what they think and allow us to decide rather than avoid questions.

    I've no idea why anybody would pay a polling company anymore.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    GeoffM said:

    647 - days left in the EU (and 7h 24m)

    That that might have been the case if Mrs may had secured the majority that she was seeking. She failed. Now we are in a state of flux
    Mike, is that the bloody flux as of old ?

    Messy ....
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,872
    She'll be gone for any new election.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    She'll be gone for any new election.

    That's the one thing we can be assured of, May will never lead another campaign.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    you think the electorate are that clever?
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,463
    the million dollar question is who would lead, & is Lynton Crosby still on the CCHQ speed dial?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    you think the electorate are that clever?
    Vox populi, vox dei.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,494
    Richard Tyndall FPT: we're talking about different things. You're measuring the Countryside Alliance march by its lack of litter etc. I'm measuring it by its impact on MPs. We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting, and agreed that despite the interminable Parliamentary obstruction by the Lords and Tony Blair's evident lack of interest, we had to see the ban through. Prescott's comments at the time were representative of MP reactions: it felt as though we were being besieged by a mob, even though I'm sure it felt differently to participants. That's why it was counter-productive, in a way that a quiet, dignified protest might not have been. (That said, a real problem is that quiet, dignified protests tend not to get media coverage.)

    Exactly the same applies to many of the far left protests ("Maggie Maggie Maggie out out out!" and all that). Essentially organisers of demos need to decide if they're going to indulge themselves and feel good or want to change the minds of the people they're trying to influence. The former is more usual, and it's hard to think of a mass protest that has really changed policy, except for the poll tax riots.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    daodao said:

    In their own interest AND the UK's interest as well, the Tories need to seal the deal with the DUP asap to provide sufficient stability to enable the government to last for at least 2 years until Brexit is delivered. May is currently a liability, but she is a capable administrator once she has thought issues through. She will have problems in keeping her motley crew aboard, but an alternative Tory leader/PM would be viewed as illegitimate without another GE soon, which would be highly risky from a Tory perspective. While I had hoped that the beginning of June would be the end of May, the current parliamentary arithmetic and the need to achieve a not too painful Brexit, means that it would be best if her demise is prolonged to 2019.

    Taking a while to get measured for their sashes. Davis caving in on day one , it is all going swimmingly for the Tories.
  • Richard_HRichard_H Posts: 48
    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    See what I mean? That is YOUR interpretation, one that you want to believe because of your obsession with Brexit. Virtually nobody cares mate, they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.

    How often did Corbyn mention Brexit? It's irrelevant to all but a few naysayers on here.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important.
    Funnily enough, we know (Survation):

    What would you say is the number one issue that decided your vote at the last General Election?

    OA (Con voter)

    BREXIT: 12 (18)
    NHS: 10 (2)
    Party Leader: 8 (12)
    Economy: 8 (11)
    Tribal Loyalty: 8 (8)
    Education: 3 (1)
    Pensions/Retirement: 0 (0)

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,725

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    See what I mean? That is YOUR interpretation, one that you want to believe because of your obsession with Brexit. Virtually nobody cares mate, they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.

    How often did Corbyn mention Brexit? It's irrelevant to all but a few naysayers on here.
    Ashcroft concludes differently. And he has done rather more research into the matter than you.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    daodao said:

    In their own interest AND the UK's interest as well, the Tories need to seal the deal with the DUP asap to provide sufficient stability to enable the government to last for at least 2 years until Brexit is delivered. May is currently a liability, but she is a capable administrator once she has thought issues through. She will have problems in keeping her motley crew aboard, but an alternative Tory leader/PM would be viewed as illegitimate without another GE soon, which would be highly risky from a Tory perspective. While I had hoped that the beginning of June would be the end of May, the current parliamentary arithmetic and the need to achieve a not too painful Brexit, means that it would be best if her demise is prolonged to 2019.

    Taking a while to get measured for their sashes. Davis caving in on day one , it is all going swimmingly for the Tories.
    How's Nicola-the-clype's seat at the Brexit table working out?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    See what I mean? That is YOUR interpretation, one that you want to believe because of your obsession with Brexit. Virtually nobody cares mate, they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.

    How often did Corbyn mention Brexit? It's irrelevant to all but a few naysayers on here.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39629603
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important.
    Funnily enough, we know (Survation):

    What would you say is the number one issue that decided your vote at the last General Election?

    OA (Con voter)

    BREXIT: 12 (18)
    NHS: 10 (2)
    Party Leader: 8 (12)
    Economy: 8 (11)
    Tribal Loyalty: 8 (8)
    Education: 3 (1)
    Pensions/Retirement: 0 (0)

    There you go, those figures add up to 49, and that is Con voters, apparently the party full of Brexit nutjobs.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,139

    Richard Tyndall FPT: we're talking about different things. You're measuring the Countryside Alliance march by its lack of litter etc. I'm measuring it by its impact on MPs. We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting, and agreed that despite the interminable Parliamentary obstruction by the Lords and Tony Blair's evident lack of interest, we had to see the ban through. Prescott's comments at the time were representative of MP reactions: it felt as though we were being besieged by a mob, even though I'm sure it felt differently to participants. That's why it was counter-productive, in a way that a quiet, dignified protest might not have been. (That said, a real problem is that quiet, dignified protests tend not to get media coverage.)

    Exactly the same applies to many of the far left protests ("Maggie Maggie Maggie out out out!" and all that). Essentially organisers of demos need to decide if they're going to indulge themselves and feel good or want to change the minds of the people they're trying to influence. The former is more usual, and it's hard to think of a mass protest that has really changed policy, except for the poll tax riots.

    "We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting"

    I was on the Countryside march, almost by mistake. I was having a dirty weekend in London with my then-gf, and when we left the hotel in the morning we sort-of got dragged into it. As we're both country folk at heart, we joined in. It was my first, and so far only, protest march.

    It was great fun. And I can assure you that from my perspective, the antis who were lining the route were the ones doing the unpleasant shouting. In fact, from memory some of it was *very* unpleasant. But I only saw a small portion of the march, and I daresay you only saw a small portion of the antis.

    It all ended when we got to Hyde Park and sat down for a champagne and strawberry picnic with a random family who invited us to join them. That was my abiding memory of the spirit of the protest.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,494
    The traditional Ipsos-MORI post-election analysis of population groups is out - nothing too amazing but useful all the same:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/20/youthquake-behind-labour-election-surge-divides-generations

    The disappearing class basis for voting and the gender difference have been noted before, but the Labour surge in the not-quite-so-young group is significant, and there's more detail on actual turnout figures. The elderly vote stayed loyal to the Tories despite everything. As Mike observes, the Tories should be worried that one of the lynchpins of that (PM favourability) now seems to be disappearing, though as the older voters stayed Tory despite everything that came up in the election, I wonder if that cohort will ever switch while they're still with us.

  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    See what I mean? That is YOUR interpretation, one that you want to believe because of your obsession with Brexit. Virtually nobody cares mate, they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.

    How often did Corbyn mention Brexit? It's irrelevant to all but a few naysayers on here.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39629603
    Yep, look at the figures from Survation just posted.

    You are the antithesis of the bloke on the Clapham omnibus, completely out of touch with why people vote.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.
    What would you say is the number one issue that decided your vote at the last General Election?

    Labour voters:

    NHS: 21
    Tribal Loyalty: 11
    Welfare: 7
    Brexit: 6
    Economy: 6
    Party Leader: 6
    Pensions/Retirement: 1
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    See what I mean? That is YOUR interpretation, one that you want to believe because of your obsession with Brexit. Virtually nobody cares mate, they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.

    How often did Corbyn mention Brexit? It's irrelevant to all but a few naysayers on here.
    Ashcroft concludes differently. And he has done rather more research into the matter than you.
    There was 1 party wanting a second referendum - how did that work out?

    You're in a state of delusion
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.
    What would you say is the number one issue that decided your vote at the last General Election?

    Labour voters:

    NHS: 21
    Tribal Loyalty: 11
    Welfare: 7
    Brexit: 6
    Economy: 6
    Party Leader: 6
    Pensions/Retirement: 1
    Thank you. Yet still the headbangers won't accept it.

  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    For all those interested in elections across the pond, SCOTUS has agreed to look at the gerrymandering of constituencies, could have a major impact: https://qz.com/1009711/gerrymandering-the-supreme-court-will-hear-a-case-that-could-radically-redraw-americas-electoral-map/?utm_source=qzfb
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important.
    Funnily enough, we know (Survation):

    What would you say is the number one issue that decided your vote at the last General Election?

    OA (Con voter)

    BREXIT: 12 (18)
    NHS: 10 (2)
    Party Leader: 8 (12)
    Economy: 8 (11)
    Tribal Loyalty: 8 (8)
    Education: 3 (1)
    Pensions/Retirement: 0 (0)

    that is Con voters, apparently the party full of Brexit nutjobs.
    Brexit was the single most important reason given by voters in general - and its Conservative voters not party members....Brexit was even more important for LibDem voters (24%) and UKIP voters (22%) than Con voters....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    See what I mean? That is YOUR interpretation, one that you want to believe because of your obsession with Brexit. Virtually nobody cares mate, they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.

    How often did Corbyn mention Brexit? It's irrelevant to all but a few naysayers on here.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39629603
    completely out of touch with why people vote.
    At least Mr Meeks isn't arguing that Pensions/Retirement (0%) are more important than Brexit.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.
    What would you say is the number one issue that decided your vote at the last General Election?

    Labour voters:

    NHS: 21
    Tribal Loyalty: 11
    Welfare: 7
    Brexit: 6
    Economy: 6
    Party Leader: 6
    Pensions/Retirement: 1
    Thank you. Yet still the headbangers won't accept it.

    That Brexit was the single most important issue in deciding their vote for:

    - Voters overall
    - Conservative voters
    - Lib Dem voters
    - UKIP voters

    What is it they're not accepting?

    Its Labour voters who are less motivated by Brexit - which given their parties confused position on Brexit is hardly surprising.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    a lot will depend on how the BREXIT negotiations are viewed (and reported), DD is unlikely to pull many rabbits out of the hat for those voting to leave - maybe a Blue passport design (and I am not joking) is all he may be able to offer in the next 6 months or so, the BREXIT bill is a tricky lose-lose as I see it. Farage et al have persuaded a number that Brussels owes us money, so when a modest 25Bn deal is struck - that will appear a big loss.

    So in sum, I think things will get worse for the Blues - there's no quick wins from BREXIT (passports aside) and a heck of a lot of unknowns - farm subsidies, higher education money, Airbus colbaoration, EU residents rights etc etc - all of these are likely to make some waves with little gain for the Tories - this may be their annus horriblus

    I wish very much that the Conservatives would stop dithering. They are supposed to be running the country.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    See what I mean? That is YOUR interpretation, one that you want to believe because of your obsession with Brexit. Virtually nobody cares mate, they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.

    How often did Corbyn mention Brexit? It's irrelevant to all but a few naysayers on here.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39629603
    completely out of touch with why people vote.
    At least Mr Meeks isn't arguing that Pensions/Retirement (0%) are more important than Brexit.....
    I'm not arguing that Brexit was important for voters. I'm stating (not arguing, because it's a fact) that the election was called on the pretext of getting a mandate to deliver Brexit.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited June 2017

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    See what I mean? That is YOUR interpretation, one that you want to believe because of your obsession with Brexit. Virtually nobody cares mate, they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.

    How often did Corbyn mention Brexit? It's irrelevant to all but a few naysayers on here.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39629603
    completely out of touch with why people vote.
    At least Mr Meeks isn't arguing that Pensions/Retirement (0%) are more important than Brexit.....
    I'm not arguing that Brexit was important for voters. I'm stating (not arguing, because it's a fact) that the election was called on the pretext of getting a mandate to deliver Brexit.
    85 % pro Brexit vote looks like a decent mandate. Anti Brexit parties came a mighty cropper.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    @carlottavance

    Your figures are misleading, 22% of UKIP voters is 150,000 people, even a party whose very existence was based on Brexit could only get 22%. Similar with the Libs.

    This election was around May's arrogant assumption and Corbyn's unexpected ability to mobilise the young.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,872

    IanB2 said:

    Down, down....

    Favourability is not the same as voting intention, however.

    Quite. According to Survation (possibly the new 'Gold Standard') the Tory vote share has been steady (43-41) for a month while May's rating has collapsed. It's Labour that's surged.

    I am enjoying the colossal reverse ferret on both sides:

    Before the GE:

    Leavers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Remainers The size of the majority is irrelevant.

    After the GE:

    Remainers: May needs a big majority to secure a good deal.
    Leavers: The size of the majority is irrelevant.
    A big majority would have been inimical to a good deal. Maybe that's why the Conservatives weren't given one.
    What % of those who voted in the GE were considering Brexit? I'd say low single figures.

    Tuition fees, dementia tax, heating allowance, all far more important. I get the impression that to some on here this is their only contact with the outside world. I've never known a group of self appointed experts so consistently wrong.
    And yet this was an election explicitly called in order to get a large mandate to deliver Brexit. Odd that.
    they were far more interested in the freebies Labour were chucking around.
    What would you say is the number one issue that decided your vote at the last General Election?

    Labour voters:

    NHS: 21
    Tribal Loyalty: 11
    Welfare: 7
    Brexit: 6
    Economy: 6
    Party Leader: 6
    Pensions/Retirement: 1
    "Tribal loyalty" - lol
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,872

    Richard Tyndall FPT: we're talking about different things. You're measuring the Countryside Alliance march by its lack of litter etc. I'm measuring it by its impact on MPs. We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting, and agreed that despite the interminable Parliamentary obstruction by the Lords and Tony Blair's evident lack of interest, we had to see the ban through. Prescott's comments at the time were representative of MP reactions: it felt as though we were being besieged by a mob, even though I'm sure it felt differently to participants. That's why it was counter-productive, in a way that a quiet, dignified protest might not have been. (That said, a real problem is that quiet, dignified protests tend not to get media coverage.)

    Exactly the same applies to many of the far left protests ("Maggie Maggie Maggie out out out!" and all that). Essentially organisers of demos need to decide if they're going to indulge themselves and feel good or want to change the minds of the people they're trying to influence. The former is more usual, and it's hard to think of a mass protest that has really changed policy, except for the poll tax riots.

    "We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting"

    I was on the Countryside march, almost by mistake. I was having a dirty weekend in London with my then-gf, and when we left the hotel in the morning we sort-of got dragged into it. As we're both country folk at heart, we joined in. It was my first, and so far only, protest march.

    It was great fun. And I can assure you that from my perspective, the antis who were lining the route were the ones doing the unpleasant shouting. In fact, from memory some of it was *very* unpleasant. But I only saw a small portion of the march, and I daresay you only saw a small portion of the antis.

    It all ended when we got to Hyde Park and sat down for a champagne and strawberry picnic with a random family who invited us to join them. That was my abiding memory of the spirit of the protest.
    I was there. It was absolutely great.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    There was 1 party wanting a second referendum - how did that work out?
    You're in a state of delusion

    We had a "first referendum" which was expressed in such meaningless terms that it was open to any interpretation you like, Mr Choose. What we need now is a chance to have a say on the final outcome. The general election was also meaningless, since the Conservatives continued to insist that the EU would give us everything they asked for, and there would be no negative impact on our economy. The Labour Party did exactly the same, though its criteria were different.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,872
    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy.

    She didn't expect it to be that many.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Richard Tyndall FPT: we're talking about different things. You're measuring the Countryside Alliance march by its lack of litter etc. I'm measuring it by its impact on MPs. We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting, and agreed that despite the interminable Parliamentary obstruction by the Lords and Tony Blair's evident lack of interest, we had to see the ban through. Prescott's comments at the time were representative of MP reactions: it felt as though we were being besieged by a mob, even though I'm sure it felt differently to participants. That's why it was counter-productive, in a way that a quiet, dignified protest might not have been. (That said, a real problem is that quiet, dignified protests tend not to get media coverage.)

    Exactly the same applies to many of the far left protests ("Maggie Maggie Maggie out out out!" and all that). Essentially organisers of demos need to decide if they're going to indulge themselves and feel good or want to change the minds of the people they're trying to influence. The former is more usual, and it's hard to think of a mass protest that has really changed policy, except for the poll tax riots.

    "We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting"

    I was on the Countryside march, almost by mistake. I was having a dirty weekend in London with my then-gf, and when we left the hotel in the morning we sort-of got dragged into it. As we're both country folk at heart, we joined in. It was my first, and so far only, protest march.

    It was great fun. And I can assure you that from my perspective, the antis who were lining the route were the ones doing the unpleasant shouting. In fact, from memory some of it was *very* unpleasant. But I only saw a small portion of the march, and I daresay you only saw a small portion of the antis.

    It all ended when we got to Hyde Park and sat down for a champagne and strawberry picnic with a random family who invited us to join them. That was my abiding memory of the spirit of the protest.
    I was there. It was absolutely great.
    Sadly, the countrymice neglected to take the opportunity while in town to thank every city dweller fervently for subsidising their lifestyles so lavishly. Poor form.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    PClipp said:

    a lot will depend on how the BREXIT negotiations are viewed (and reported), DD is unlikely to pull many rabbits out of the hat for those voting to leave - maybe a Blue passport design (and I am not joking) is all he may be able to offer in the next 6 months or so, the BREXIT bill is a tricky lose-lose as I see it. Farage et al have persuaded a number that Brussels owes us money, so when a modest 25Bn deal is struck - that will appear a big loss.

    So in sum, I think things will get worse for the Blues - there's no quick wins from BREXIT (passports aside) and a heck of a lot of unknowns - farm subsidies, higher education money, Airbus colbaoration, EU residents rights etc etc - all of these are likely to make some waves with little gain for the Tories - this may be their annus horriblus

    I wish very much that the Conservatives would stop dithering. They are supposed to be running the country.
    Surely the reason that Davis agreed to follow the sequential agenda of the EU is a simple one. We are not prepared in terms of planning for that phase of the talks, and need to fill that gap.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,872

    Richard Tyndall FPT: we're talking about different things. You're measuring the Countryside Alliance march by its lack of litter etc. I'm measuring it by its impact on MPs. We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting, and agreed that despite the interminable Parliamentary obstruction by the Lords and Tony Blair's evident lack of interest, we had to see the ban through. Prescott's comments at the time were representative of MP reactions: it felt as though we were being besieged by a mob, even though I'm sure it felt differently to participants. That's why it was counter-productive, in a way that a quiet, dignified protest might not have been. (That said, a real problem is that quiet, dignified protests tend not to get media coverage.)

    Exactly the same applies to many of the far left protests ("Maggie Maggie Maggie out out out!" and all that). Essentially organisers of demos need to decide if they're going to indulge themselves and feel good or want to change the minds of the people they're trying to influence. The former is more usual, and it's hard to think of a mass protest that has really changed policy, except for the poll tax riots.

    "We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting"

    I was on the Countryside march, almost by mistake. I was having a dirty weekend in London with my then-gf, and when we left the hotel in the morning we sort-of got dragged into it. As we're both country folk at heart, we joined in. It was my first, and so far only, protest march.

    It was great fun. And I can assure you that from my perspective, the antis who were lining the route were the ones doing the unpleasant shouting. In fact, from memory some of it was *very* unpleasant. But I only saw a small portion of the march, and I daresay you only saw a small portion of the antis.

    It all ended when we got to Hyde Park and sat down for a champagne and strawberry picnic with a random family who invited us to join them. That was my abiding memory of the spirit of the protest.
    I was there. It was absolutely great.
    Sadly, the countrymice neglected to take the opportunity while in town to thank every city dweller fervently for subsidising their lifestyles so lavishly. Poor form.
    I didn't know you then.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216


    Your figures are misleading,.

    Survation's figures are what they are.

    Brexit was the single most important issue in deciding the vote of Conservative, Lib Dem and UKIP voters.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,139

    Richard Tyndall FPT: we're talking about different things. You're measuring the Countryside Alliance march by its lack of litter etc. I'm measuring it by its impact on MPs. We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting, and agreed that despite the interminable Parliamentary obstruction by the Lords and Tony Blair's evident lack of interest, we had to see the ban through. Prescott's comments at the time were representative of MP reactions: it felt as though we were being besieged by a mob, even though I'm sure it felt differently to participants. That's why it was counter-productive, in a way that a quiet, dignified protest might not have been. (That said, a real problem is that quiet, dignified protests tend not to get media coverage.)

    Exactly the same applies to many of the far left protests ("Maggie Maggie Maggie out out out!" and all that). Essentially organisers of demos need to decide if they're going to indulge themselves and feel good or want to change the minds of the people they're trying to influence. The former is more usual, and it's hard to think of a mass protest that has really changed policy, except for the poll tax riots.

    "We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting"

    I was on the Countryside march, almost by mistake. I was having a dirty weekend in London with my then-gf, and when we left the hotel in the morning we sort-of got dragged into it. As we're both country folk at heart, we joined in. It was my first, and so far only, protest march.

    It was great fun. And I can assure you that from my perspective, the antis who were lining the route were the ones doing the unpleasant shouting. In fact, from memory some of it was *very* unpleasant. But I only saw a small portion of the march, and I daresay you only saw a small portion of the antis.

    It all ended when we got to Hyde Park and sat down for a champagne and strawberry picnic with a random family who invited us to join them. That was my abiding memory of the spirit of the protest.
    I was there. It was absolutely great.
    Sadly, the countrymice neglected to take the opportunity while in town to thank every city dweller fervently for subsidising their lifestyles so lavishly. Poor form.
    We all love you, Alastair. We thank you for your forbearance, your intelligence, and most of all, your money. ;)
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    PClipp said:

    There was 1 party wanting a second referendum - how did that work out?
    You're in a state of delusion

    We had a "first referendum" which was expressed in such meaningless terms that it was open to any interpretation you like, Mr Choose. What we need now is a chance to have a say on the final outcome. The general election was also meaningless, since the Conservatives continued to insist that the EU would give us everything they asked for, and there would be no negative impact on our economy. The Labour Party did exactly the same, though its criteria were different.
    Everything is "meaningless" until you get what you want ... which then becomes the "only permanent thing that counts". Nice.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited June 2017
    GeoffM said:

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
    The Tories tried a vacuous manifesto this time round. It didn't seem to be a very successful gambit.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,494



    It was great fun. And I can assure you that from my perspective, the antis who were lining the route were the ones doing the unpleasant shouting. In fact, from memory some of it was *very* unpleasant. But I only saw a small portion of the march, and I daresay you only saw a small portion of the antis.

    It all ended when we got to Hyde Park and sat down for a champagne and strawberry picnic with a random family who invited us to join them. That was my abiding memory of the spirit of the protest.

    I was there. It was absolutely great.
    I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.

    Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.



  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    PClipp said:

    There was 1 party wanting a second referendum - how did that work out?
    You're in a state of delusion

    We had a "first referendum" which was expressed in such meaningless terms that it was open to any interpretation you like, Mr Choose. What we need now is a chance to have a say on the final outcome. The general election was also meaningless, since the Conservatives continued to insist that the EU would give us everything they asked for, and there would be no negative impact on our economy. The Labour Party did exactly the same, though its criteria were different.
    June the 8th was a chance to get that second referendum. About 10% of people took your view.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Good morning, everyone.

    A concern, but as May seems destined to go before the next election, isn't the figure that counts how her successor is seen?

    Probably favours Hammond/Davis, and not Boris, I'd guess.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    edited June 2017

    GeoffM said:

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
    The Tories tried a vacuous manifesto this time round. It didn't seem to be a very successful gambit.
    Err - their problem was precisely that the manifesto was NOT vacuous actually.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Pulpstar said:

    GeoffM said:

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
    The Tories tried a vacuous manifesto this time round. It didn't seem to be a very successful gambit.
    Err - their problem was precisely that the manifesto was NOT vacuous actually.
    Exactly, I posted earlier about May's arrogant assumption, she thought she could tell old people they were all incontinent bed blockers and they'd still vote for her.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,111

    Richard Tyndall FPT: we're talking about different things. You're measuring the Countryside Alliance march by its lack of litter etc. I'm measuring it by its impact on MPs. We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting, and agreed that despite the interminable Parliamentary obstruction by the Lords and Tony Blair's evident lack of interest, we had to see the ban through. Prescott's comments at the time were representative of MP reactions: it felt as though we were being besieged by a mob, even though I'm sure it felt differently to participants. That's why it was counter-productive, in a way that a quiet, dignified protest might not have been. (That said, a real problem is that quiet, dignified protests tend not to get media coverage.)

    Exactly the same applies to many of the far left protests ("Maggie Maggie Maggie out out out!" and all that). Essentially organisers of demos need to decide if they're going to indulge themselves and feel good or want to change the minds of the people they're trying to influence. The former is more usual, and it's hard to think of a mass protest that has really changed policy, except for the poll tax riots.

    "We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting"

    I was on the Countryside march, almost by mistake. I was having a dirty weekend in London with my then-gf, and when we left the hotel in the morning we sort-of got dragged into it. As we're both country folk at heart, we joined in. It was my first, and so far only, protest march.

    It was great fun. And I can assure you that from my perspective, the antis who were lining the route were the ones doing the unpleasant shouting. In fact, from memory some of it was *very* unpleasant. But I only saw a small portion of the march, and I daresay you only saw a small portion of the antis.

    It all ended when we got to Hyde Park and sat down for a champagne and strawberry picnic with a random family who invited us to join them. That was my abiding memory of the spirit of the protest.
    I was there. It was absolutely great.
    Sadly, the countrymice neglected to take the opportunity while in town to thank every city dweller fervently for subsidising their lifestyles so lavishly. Poor form.
    What a crock. Every city dweller? Given the concentration of infrastructure spend and number of low paid jobs of city dwellers I know that to be very far from the truth.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,273
    Pulpstar said:

    GeoffM said:

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
    The Tories tried a vacuous manifesto this time round. It didn't seem to be a very successful gambit.
    Err - their problem was precisely that the manifesto was NOT vacuous actually.
    It was uncosted though, no?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,690
    edited June 2017

    a lot will depend on how the BREXIT negotiations are viewed (and reported), DD is unlikely to pull many rabbits out of the hat for those voting to leave - maybe a Blue passport design (and I am not joking) is all he may be able to offer in the next 6 months or so, the BREXIT bill is a tricky lose-lose as I see it. Farage et al have persuaded a number that Brussels owes us money, so when a modest 25Bn deal is struck - that will appear a big loss.

    So in sum, I think things will get worse for the Blues - there's no quick wins from BREXIT (passports aside) and a heck of a lot of unknowns - farm subsidies, higher education money, Airbus colbaoration, EU residents rights etc etc - all of these are likely to make some waves with little gain for the Tories - this may be their annus horriblus

    We could always have had a blue passport.

    There has never been any treaty obligation for us to go maroon, and - indeed - one other EU state has a blue/black passport.

    The conventions on passports are covered by the UK's membership of the ICAO, and the EU is not a signatory of the treaties that bind it. In the 1980s, the ICAO established guidelines for passport size, and for machine readable elements.

    Where the EU was involved was that it passed, in 1981, a non-binding recommendation that EU member states should have similar coloured passports (which, in itself, was in-line with ICAO guidelines that continental areas have similar passports). And hence the fact that while Norway, Russia, Turkey and Greenland are not members of the EU, they all have maroon passports too. (Mexico, the US, Canada, Brazil, Colombia and almost all of the Americas have blue or black passports. The majority of Africa has green.)

    -- just to add, the EU does require us to have certain text on the passport which will obviously go post Brexit. I think it also requires us to have a page in the passport with the details in all EU languages. Under ICAO guidelines, I believe a passport is only required to have the host country's language plus one of English, French and Russian.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited June 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    GeoffM said:

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
    The Tories tried a vacuous manifesto this time round. It didn't seem to be a very successful gambit.
    Err - their problem was precisely that the manifesto was NOT vacuous actually.
    It skimped on detail, for example on who would keep WFA, but also on what taxes would go up, and even on what was planned for Brexit. It was very short on detail or costs.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,690

    IanB2 said:

    These figs would surely imply a huge Labour lead, and if you believe the polls there isn't.
    In any event the Social care crap is dead, the winter fuel allowance will remain---Hurrah!/sorted

    She will always be the PM who needlessly threw away her majority. In politics there is no escape from a big mistake.
    Quite, I can't believe people are still discussing polls as opposed to what actually happens.

    The perception, which is reflected in the reality of votes is that Corbyn did better than expected because he is sincere, and May the opposite. Perhaps finally politicians will tell us what they think and allow us to decide rather than avoid questions.

    I've no idea why anybody would pay a polling company anymore.
    Because they want to know which detergent adverts people remember? (That type of thing being 95% of the revenues of firms like Survation and YouGov.)
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    edited June 2017

    Richard Tyndall FPT: we're talking about different things. You're measuring the Countryside Alliance march by its lack of litter etc. I'm measuring it by its impact on MPs. We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting, and agreed that despite the interminable Parliamentary obstruction by the Lords and Tony Blair's evident lack of interest, we had to see the ban through. Prescott's comments at the time were representative of MP reactions: it felt as though we were being besieged by a mob, even though I'm sure it felt differently to participants. That's why it was counter-productive, in a way that a quiet, dignified protest might not have been. (That said, a real problem is that quiet, dignified protests tend not to get media coverage.)

    Exactly the same applies to many of the far left protests ("Maggie Maggie Maggie out out out!" and all that). Essentially organisers of demos need to decide if they're going to indulge themselves and feel good or want to change the minds of the people they're trying to influence. The former is more usual, and it's hard to think of a mass protest that has really changed policy, except for the poll tax riots.

    Bit of a non sequitur there Nick, unles mass violent protest is OK if it's in a cause you believe in.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769

    Pulpstar said:

    GeoffM said:

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
    The Tories tried a vacuous manifesto this time round. It didn't seem to be a very successful gambit.
    Err - their problem was precisely that the manifesto was NOT vacuous actually.
    It skimped on detail, for example on who would keep WFA, but also on what taxes would go up, and even on what was planned for Brexit. It was very short on detail or costs.
    Lol if it had actual details of the misery they'd have lost even more votes xD
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,028
    edited June 2017

    Pulpstar said:

    GeoffM said:

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
    The Tories tried a vacuous manifesto this time round. It didn't seem to be a very successful gambit.
    Err - their problem was precisely that the manifesto was NOT vacuous actually.
    It skimped on detail, for example on who would keep WFA, but also on what taxes would go up, and even on what was planned for Brexit. It was very short on detail or costs.
    One of the more dispiriting things about both the referendum and the election was that both sides lied fluently and put forward ludicrous proposals that were either utterly unworkable or abysmally presented (or both, of course).

    Corbyn and Hannan were the worst offenders of course, but May and Osborne hardly emerge better.

    It is said we get the politicians we deserve. Boy, we must have done something bad.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    These figs would surely imply a huge Labour lead, and if you believe the polls there isn't.
    In any event the Social care crap is dead, the winter fuel allowance will remain---Hurrah!/sorted

    She will always be the PM who needlessly threw away her majority. In politics there is no escape from a big mistake.
    Quite, I can't believe people are still discussing polls as opposed to what actually happens.

    The perception, which is reflected in the reality of votes is that Corbyn did better than expected because he is sincere, and May the opposite. Perhaps finally politicians will tell us what they think and allow us to decide rather than avoid questions.

    I've no idea why anybody would pay a polling company anymore.
    Because they want to know which detergent adverts people remember? (That type of thing being 95% of the revenues of firms like Survation and YouGov.)
    Yeah I get that, an accurate political poll is one that pleases you, beyond that they're pointless. Few people have a vested interest in soap powder.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,690
    Say what you like about Janan's political views, he does write extremely well.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,028
    rcs1000 said:

    Say what you like about Janan's political views, he does write extremely well.
    What are they? I've always found his reporting to be pretty neutral if I'm honest. The one moment he said something highly partisan was that time he described Corbynistas as being 'as thick as pigshit'.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,690
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Say what you like about Janan's political views, he does write extremely well.
    What are they? I've always found his reporting to be pretty neutral if I'm honest. The one moment he said something highly partisan was that time he described Corbynistas as being 'as thick as pigshit'.
    On Brexit, he's been pretty partisan. (That being said, the points he makes are often good ones. Too often, people who bring up inconvenient truths are hounded or ignored.)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Say what you like about Janan's political views, he does write extremely well.
    What are they? I've always found his reporting to be pretty neutral if I'm honest. The one moment he said something highly partisan was that time he described Corbynistas as being 'as thick as pigshit'.
    No no, I think that was accurate.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    ydoethur said:



    One of the more dispiriting things about both the referendum and the election was that both sides lied fluently and put forward ludicrous proposals that were either utterly unworkable or abysmally presented (or both, of course).

    Too true.

    My contender for the worst is the proposal that a National Care Service could be established for 3 billion pounds.

    I really don't know how you prevent political parties from lying. It has been a recurring feature of the Sindy & Brexit referendums and the general election. People want to believe the lies.

    FWIW, I'd be delighted if a National Care Service could be set up. But, talk is cheap. If you don't start with a proper budget and costing, then the proposal will come to nothing.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    GeoffM said:

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
    The Tories tried a vacuous manifesto this time round. It didn't seem to be a very successful gambit.
    Err - their problem was precisely that the manifesto was NOT vacuous actually.
    It skimped on detail, for example on who would keep WFA, but also on what taxes would go up, and even on what was planned for Brexit. It was very short on detail or costs.
    Lol if it had actual details of the misery they'd have lost even more votes xD
    I think probably right. The Tory manifesto was in equal measures vacuous and nasty. Mayism in its purest form.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    Under ICAO guidelines, I believe a passport is only required to have the host country's language plus one of English, French and Russian.

    Host plus one, or host including/plus one?

    EG we have English and French, is that necessary as the French is the plus one? Or could we just have English alone if we wanted to? Not that I see any reason we would.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,732

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    GeoffM said:

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
    The Tories tried a vacuous manifesto this time round. It didn't seem to be a very successful gambit.
    Err - their problem was precisely that the manifesto was NOT vacuous actually.
    It skimped on detail, for example on who would keep WFA, but also on what taxes would go up, and even on what was planned for Brexit. It was very short on detail or costs.
    Lol if it had actual details of the misery they'd have lost even more votes xD
    I think probably right. The Tory manifesto was in equal measures vacuous and nasty. Mayism in its purest form.
    Nasty?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,028
    edited June 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Say what you like about Janan's political views, he does write extremely well.
    What are they? I've always found his reporting to be pretty neutral if I'm honest. The one moment he said something highly partisan was that time he described Corbynistas as being 'as thick as pigshit'.
    No no, I think that was accurate.
    It wasn't the accuracy, it was the phrasing that struck me as partisan.

    @rcs1000 thanks for saying where he is partisan - I have never read any of his writings on Brexit so I wouldn't know. On domestic politics he's surely one of our best reporters, ahead of Wintour and Harris.

    Edit - I note you qualified that after I posted as well.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,203
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Say what you like about Janan's political views, he does write extremely well.
    What are they? I've always found his reporting to be pretty neutral if I'm honest. The one moment he said something highly partisan was that time he described Corbynistas as being 'as thick as pigshit'.
    I always thought of him as sharing the same views as George Osborne.
    That might just be because - having written the book on him - his career was in part linked to Osborne's fortunes.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,690

    rcs1000 said:

    Under ICAO guidelines, I believe a passport is only required to have the host country's language plus one of English, French and Russian.

    Host plus one, or host including/plus one?

    EG we have English and French, is that necessary as the French is the plus one? Or could we just have English alone if we wanted to? Not that I see any reason we would.
    Ooohhh... Good question. I can't remember.

    That being said, if the French behave unreasonably during Brexit negotiations, I think the threat of having Russian as our second language might be enough to bring some concessions. They've always been touchy about their language.

    (Of course, you can see ICAO guidelines come from a cold war period, when English and Russian were the languages of the super-powers and French the historic language of diplomacy.)
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    GeoffM said:

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
    The Tories tried a vacuous manifesto this time round. It didn't seem to be a very successful gambit.
    Err - their problem was precisely that the manifesto was NOT vacuous actually.
    It skimped on detail, for example on who would keep WFA, but also on what taxes would go up, and even on what was planned for Brexit. It was very short on detail or costs.
    Lol if it had actual details of the misery they'd have lost even more votes xD
    I think probably right. The Tory manifesto was in equal measures vacuous and nasty. Mayism in its purest form.
    There were many things in it I disagreed with, and it was certainly vacuous, but hardly nasty.

    In fact, May tried to begin the process of reducing pensioner benefits, a process that we all agree has to be undertaken. She paid such a devastating price that no-one is likely to try it again, or at least put it in a manifesto again.

    The dementia tax, as you know, is an improvement on the present situation for dementia sufferers. It was a sh1tty idea, but is actually better than the sh1t that happens presently.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,690
    Last passport comment. The Finns have an awesome passport. If you riffle through it, it works like an old animation flip book, showing a walking moose. If you know any Finns, ask to see their passport :smile:
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Say what you like about Janan's political views, he does write extremely well.
    What are they? I've always found his reporting to be pretty neutral if I'm honest. The one moment he said something highly partisan was that time he described Corbynistas as being 'as thick as pigshit'.
    I always thought of him as sharing the same views as George Osborne.
    That might just be because - having written the book on him - his career was in part linked to Osborne's fortunes.
    Yep. He's basically an Osbornite. Would probably defend Blair, Cameron, Osborne, and Clegg to the hilt.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    rcs1000 said:

    Say what you like about Janan's political views, he does write extremely well.
    Another fine writer (not a fan of the Nats, the feeling is mutual) is Stephen Daisley - here he is on the late Gerald Kaufman:

    If Kaufman condemned Palestinian violence with the crisp impatience of a man keen to reach the comma, he took his time on the outrages of the pre-state militias who drove out the British.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/gerald-kaufman-labour-hero-jewish-villain/
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 989

    She'll be gone for any new election.

    That's the one thing we can be assured of, May will never lead another campaign.
    If the Tories do not remove her soon -by the Autumn - then "events dear boy" could force an election on the Tories and she would still be the leader in an other election.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,112
    Mortimer said:

    Richard Tyndall FPT: we're talking about different things. You're measuring the Countryside Alliance march by its lack of litter etc. I'm measuring it by its impact on MPs. We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting, and agreed that despite the interminable Parliamentary obstruction by the Lords and Tony Blair's evident lack of interest, we had to see the ban through. Prescott's comments at the time were representative of MP reactions: it felt as though we were being besieged by a mob, even though I'm sure it felt differently to participants. That's why it was counter-productive, in a way that a quiet, dignified protest might not have been. (That said, a real problem is that quiet, dignified protests tend not to get media coverage.)

    Exactly the same applies to many of the far left protests ("Maggie Maggie Maggie out out out!" and all that). Essentially organisers of demos need to decide if they're going to indulge themselves and feel good or want to change the minds of the people they're trying to influence. The former is more usual, and it's hard to think of a mass protest that has really changed policy, except for the poll tax riots.

    "We looked at the abusive placards, heard the unpleasant shouting"

    I was on the Countryside march, almost by mistake. I was having a dirty weekend in London with my then-gf, and when we left the hotel in the morning we sort-of got dragged into it. As we're both country folk at heart, we joined in. It was my first, and so far only, protest march.

    It was great fun. And I can assure you that from my perspective, the antis who were lining the route were the ones doing the unpleasant shouting. In fact, from memory some of it was *very* unpleasant. But I only saw a small portion of the march, and I daresay you only saw a small portion of the antis.

    It all ended when we got to Hyde Park and sat down for a champagne and strawberry picnic with a random family who invited us to join them. That was my abiding memory of the spirit of the protest.
    I was there. It was absolutely great.
    Sadly, the countrymice neglected to take the opportunity while in town to thank every city dweller fervently for subsidising their lifestyles so lavishly. Poor form.
    What a crock. Every city dweller? Given the concentration of infrastructure spend and number of low paid jobs of city dwellers I know that to be very far from the truth.
    Absolutely. I'll remind the teachers at my children's school in West Sussex how grateful we should be for the pittance they receive compared to the amounts lavished on London schools. Obviously funded by the wealth creators of East Ham.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tlg86 said:

    Trigger warning....

    It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.

    Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,068

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    GeoffM said:

    Richard_H said:

    Seems quite straightforward to me. If you want to motivate oldies to vote for you, then make sure you bring them comfort, not distress. I suspect the 'dementia tax', fuel allowance means testing, pension triple lock removal, did not help the Tories. With only a few thousand extra votes across a dozen or so seats, the Tories would have a majority.

    Theresa May is now associated with negative issues affecting older people and the recent negative media coverage of her leadership, will also have damaged her reputation. Can May recover from this ? Will the Tory party allow May time to recover ?

    She thought she should trade off a small portion of them for sensible policy..
    No one is going to try that again in a hurry.....

    'You lied to us!'

    'Yes, but when we told you the truth you wouldn't vote for us'
    The trick ongoing will surely be to say as little as possible.

    We'll not be able to judge any manifestos as they won't have realistic meat in them ever again. And we've done that to ourselves.
    The Tories tried a vacuous manifesto this time round. It didn't seem to be a very successful gambit.
    Err - their problem was precisely that the manifesto was NOT vacuous actually.
    It skimped on detail, for example on who would keep WFA, but also on what taxes would go up, and even on what was planned for Brexit. It was very short on detail or costs.
    Lol if it had actual details of the misery they'd have lost even more votes xD
    I think probably right. The Tory manifesto was in equal measures vacuous and nasty. Mayism in its purest form.
    There were many things in it I disagreed with, and it was certainly vacuous, but hardly nasty.

    In fact, May tried to begin the process of reducing pensioner benefits, a process that we all agree has to be undertaken. She paid such a devastating price that no-one is likely to try it again, or at least put it in a manifesto again.

    The dementia tax, as you know, is an improvement on the present situation for dementia sufferers. It was a sh1tty idea, but is actually better than the sh1t that happens presently.

    The middle of an election campaign was not the best time to float such a proposal. Public opinion has to be prepared and won over.

    But really, the manifesto was calculated to upset young people, old people, and middle -aged people.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,690
    You know how I said "last passport comment". Well, I lied. Since 2001, passports can also have Spanish as their second language.
This discussion has been closed.